P a g e | 1

Athena SWAN Gold department award application Name of university: University College London

Department: Division of Psychology & Language Sciences (PALS)

Date of application: November 2016

Date of Silver Athena SWAN award: Submitted April 2013, Awarded November 2013

Date of university Bronze and/or Silver Athena SWAN award:

Bronze award: 2006, renewed 2009, renewed 2012

Silver award: 2015

Contact for application: Anna Cox

Email: anna.cox@ucl.ac.uk

Telephone:

Departmental website address: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals

An Athena SWAN Gold Department award recognises a significant sustained progression and achievement by the department in promoting gender equality and to address challenges particular to the discipline. Applications should focus on what has improved and changed since the Silver award application.

Not all institutions use the term ‘department’ and there are many equivalent academic groupings with different names, sizes and compositions. The definition of a ‘department’ for SWAN purposes can be found on the Athena SWAN website. If in doubt, contact the Athena SWAN Charter Coordinator well in advance to check your eligibility.

It is essential that the contact person for the application is based in the department.

Sections to be included

At the end of each section state the number of words used. Click here for additional guidance on completing the template.

Personal details have been removed from this version of the submission document.

No individuals will be identified without their consent or unless the relevant information is already publicly available (for example, senior management).

P a g e | 2

Contents

Table of abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 4

1. Letter of endorsement from the head of department: maximum 500 words .................. 6

2. The self-assessment process: maximum 1000 words ....................................................... 9

2a The Team ........................................................................................................................... 9

2b The Process ....................................................................................................................... 9

Our sustained engagement with AS: ................................................................................. 9

Since 2013 ........................................................................................................................ 10

2c Plans for the Future ......................................................................................................... 11

3. A picture of the department: maximum 2000 words ...................................................... 12

3a Pen Picture ...................................................................................................................... 12

3b Student data .................................................................................................................... 14

3c Staff data ......................................................................................................................... 25

4. Supporting and advancing women’s careers: maximum 5000 word .................................. 28

4.1 Key career transition points ............................................................................................... 28

a) Data .............................................................................................................................. 28

(b) Key Issues ........................................................................................................................ 31

(i) Recruitment of staff ..................................................................................................... 31

(ii) Support for staff at key career transition points ........................................................ 32

4.2 Career development .......................................................................................................... 36

i. Promotion and career development ......................................................................... 36

ii. Support for female students ..................................................................................... 37

4.3 Organisation and culture ................................................................................................... 40

(a) Data ................................................................................................................................. 40

i. Male and female representation on committees ..................................................... 40

P a g e | 3

ii. Female:Male ratio of academic and research staff on fixed-term contracts and open-ended (permanent) contracts ................................................................................ 41

(b) Key Issues .................................................................................................................... 42

4.4 Flexibility and managing career breaks ............................................................................. 52

(a) Data ............................................................................................................................. 52

(b) Key Issues .................................................................................................................... 53

5. Any other comments: maximum 500 words ....................................................................... 56

ASPoN forum ........................................................................................................................ 56

Support for Professional Services Staff ................................................................................ 56

Grant Review ........................................................................................................................ 57

Pay Review ........................................................................................................................... 57

7. Case study: impacting on individuals: maximum 1500 words ............................................. 58

Indu Dubey, PDRA. ............................................................................................................... 58

Chloe Campbell, Research Fellow in the Psychoanalysis Unit, Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Policy. ............................................................................... 59

Kate Shobbrook, Senior Teaching Fellow, Language and Cognition .................................... 59

Paul Marshall, Senior Lecturer & Aisling O’Kane, PDRA in UCLIC ........................................ 59

Nichola Raihani, Royal Society University Research Fellow, Experimental Psychology ...... 60

Elizabeth Wonnacott, Senior Lecturer, Language and Cognition ........................................ 60

Essi Viding, Professor, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Policy. .................. 60

6. Action plan ........................................................................................................................... 62

P a g e | 4

Table of abbreviations

ACDC Academic Careers & Diversity Committee AS Athena SWAN ASPoN Athena Swan Psychology National forum BSc Bachelor of Science degree CEHP Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology Research Department COPS Career Opportunities for Professional Services Network CPD Continuing Professional Development DEOLO Divisional Equal Opportunity Liaison Officers ECR Early Career Researchers (PhD students, PDRAs, Lecturers) ECU Equality Challenge Unit EDI Equality, Diversity & Inclusion EP Experimental Psychology Research Department FTE Full-Time Equivalent GA-XX Action item from our 2016 Gold Action Plan (where XX indicates the action

number) HCI Human-Computer Interaction HoRD Head of Research Department HR Human Resources ICN Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience IT Information Technology L&C Language & Communication Research Department Ling Linguistics Research Department MSc Master of Science degree PALS Division of Psychology and Language Sciences PDRA Post-Doctoral Research Associate PG Post-graduate PGR Post Graduate Research Students PGT Post Graduate Taught Students PhD Doctor of Philosophy degree PPG Postgraduate Peer Group PS Professional Services staff RD Research Department SAT Self-Assessment Team SA-XX Action item from our 2013 Silver Action Plan (where XX indicates the action

number) SHaPS Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences Department

P a g e | 5

SPICE Social, Physical, Intellectual, Career & Emotional Wellbeing UCL University College London UCLIC UCL Interaction Centre UG Undergraduate WiL Women in Leadership WoW World of Work Mentoring Scheme

P a g e | 6

1. Letter of endorsement from the head of department: maximum 500 words

An accompanying letter of endorsement from the head of department should confirm how the swan action plan and activities in the department contribute to the overall department strategy and academic mission, and spell out what is next for the department, what difficulties might be experienced, and what the department most looks forward to. The letter is an opportunity for the head of department to confirm their support for the application and to endorse and commend any women and stemm initiatives that have made a significant contribution to the achievement of the departmental mission.

Word count = 498

P a g e | 7 LONDON’S GLOBAL UNIVERSITY

UCL DIVISION OF PSYCHOLOGY & LANGUAGE SCIENCES

Equality Charters Manager

1 November 2016

Dear Athena SWAN Manager,

The UCL Division of Psychology and Language Sciences has always strived to foster an inclusive and productive workplace culture to deliver our major strategic goals in relation to research and education. We were an early recipient (in 2006) of a Bronze award and this together with our 2009 Silver award and 2013 renewal has helped us build up momentum in tackling inequality.

I have been Head throughout this period. It is my firm belief that this continuity has enabled us to sustain our commitment to gender equality and to bring us to the point of applying for a Gold award. My membership of the ACDC sends a clear signal to staff that I value the AS principles. I have played an important leadership role in ensuring that EDI issues are at the heart of everything we do.

As Division Head, I recommend academic and professional services staff for institutional awards, career development and leadership development programmes, and provide financial support for our beacon events and in-house programmes such as unconscious bias training. EDI issues are regularly discussed at our monthly management group meetings.

A particular success has been addressing the leaky pipeline in both student and staff progression. The drop in student progression from undergraduate to postgraduate research has improved by one-third since 2012. From 2011 to 2016, there has been an improvement from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer (-20% to -8%), and another from Senior Lecturer to Reader (-8% to -5%). The gender ratio for each staff level is not yet 50:50, but the results are definitely heading in the right direction and suggest that positive change is happening.

We are proud of two particular beacon activities. First, I led on the creation and implementation of a pioneering online workload monitoring system both to collect comprehensive data about teaching, administrative, enabling, and research activities and to inform decisions regarding workload allocation. The system was first rolled out in 2002 and

P a g e | 8 evolves every year in response to feedback. It has been very effective in eliminating gender bias – annual checks consistently reveal no gender differences. We believe it is an example of best practice and we have shared it with the wider community –across UCL and outside -through presentations at AS related events.

Secondly, we co-founded the ASPoN forum national network for Psychology departments. The forum celebrates success in equality efforts, disseminates advice and best practices, is gathering large data sets relevant to the gender gap in academia, and is coordinating efforts across Psychology departments.

The ACDC will play an important role in ensuring that the aims and values of AS continue to be embedded in Divisional decision making. Our focus will be increasing the number of male students in our cohort, ensuring gender equality at the senior academic levels, and addressing career progression for Professional Services staff.

I confirm that the information presented is an honest, accurate and true representation of the Division.

Yours sincerely,

David Shanks

Professor of Psychology

Head of Division

P a g e | 9

2. The self-assessment process: maximum 1000 words

2a The Team

Some parts of this section have been removed. The team has grown in order to encompass representation from all Research Departments (RDs), from Professional Services (PS), and from all levels of our student body. Our 19 members (8 males & 11 females - 57% female) are representative of the gender ratio of the Division (54% female):

x 12 academic and research staff from the 7 RDs, across all levels of seniority (4 Professors, 2 Readers, 3 Senior Lecturers, 1 Lecturer, 1 Senior Research Fellow, 1 PDRA)

x 2 members of PS (1 HR specialist, 1 Head of Administration) x 5 students (1 PhD, 2 MSc, 2 BSc)

Some parts of this section have been removed.

Our team includes a variety of nationalities, ages, and experiences of parenthood (currently from babies to adult). Each member has a clear area of responsibility and contributed to the writing of the application accordingly.

The work of the team is also supported by a Secretary and by two AS Support Officers (0.1FTE each) who are paid by the Division.

2b The Process

Our sustained engagement with AS: Some parts of this section have been removed.

We have been engaged with the AS agenda for 10 years, gaining a Bronze award in 2006, a Silver in 2009, and a Silver renewal in 2013. We have had a positive and sustained impact on both the student and staff pipelines, as well as enhancing the culture within the Division, and championing the AS agenda. Our AS awards have been celebrated within the Division.

P a g e | 10 Since 2013 We have implemented a recognised 3-stage approach to leadership of EDI within the Division1.

IDENTIFY A CLEAR VISION FOR THE FUTURE: Psychology and Language Sciences are disciplines that are heavily dominated by women. Although this seems outwardly supportive of female careers, there is an argument that “occupational feminization” – a situation in which women account for a higher proportion of those employed in a profession - is ultimately detrimental to women, as well as men. Historically, work that is mainly performed by women has been undervalued. We explored the evidence surrounding occupational feminization and its effects on female career structures, status and pay in 2008. As a consequence, and in line with our Silver Renewal Action plan, our primary aim has been focused on where we believed we could have the greatest impact: achieving a 50:50 gender ratio in the academic staff in our Division.

Psychology is the scientific study of the mind and how it dictates and influences behaviour, from communication and memory to thought and emotion. We believe that Psychology is uniquely placed as a discipline to inform our understanding of factors that influence EDI such as unconscious bias, and in taking an evidenced-based approach to working practices that have real impact. Our second aim has been to inspire and educate others about how Psychological research can support the AS agenda.

ENGAGING WITH OTHERS:

In order to effect the changes necessary to achieve our aims we needed to engage with others in two key areas: locally within our institution, and nationally with other Psychology Departments.

LOCAL ENGAGEMENT:

Evolving our Self-Assessment Team (SAT): Our SAT is a formal committee within the Division named the Academic Career and Diversity Committee (ACDC). Like all other Divisional

committees, meeting minutes are available online on the intranet and verbal reports are presented at the Divisional Staff Meeting. It has evolved to ensure representation from all RDs and effective links to key decision-making committees, with the Divisional Management Committee via the

1 Steve Radcliff (2012) Leadership: Plain and Simple (2nd Edition) FT Publishing.

P a g e | 11 Head of Division and with the Faculty Executive via the Faculty AS champion. We have been instrumental in ensuring that Divisional committees (UG committee, PGT committee, PGR committee) include EDI in their terms of reference. EDI appears as a standing item on each agenda, and committees are required to report to the ACDC on an annual basis.

We regularly contribute to AS events at UCL e.g. AS Gold workshop (May 2016) and Signaling Cygnets workshop (October 2016) where we recommended some of our established good practice e.g. our workload contribution model. We have acted as consultants to other Departments working on the AS agenda at UCL via termly meetings with the Faculty Peer Challenge Group (Psychiatry, Ophthalmology and the Ear Institute) and at a mock Gold AS Panel (September 2016) supporting the Departments of Chemical Engineering, Institute for Women’s Health, the Institute for Child Health and the Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology.

NATIONAL ENGAGEMENT: We have led the development of a national peer network of Psychology Departments with colleagues from Queens University Belfast and Royal Holloway. More details in section 5.

DELIVERING OUR VISION

In addition to required data we have gathered:

- Completion rates of EDI training (all years) - Interviews with academic and PS staff on work-life boundary management (2014) - Bi-annual academic and PS staff surveys that cover many aspects of life within the

Division (2013, 2015) - Additional academic and PS staff survey on flexible working (2016) - Academic staff focus groups and interviews on combining work and caring

responsibilities (2016) - PhD student focus group (2016) - UG survey (2016)

We have met as a committee every term, increasing to twice per term in the last year in preparation for this application. These meetings have been supplemented throughout the past 3 years by additional working group meetings focused on progressing particular areas (e.g. student pipeline issues, staff flexible working and work-life balance). Members of the team have clear areas of responsibility and are required to give regular reports on progress.

2c Plans for the Future We will continue to engage within our Division and institution, and on a national level to champion the AS agenda. Our plans for our committee and meetings are embedded within our action plan (GS-01, GS-02).

[Word count: 943– limit 1000]

P a g e | 12

3. A picture of the department: maximum 2000 words

3a Pen Picture

PALS is a vibrant environment for both study and world-leading research in mind, behaviour, and language. It brings together researchers in a range of disciplines such as cognition, neuroscience, linguistics, education, communication, medicine, health, phonetics and development.

PALS was formed in 2008 by merging 3 existing departments. There have been further mergers since our Silver Renewal - in 2016 we were restructured into 7 research departments, housed across 4 different locations in Bloomsbury, London: 1. Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology (CEHP) 2. Experimental Psychology (EP) 3. Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience (ICN) 4. Language & Cognition (L&C) 5. Linguistics (Ling) 6. Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences (SHaPS) 7. UCL Interaction Centre (UCLIC)

PALS has 395 staff (including academics, researchers and PS) and 241 PhD students. It is the largest Psychology department in the country bar one. It is female dominated – 395 (62%) of the 636 staff and PhD students are female. The gender split of our academic staff is significantly closer to 50:50 than the national benchmark [83 (48%) female academics and 90 (52%) males compared to 61% female and 49% male]. Our research staff, PhD students and PS staff groups are all female dominated. Despite the size of the Division we have structures in place to ensure a unified approach to practice and culture across the RDs. Members of all RDs sit on Divisional level committees with responsibility for management of the division, teaching, research, IT, etc. In addition we have termly all-staff meetings and annual away-days which help to further strengthen ties between individuals in different RDs.

P a g e | 13 The current staffing profiles (October 2016) for each research department and for divisional services are demonstrated below:

Just as we take an evidenced-based approach to our research and teaching, we also make use of research evidence to inform our work practices. For example, our Divisional culture includes informal flexible working arrangements such that people feel empowered to work from home whenever this suits them. Such informal arrangements are widespread throughout the division because we believe that these better accommodate work-life preferences of our staff than formal arrangements which can be restrictive. Whilst a negative impact of this is the potential for a lack of formal record of, for example, periods of carer or paternity leave, de Menezes et al (2016)2 have shown that informal flexible working can have many positive effects over formal flexible arrangements. Such evidence, together with the quotes from our flexible working survey (see section 4.4b), adds support to our claim that our culture of informal flexible working arrangements works for our staff.

2 de Menezes, L. M., and C. Kelliher. (2016) "Flexible Working, Individual Performance and Employee Attitudes: Comparing Formal and Informal Arrangements." Human Resource Management

# Academic & Teaching Staff

(% female)

# Research Staff (% female)

# PhD students

(% female)

# Professional services (% female)

Divisional services 80 (67.5%)

CEHP 60 (45%) 43 (74.4%) 37 (67.6%)

EP 30 (33.3%) 30 (66.7%) 62 (54.8%)

ICN 16 (56.3%) 34 (64.7%) 39 (66.7%)

L&C 28 (75%) 9 (88.9%) 26 (92.3%)

Ling 17 (35.3%) 0 (0%) 29 (62.1%)

SHaPS 11 (45.5%) 11 (63.6%) 18 (72.2%)

UCLIC 11 (45.5%) 15 (66.7%) 30 (50%)

TOTAL 173 (48%) 142 (69.7%) 241 (64.3%) 80 (67.5%)

P a g e | 14 3b Student data

With permission from the ECU, we have restructured the presentation of the required student data in our report, so that, for each type of programme, we present the data in the following order:

x Admissions x Student Numbers x Attainment

In order to clearly explain this restructuring to the assessors, we include here an image to illustrate where each type of student data appears in our report:

P a g e | 15

P a g e | 16 Undergraduate

Admissions: Recruitment data for the past 5 year shows that whilst there is a substantial difference in the number of males and females who apply for our courses there is no evidence of gender-related bias.

Student numbers: All our UG students are full time as we do not offer any part-time study options at this level. Consistent with national figures for other UK Psychology departments, our student body is 82% female and 17% male.

Whilst we continue to have a predominantly female cohort, the proportion of males on our courses has increased. Since 2009 we have been aiming for 50:50 in our student body. In 2007/08 we had a ratio of 5.81 females for every male. In 2011 BSc Psychology changed its admission criteria to one, but preferably 2, science subjects at A-level which further tends to encourage male students. This resulted in an improved ratio of females to males from 5.6 to 1 (average 2006/07 to 2009/10) to 4.5 to 1 (average 2011/12 to 2015/16), demonstrating a sustained impact of our actions.

Applicants Offer Accept Applic

ants Offer Accept Applicants Offer Accept Applic

ants Offer Accept Applicants Offer Accept

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16Male 370 91 63 331 119 79 366 126 72 349 131 82 334 145 75

Female 1561 498 336 1120 412 287 1320 5547 367 1393 569 349 1311 649 367

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

% o

f stu

denn

ts

Recruitment data for each academic year

UG Recruitment 2011-2016

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 HESA2015/16

Male 130 121 116 115 114 17.70%Female 533 518 529 535 528 82.30%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% o

f stu

dent

s

Academic year

UG Students 2011-2016

P a g e | 17

However, achieving our ambitious target of 50:50 (indicated by the red line on the figure) requires concerted action in order to attract more boys to apply for our UG degrees. We have surveyed our students to gather suggestions of how we might encourage more applications from males. Resulting actions (GA-06 to GA-12) include increasing visibility of male role models to aid recruitment. We will take inspiration from Hermann et al.’s (20163) work demonstrating that salient role models communicated via “a brief, scalable online intervention that consisted of a letter from a female role model who normalized concerns about belonging, presented time spent on academics as an investment, and exemplified overcoming challenges on academic performance and persistence” positively impacted the grades obtained and drop-out rates of 2 cohorts of students. We will collate a series of letters from male role models (from students to professors) and disseminate them to prospective male students at open-days.

Attainment: Most of our UG students attain a 1st or 2:1 degree. None fail. Our External Examiners have commented that this is appropriate in terms of academic standards. Whilst the graph suggests that male students may be more likely to gain a 2:2 degree, these are small

3 Herrmann, S.D., et al. (2016) "The Effects of a Female Role Model on Academic Performance and Persistence of Women in STEM Courses."Basic and Applied Social Psychology 38.5. 258-268.

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

Changed

admissions

criteria

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

Ratio (females to males) 5.8 5.8 5.5 5.4 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Ratio

(fem

ales

to m

ales

)

Academic year

Ratio (females to males) 2006-2016

P a g e | 18 numbers and therefore caution should be taken in interpretation. Statistical analysis shows no significant evidence of any gender based inequalities in grades achieved.

1st 2:1 2:2 1st 2:1 2:2 1st 2:1 2:2 1st 2:1 2:2 1st 2:1 2:22011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Male 10 20 3 13 17 4 20 20 1 14 24 5 14 25 1

Female 44 89 9 50 79 11 55 88 7 46 90 9 63 103 3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f stu

dent

s

Degree classification data for each academic year

UG Degree Classification 2011-2016

P a g e | 19

Postgraduate Taught

Admissions: Females are in the majority at all stages of the process at PGT level. Male and female applicants are about equally likely to be offered and subsequently accept a place on our PGT programmes.

Student numbers: The figure shows that the percentage of male and female students has remained reasonably flat over the past 5 years. The gender ratio is consistent with that of

postgraduate students in other UK Psychology departments (76.5% female and 23.5% male in 2015/16). [GA-13 and GA-14 to address this]

Full and part-time study: Male students appear to show a greater preference for part-time study at post-graduate level. This is

explained by the wide variation across our programmes. For example, cognitive neuroscience

Applicants Offer Accept Applic

ants Offer Accept Applicants Offer Accept Applic

ants Offer Accept Applicants Offer Accept

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16Male 361 209 141 332 168 129 388 196 134 522 201 150 501 200 155

Female 1249 549 387 1273 603 456 1646 632 482 2134 681 521 2244 610 474

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

% o

f stu

dent

s

Recruitment data for each academic year

PGT Recruitment 2011-2016

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 HESA2015/16

Male 137 135 149 161 164 23.50%Female 383 435 533 566 535 76.50%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% o

f stu

dent

s

Academic year

PGT Students 2011-2016

P a g e | 20 does not have any part-time students, whereas organisational/business psychology has many (and is predominately male).

Attainment: There is no difference in the proportion of male or female students successfully completing our PGT programmes. (The lower % in 2014/15 is due to part-time students who did not complete in that year.)

Fulltime

Parttime

Fulltime

Parttime

Fulltime

Parttime

Fulltime

Parttime

Fulltime

Parttime

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16Male 86 51 83 52 114 50 102 59 99 65Female 300 83 345 90 441 92 356 210 350 185

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

% o

f stu

dent

s

Full/Part-time by academic year

Full-time & Part-time PGT Students 2011-2016

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15Female 96% 95% 94% 88% 45%Male 94% 91% 89% 92% 59%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

% o

f stu

dent

s

Academic year

Proportion Completed PGT Courses 2010-2015

P a g e | 21

The graph above demonstrates that male students are consistently more likely to gain a distinction than female students. McNabb et al4 suggest this pattern is widespread but the explanation is complex. GA-15 outlines planned action to address this.

4 McNabb, Robert, Sarmistha Pal, and Peter Sloane. "Gender differences in educational attainment: The case of university students in England and Wales." Economica 69.275 (2002): 481-503.

Distinction Merit Pass Distinc

tion Merit Pass Distinction Merit Pass Distinc

tion Merit Pass Distinction Merit Pass

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16Male 47 19 28 35 25 23 47 11 15 36 29 20 38 41 16

Female 72 48 88 76 73 82 79 94 61 100 99 76 89 147 41

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% o

f stu

dent

s

Degree classification data for each academic year

PGT Degree Classification 2011-2016

P a g e | 22 Post-graduate Research

Admissions: In addition to offering PhD study in each RD, PALS has 6 professional doctorate programmes. The category PGR combines both types.

Our 2013 application suggested that females were less likely to be made an offer compared to males, which translated to a higher proportion of male PGR students accepting a place than one might expect. This could account for the drop in the ratio of females to males from PGT to PGR level. Therefore, following action SA-2, we requested data from individual programmes in order to investigate where the apparent under-recruitment lies. We found no consistent bias.

We present recruitment data for the past 5 years. Consistent with our past data, male candidates appear to be more likely to be offered and accept a place than female students in all years (except 2015/16).

Professional Doctorates – Analysis of recruitment data for the past 5 years shows a consistently high number of female applicants (80%). GA-16 and GA-17 aim to increase the number of male applicants to professional doctorate courses. PhD – Analysis of recruitment data over the past 5 years consistently higher number of female applicants (60%). There is a clear gender difference in the number of applicants for PhD study compared to Professional Doctorates. The recruitment data for PhD study shows no evidence of consistent bias towards males or females. GA-18 and GA-19 aim to support the recruitment of male PhD students with the aim of achieving 50:50.

Applicants Offer Accept Applic

ants Offer Accept Applicants Offer Accept Applic

ants Offer Accept Applicants Offer Accept

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16Male 249 61 49 280 64 52 284 47 33 274 58 50 257 45 35

Female 1048 129 111 1143 139 117 1099 128 89 986 133 113 1197 169 148

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% o

f stu

dent

s

Recruitment data for each academic year

PGR Recruitment 2011-2016

P a g e | 23

Student numbers: We continue to have a predominantly female cohort at doctoral level. UK average gender ratio shows that 77.8% of students at PGR level are female (in 2015/16), in line with our data for the same year.

There are no gender differences in part-time students at doctoral level.

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 HESA2015/16

Male 99 116 110 122 106 22.20%Female 302 316 327 331 372 77.80%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% o

f stu

dent

s

Academic year

PGR Students 2011-2016

Fulltime

Parttime

Fulltime

Parttime

Fulltime

Parttime

Fulltime

Parttime

Fulltime

Parttime

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16Male 81 18 98 18 93 17 98 24 85 21Female 229 73 241 75 259 68 264 67 301 71

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% o

f stu

dent

s

Full/Part-time by academic year

Full-time & Part-time PGR Students 2011-2016

P a g e | 24 Attainment: Whilst there are no significant differences between males and females in time to submit their doctoral thesis, the graph suggests a trend that male students take slightly longer to submit than female students. GA-20 will explore and attempt to mitigate gender differences.

2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11Female 3.2 3.1 2.6 3.2 3.1Male 3.3 3.5 3.1 3.3 3.4

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

Mea

n ye

ars

to su

bmit

Academic year of entry

Average Time to Submission (in Years) - PGR

P a g e | 25

3c Staff data

(i) Female:Male ratio of academic and research staff

In the current pipeline, females outnumber males at PDRA and Lecturer levels, while males outnumber females at Reader and Professor levels. This is indicative of a leaky pipeline across the academic grades.

However, if we look at how this gender ratio has changed over the past 5 years, we can see that overall attrition in the leaky pipeline has been reduced (the graph has flattened, particularly up to Reader).

PDRA Lecturer SeniorLecturer Reader Professor

2011/12 65% 61% 41% 33% 41%2013/14 63% 51% 50% 28% 41%2015/16 57% 57% 49% 44% 39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% o

f fem

ale

staf

f

Staff grades

% of Female Staff in 2011, 2013 & 2015

PDRA Lecturer SeniorLecturer Reader Professor

Female 57% 57% 49% 44% 39%Male 43% 43% 51% 56% 61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% o

f sta

ff

Staff grades

Staff Pipeline in 2015/16

P a g e | 26 In 2015 we had more female lecturers, senior lecturers and readers. There is reduced fall in the % of women from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer (-20% in 2011 to -8% in 2015), and less of a fall from Senior Lecturer to Reader (-8% in 2011, compared to -5% in 2015). This indicates significant progress, which we attribute to the various AS initiatives that we implemented over the past 5 years to tackle issues that could be affecting the leaky pipeline (see action plan). These initiatives can be grouped into 5 main categories:

1. Ensuring equal opportunities in the recruitment process; 2. Providing additional support for lecturers and senior lecturers; 3. Revising the appraisals process and communication about the promotions process; 4. Promoting a female-friendly work culture; 5. Providing additional support for parents and carers.

Considering the number of female and male staff at each grade, we can see that the gender ratio has improved over the past 5 years for all staff grades except Professor, demonstrating the sustained impact of our initiatives:

x For PDRA, we see an 8% change towards 50:50. x For Lecturer, we see a 4% change towards 50:50. x For Senior Lecturer, we see an 8% change towards 50:50. x For Reader, we see an 11% change towards 50:50. x For Professor, the gender ratio has stayed stable at around 40% suggesting that our

initiatives have yet to have an impact at this level.

11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15PDRA Lecturer Senior Lecturer Reader Professor

Male 26 29 24 25 29 29 32 31 28 28 24 24 17 20 22 10 11 10 7 9 25 30 25 28 30Female 48 61 40 42 38 46 55 32 29 37 17 21 17 16 21 5 4 4 7 7 17 19 17 17 19

0102030405060708090

# of

staf

f

Staff grade by academic year

# of Male and Female Staff by Grade 2011-2016

P a g e | 27

(ii) Turnover by grade and gender: Our turnover is in line with the gender ratio of the Division (63% female).

Reasons for Leaving in 2015/16

1: Research Assistant

2: PDRA/ Fellows

3: Lecturers, Senior PDRA/Fellows, Teaching Fellows

4: Senior Lecturer, Principle Research Associates/Fellows, Principle Teaching Fellows

5: Readers 6: Professors

Male 3 resignation

1 redundancy (end of funding)

5 resignation

4 redundancy (end of funding)

1 resignation

1 redundancy (end of funding)

2 resignation 0 1 resignation

Female 10 resignation

1 redundancy (end of funding

10 resignation

3 redundancy (end of funding)

2 redundancy (end of funding)

0 1 retirement 2 retirement

[word count 1998. Word limit 2000]

11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15

1: ResearchAssistant 2: PDRA/Fellows

3: Lecturers, SeniorPDRA/Fellows,

Teaching Fellows

4: Senior Lecturer,Principle Research

Associates/Fellows,Principle Teaching

Fellows

5: Readers 6: Professors

Male 1 1 1 3 4 7 7 8 9 9 1 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Female 5 4 5 7 11 4 8 13 15 13 4 4 5 4 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

# of

staf

f

Staff grade (by Swan 2014 code) by academic year

Turnover by Grade 2011-2016

P a g e | 28

4. Supporting and advancing women’s careers: maximum 5000 words

4.1 Key career transition points a) Data

(i) Job application and success rates by gender and grade

There is no consistent bias in selection for interview or appointment for Research Assistants, PDRA/Fellows, or Senior/Teaching Fellows.

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16Male 186 7 2 171 9 3 300 4 3 258 15 4 289 11 2

Female 541 30 7 560 35 9 1103 41 15 798 71 16 858 44 16

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% o

f sta

ff

Recruitment data for each academic year

Research Assistant (1): Applications & Success Rates 2011-2016

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16Male 100 22 6 143 34 11 120 18 7 92 18 6 158 32 10

Female 157 27 9 243 44 17 168 29 13 160 36 18 256 50 15

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% o

f sta

ff

Recruitment data for each academic year

PDRA/Fellow (2): Applications & Success Rates 2011-2016

P a g e | 29

However there is concerning evidence of bias in recruitment of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers. Collapsing the data below across time shows a significant bias: 263 M and 321 F applicants versus 16 and 8 appointments, (p=.037). Our future plans include 4 actions to address this issue (GA-26 to GA-29).

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16Male 13 3 2 26 7 4 29 5 2 19 5 2 39 14 5

Female 21 4 3 48 12 6 30 8 3 43 15 5 66 24 5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% o

f sta

ff

Recruitment data for each academic year

Teaching Fellow/Senior (3/4): Applications & Success Rates 2011-2016

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

Applicants

Interview

Appointed

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16Male 4 2 1 55 10 2 120 27 7 60 12 3 24 4 3

Female 8 3 0 78 10 2 97 13 2 95 17 2 43 5 2

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% o

f sta

ff

Recruitment data for each academic year

Lecturer/Senior (3/4): Applications & Success Rates 2011-2016

P a g e | 30

(ii) Applications for promotion and success rates by gender and grade

UCL requires staff to self-nominate for promotion – a policy known to favour male staff. In 2013, we amended the Divisional Staff Appraisal process to mandate all appraisals to include discussion of promotion (SA-16). Impact: the gender ratio for promotions is closer to 50:50.

Looking at staff promotions by grade, although there is a small amount of variance year on year, there are no major gender differences.

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

Male 4 7 6 5 10Female 11 5 7 6 12

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

% o

f sta

ff

Academic year

Promotions 2011-2016

11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15

2: PDRA/Fellows3: Lecturers, Senior

PDRA/Fellows,Teaching Fellows

4: Senior Lecturer,Principle Research

Associates/Fellows,Principle Teaching

Fellows

5: Readers 6: Professors

Male 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 2 3 1 3 1 0 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 2Female 1 0 0 1 2 5 0 3 2 4 1 3 3 1 4 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

# of

staf

f

Staff grade (by Swan 2014 code) by academic year

Promotions by Grade 2011-2016

P a g e | 31

(b) Key Issues

(i) Recruitment of staff

We created a template to support RDs in creating recruitment advertisements that avoid language that may be more appealing to men than to women [SA-10]. We include reference to our AS award and a positive action statement regarding giving consideration to requests for flexible, part-time and job share working.

x Beacon activity: We shared this template with other AS teams within UCL (e.g. Computer Science).

PALS website: We re-designed the PALS website to ensure that our AS webpages were easy to find and understand, utilising usability feedback from HCI researchers. Improvements made include: sign-posting information for staff versus students, and structuring information into clear categories, such as “mentoring and networks”, “career-research and promotions”, “family and work-life balance”. The AS logo is prominently displayed on our webpage and we make it salient that we have a Silver Award.

x Beacon activity: We wrote a report about this work, specifying “5 Top Tips” for improving AS web presence. We have shared it online via our own website, via the ASPoN forum and have spoken about it at the Signalling Cygnets AS event (2016).

P a g e | 32 Interview panels: UCL requires that at least 25% of panel members be female. Our Divisional policy is that panel membership be 50:50. University data are often incorrect as processes require the database to be completed before panel membership is confirmed. As a result, we collect data ourselves within the Division. During 2016 there have been 81 recruitment opportunities. In 8 the member was named on the grant and therefore no panel was required. In 9 we were unable to collect the data [GA-30 will ensure this is 100% complete in the future]. This leaves us with 64 appointments where we have accurate data. Out of 185 panel members, 93 were female (50%) and 92 were male (50%).

Unconscious bias training: All new staff are required to complete unconscious bias as part of induction. We actively monitor completion rates to ensure compliance.

Beacon activity: Given the expertise of the department we have also contributed to a central bias training session run by the UCL EDI team, by providing a video clip on unconscious bias (authored by Ruud Custers).

We have worked hard to encourage completion by existing members of staff. We have now achieved an 80% completion rate. [GA-31 to increase completion rate to 90%]

(ii) Support for staff at key career transition points

Induction: Revised induction procedures include a checklist to ensure that training requirements are identified and all staff are given written information about sources of career, professional and well-being support. In addition to annual peer observation, all new lecturers have an induction senior mentor with whom they can discuss all aspects of their job including teaching. RDs have reported positive staff feedback (SA-12).

“It was of great benefit to have someone to ask questions in the beginning. Some of my worries were silly in retrospect but those first months of teaching, the whole course structure felt alien to me and I needed the guidance and reassurance”. Female staff member

Early Career Researchers: We explored whether a dedicated PALS ‘early career researchers’ (ECR) forum needed re-instatement (SA-30) but ECRS told us they already felt they had ample opportunities for networking, training and career development at UCL:

x Staff survey data 2013: 75% of female and 77% of male staff agreed that there are sufficient opportunities for training and skills development, and 90% of female and 80% of male staff believed they have the opportunity for personal development.

x Ad hoc feedback at Away days and other networking events shows that ECRs appreciate the central location of UCL in a hub of outstanding academic and research institutions. They are already supported by existing ‘early career networks’. These all have a dedicated website (advertising events, funding opportunities, career resources and an annual Prize) and space in the monthly newsletter circulated to all members of each

2013 2015Female 77% 87%Male 89% 90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

s

Staff survey year

"I believe that UCL is committed to advancing equal opportunities"

P a g e | 33

Domain. Typical seminars/workshops include: Applying for Fellowships, Grant Writing workshops, Starting up and Independent Career, What can UCL do for you?, How to prepare for Grants, Fellowship and Job Interviews, What to do after you get your PhD? and Alternative Careers for Scientists.

Leadership Training for Senior Academics: On promotion to Senior Lecturer, women are encouraged to attend the Springboard Women's Development Programme [SA-14], as well as the Women in Leadership (WiL) Professional Development Programme. 14 academic staff have attended leadership programmes in the past 3 years (7 males, 7 females).

Creating Role Models. PALS academic staff regularly feature events and publications to promote career development, leadership and public engagement. Examples include: “Women at UCL: Presence and Absence booklet” featuring 15 female academics from our Division. Some parts of this section have been removed. Our staff told us that the problem was that this plethora of opportunities and events can lead to information overload and can be hard to navigate. They also felt that they required more individualised feedback and guidance on their performance and careers. Hence, we focused efforts on providing centralised information of existing opportunities, as well as ‘individualised’ forms of support via a formal mentorship scheme.

Mentorship Scheme

We piloted a mentoring scheme with 14 female mentees and conducted surveys and interviews to evaluate it in 2010, and again in 2011. We subsequently expanded it to a larger, PALS World of Work (WoW) Mentoring Scheme. The voluntary scheme is open to all academic, research and teaching staff; early and mid-career female staff were particularly encouraged to take part [SA-13]. In its first round, the scheme had 23 (17 female) mentees, including 8 lecturers and 10 PDRAs, and 21 (11 female) mentors, including 14 professors. 3 readers and 4 senior lecturers took part (GA-32 to GA-34).

Evidence of Impact: The majority of both mentees (75%) and mentors (73%) were satisfied with the mentorship scheme.

Mentees MentorsFemale 75% 57%Male 75% 99%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

s

Participants of Mentorship Scheme

Satisfaction with Mentorship Scheme

P a g e | 34 We noted gender-based differences in mentor satisfaction: all male mentors were satisfied, while only 57% of female mentors were satisfied. The remaining staff asked for more guidance for the content of the meetings.

“I think I have derived enormous benefits from the mentoring, and try to apply the processes I have learned all the time (i.e. not just around the time of meetings with my mentor), and not

just to my work. I think I went into mentoring thinking that there must be something wrong with me in the sense that I wasn't consistently managing the demands on my time and sustaining a

work life balance/ wellbeing. At the point I have come to now, I think that it was more a case that I wasn't tackling the challenges of my career with the right information about how people

manage competing demands and stay on track, and the right supervised training in terms of how to do this”. female mentee

P a g e | 35

Female mentees are universally more positive than male mentees in their evaluation of the mentorship scheme.

Beacon activity: Given the success of our mentorship scheme we were asked for advice on setting up a similar mentorship scheme by UCL’s Neuroscience Network (membership 4000 individuals). We shared data from a preliminary survey on mentorship needs.

CareerSteering Goal Setting Grants Work

RelationsTraining/Skill

s Well-being Work-LifeBalance

Female 87.50% 99% 37.50% 62.50% 37.50% 25% 62.50%Male 99% 99% 2% 2% 2% 33% 33%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

s

Skills related to career development

"Do you feel this mentorship scheme helped you with..."

P a g e | 36

4.2 Career development i. Promotion and career development

Appraisal Process:

We have a 97% completion rate for appraisals. This is outstanding within UCL.

Our 2009 Divisional guidance to appraisers required discussion of promotion, additional pay increments, and the impact of work-life balance issues on working life and career progression. We now require appraisers explicitly confirm that they have discussed these issues in the appraisal and have provided additional guidance regarding good objective setting. (SA-16)

There has been an increase in the % of staff who feel that they receive regular and constructive feedback on their performance. However, the overall percentages are still low, and there is a consistent difference between male and female staff. GA-35 to GA-38 aim to increase the number of staff who report having regular and constructive feedback, and to eliminate gender bias.

Promotion Process:

We have collated a set of successful applications for promotion to each grade and make these available to all staff in the process of applying for promotion to make the criteria and variety of routes to promotion more visible to staff [SA-22]. Many staff take advantage of this opportunity and feedback is positive.

Increasing number of women applying for promotion

Our success rate for academic promotions is close to 100%. In 2013 only 24% females and 40% males felt that the promotion/regrading process was applied fairly. We established an annual Promotions Workshop led by the Head of Division and a member of the UCL Promotions Committee that aims to a) provide detailed information about the criteria, how the UCL Promotions Committee operates, and important elements such as the selection of referees, b) encourage staff to apply if they meet the criteria, and c) dispel any fears that the process is not applied fairly. [SA-20]. The workshop is attended by ~20 staff annually (equal gender split) and feedback remains strongly positive.

2013 2015Female 35% 42%Male 46% 52%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

s

Staff survey year

"I receive regular and constructive feedback on my performance"

P a g e | 37

Evidence of impact: Our staff promotions data (see 4.1ii) suggests that we have had a positive impact: the number of women applying for promotion has increased from 2012 to 2015. The appraisals process is now viewed as being applied more fairly: 11% increase for female staff, 9% increase for male staff.

Given the consistently low numbers of female professors within the Division we felt that it was important to investigate staff promotions by grade. Although there is a small amount of variance year on year,

there are no major gender differences. This suggests that female and male staff are equally liked to be promoted at all grades, including the more senior levels. We will again draw on the research of Hermann et al. (2016)5 who we referred to in section 2. GA-39: We propose exploring whether similar interventions can also positively impact career progression of female staff through a series of letters, podcasts and blogposts of interviews with female staff in which they describe their career trajectory and the challenges they overcame on the way.

ii. Support for female students

As shown in section 3b (student data), our PGR cohort is approximately 77% female. Each RD has a Graduate Tutor who has responsibility for the progression of PhD students within the RD.

Graduate Tutors meet termly at the PGR Committee to discuss issues arising and to report on progress of students within their division. Student representatives are part of this committee. The membership of this committee is approximately 60% female in line with our staff gender ratio. (see 4.3.a.i)

In addition, we have a number of key staff who provide support specifically for female students:

x 3 Divisional Equal Opportunity Liaison Officers (DEOLOs) –all female– one of whom has a specific remit to provide students with formal or informal advice about equal opportunities issues such as discrimination, harassment, and disability access.

x Female students’ tutor

These roles are recognised within our workload model.

In addition, all students have a personal tutor with whom they can discuss career choices. We also run annual careers workshops which provide further support for these students [SA-1].

Evidence of the high levels of support received by our students are the 2015-16 nominations for the Student Choice Teaching Awards: 10 staff were nominated for “Outstanding Teaching”, 3

5 Herrmann, S.D., et al. (2016): "The Effects of a Female Role Model on Academic Performance and Persistence of Women in STEM Courses."Basic and Applied Social Psychology 38.5 258-268.

2013 2015Female 36% 47%Male 53% 62%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f pos

tive

resp

onse

s

Staff survey year

"The promotion process at UCL is applied fairly"

P a g e | 38 for “Outstanding Support for Teaching”, 6 for “Outstanding Personal Support” and 1 for “Outstanding Researcher Development”.

In 2016 we ran a focus group with PhD students to discuss their views on life in the Division. They requested a formal annual appraisal of progress, and an explicit opportunity for career mentoring. We are currently piloting this scheme and plan to roll it out across the Division (GA-21 to GA-23).

P a g e | 39 Further support for students comes from our dedicated student-led groups.

All psychology students – from undergraduates to PhD students – are automatically members of the UCL PSYCHOLOGY SOCIETY. The society conducted a series themed “bridging the gap” comprising interviews with female members of academic staff which appeared on their blog titled the Bedford Bugle https://bedfordbugle.wordpress.com/

POSTGRADUATE PEER GROUP (PPG): funded by the Division, the PPG supports PhD students through: x Weekly coffee and lunch meetings that bring staff and postgraduate students together in a social, informal

environment. x Monthly talks and career development workshops, such as a

fully-subscribed workshop on ‘How to Get Published’, co-hosted by Elsevier and the Head of EP and a fully-subscribed panel discussion on ‘My Life in Science’, moderated by a PALS Reader (female), with the participation of two female professors from associated institutions, covering topics from overcoming challenges to things the speakers wished they’d known at the start of their careers

x Annual conference at Cumberland Lodge at which students network and give research presentations.

P a g e | 40

4.3 Organisation and culture

(a) Data

i. Male and female representation on committees

The representation of male and female staff across all committees is in line with our Divisional gender split (56% female).

Our CPD and PGT committees have both had male and female co-chairs. We intend to spread this good practice across all our committees (GA-40 GA-41).

11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15

ACDC CPD Ethics IT GraduateResearch PGT Safety &

EnvironmentTeam

Managers

Female 7 8 9 7 6 9 7 11 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 4 10 8 10 12 31 29 32 7 5 6 5 5 9 10 9 10 10

Male 6 5 3 4 2 6 4 4 3 4 5 5 11 10 11 12 6 6 11 10 20 13 14 5 5 6 6 7 5 4 6 5 5

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

% o

f sta

ff

PALS committees by academic year

Committee Representation 2011-2015

11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15

ACDC CPD Ethics IT GraduateResearch PGT Safety &

EnvironmentTeam

Managers

Female 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Male 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0

1

2

# of

staf

f

PALS committees by academic year

Committee Chairs 2011-2015

P a g e | 41

ii. Female:Male ratio of academic and research staff on fixed-term contracts and open-ended (permanent) contracts

Fixed term contracts are only used for staff who will be employed on a short-term basis (typically a year or less) to cover maternity or sabbatical leave, etc. We currently have only 1 person (female) on a fixed term contract (at PDRA level). There are no staff on fixed-term contracts from lecturer upwards.

Whilst the vast majority of academic and research staff are now on permanent or open-ended contracts, the reality for researchers and teaching fellows is that these are still usually funding-limited. As shown in our data in section 3c, the gender ratio of staff at this level is close to 50:50 (57% female, 43% male).

There therefore continue to be challenges with non-renewal of research posts linked to grants in highly specialized research areas where the individual cannot be placed in a different research team when their funding runs out. All staff at risk in this category are put onto the UCL redeployment database and are given priority access to new posts, if considered suitable. Where follow-on funds are secured, bridging funding is made available by the Division to support staff between funding.

P a g e | 42 (b) Key Issues

(i) Representation on decision-making committees

There is good gender balance and a mix of career levels on most of our committees, monitored by the ACDC. HoRDs review Departmental representation on internal committees annually, and suggest changes to allow members to gain new experiences and enhance promotion potential, taking into account past and current workload, and to include recent recruits.

Committee membership is accounted for in our workload model.

(ii) Workload model The Division has been a Beacon in this area having monitored workload annually since 2002/03 using a sophisticated online system. The data are made available to all staff for comparison and are used to balance duties fairly across staff. In 2012, there were no significant differences in overall workload half-hour units between

men and women in the division. Annual review of the same data shows no change. In 2014/15 we conducted more detailed investigations: whilst again there was no difference in overall workload (p=.653), we found a significant difference [t(115)=2.183, p=0.031] in the total teaching hours, with men averaging more hours on this activity (M=716.98, SE=52.16) than women (M=563.90, SE=42.44).

However, this difference seems to be due to part-time staff. 43.1% of academic women in PALS are part-timers at some level, compared to only 24.2% men. When adjusting for part-time, the difference in total teaching between men and women is no longer statistically significant (p=.204).

Data from 2015/16 shows the mean workload recorded by full-time staff as 2,770 (SD=1432) units. Assuming staff work 46 weeks a year, this equates to 60 contribution units per week - about 30 hours per week on teaching, administration and research. The workload model does not capture all aspects of academic work – e.g. dealing with email and informal meetings with students are not included in the model.

TOTALTEACHING

TOTALTUTORIAL/ADMIN

TOTALRESEARCH TOTAL

male 716.98 593.23 1113.50 2423.70female 563.90 635.35 1077.46 2276.72

0500

1000150020002500

Cont

ribut

ion

units

Categories + total amount of work

Staff Workload Distribution 2014/15

P a g e | 43

The majority of staff (81%) record fewer than 4,000 contribution units per year (approximately 43 hours per week). Thus, although there are additional work tasks required of staff, there is little suggestion in the data of an excessive long-hours work culture.

However, this finding contradicts the data we have from our staff survey where only 32% of female and 26% of male staff feel that they can meet the requirements of their job without working excessive hours.

Whilst there are changes in the % of male and female staff responding positively to this question, it is clear that both genders are feeling the pressure of their job.

Tackling these issues, which are widespread through academia6,7 is an ongoing concern. Using in-house expertise, we investigated the work-life boundary practices of academic and PS staff within the division. We found that academic staff largely have permeable boundaries between work and non-work parts of their life and happily switch between them frequently, whereas PS staff have more rigid boundaries and a clearer separation between work and life8. A consequence of frequent task switching is that people overestimate the time

6 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/work-and-other-labours-of-love/2004285.article 7 Sang, Katherine, et al. "‘Being an academic is not a 9–5 job’: long working hours and the ‘ideal worker’in UK academia." Labour & Industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work 25.3 (2015): 235-249. 8 Cecchinato, Marta E., Anna L. Cox, and Jon Bird. "Working 9-5?: Professional differences in email and boundary management practices." Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2015.

0-2k 2k-4k 4k-6k 6k-8k 8k-10k 10k+count 28.00 53 5 2.00 1.00 1

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

% o

f sta

ff at

eac

h co

ntrib

utio

n le

vel

Contribution points

2015/16 Full Time Staff Work Contribution Levels

2013 2015Female 21% 32%Male 30% 26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

s

Staff survey year

"I can meet the requirements of my jobs without regularly working

excessive hours"

P a g e | 44 spent on these activities9. Whilst the more permeable boundaries of academic staff enable them to combine work and non-work in ways that they like (see section 4.4b) they may also lead to perceptions of greater amounts of time worked than objective measures would otherwise indicate. In response to this, we are developing a work-life balance workshop to be offered to staff that helps people gain strategies to objectively assess time spent working, manage overload and deal with the negative impacts of being constantly connected to work via digital devices (GA-42 to GA-44) which we will offer within and outside the Division.

One of our most significant championing activities is the dissemination of our workload model. Other departments and divisions within UCL have adopted our workload model, adapting it to their own needs and it has featured in UCL’s good practice factsheet on culture http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/equalities/gender/Factsheet6_culture%20FINAL.pdf .

We will make our workload model publicly available for other Universities to adopt (GA-54 GA-55)

9 Levine, L.E., Waite, B.M. & Bowman, L.L. (2007). Electronic media use, reading, and academic distractibility in college youth. Cyberpsychology Behavior, 10 (4), 560–566., 557-566. ACM

P a g e | 45

(iii) Timing of departmental meetings and social gatherings

All committee, staff meetings and seminars are now held within core hours (10am to 4pm).

We collect and monitor the gender of invited speakers and have seen some impact: an increase in female speakers from 43% to 45%.

(iv) Culture

The Division has a female-friendly culture. LCD screens are placed in prominent positions within our buildings to display news (grants, prizes, new babies, etc.)

We have regular events including post-staff-meeting lunches and post-seminar drinks for staff to mingle and network.

Some parts of this section have been removed.

RDs host their own social events such as Christmas parties for staff and students and summer picnics to which staff bring their partners and children.

2013/14 2014/15female 45 79male 59 96

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

% o

f sta

ff

Academic Year

Gender of Seminar Speakers 2013-2015

P a g e | 46 Our Athena SWAN award takes pride of place on the wall in the entrance of our buildings. EDI has a high profile and is a standing item on the agenda of Divisional and RD staff meetings, Divisional teaching committees, and the Team Managers Committee

Focusing on Staff & Student Wellbeing: We introduced the SPICE (Social, Physical, Intellectual, Career & Emotional) Wellbeing week, which included a range of events aimed at academic and PS staff and PhD students.

Following evidence that physical activity helps support wellbeing10, in 2015 we included a cultural walk for all staff.

Our SPICE Wellbeing events have since been adopted by both the Faculty of Brain Sciences and the wider university demonstrating our continued impact across our own institution.

Support for breastfeeding mothers: We wanted to ensure that there were breastfeeding and milk expressing facilities within our buildings. We identified spaces that could be converted for this purpose and ensured they were appropriately furnished. We collated a list of these facilities for our AS website and disseminated the information to staff via email. UCL followed our lead and extended our original list to include other spaces within the university.

10 Penedo, F.J., and Dahn, J.R. (2005) "Exercise and well-being: a review of mental and physical health benefits associated with physical activity." Current Opinion in Psychiatry 18.2 189-193.

P a g e | 47

ACDC newsletter: Sent termly to everyone in PALS, and made available online. It communicates findings from our data analyses, promotes an inclusive culture, shares information and

contains links to questionnaires ensuring staff have the opportunity to provide feedback on a range of issues. The newsletter has been forwarded throughout UCL demonstrating our status within the institution as a beacon of gender equality.

“The newsletter is fantastic. Well done to Anna and yourself for raising the profile of the Academic Careers and Diversity Committee and giving staff an opportunity to contribute ideas. This will certainly help to create the right environment and organisational culture. I have copied to other colleagues leading Athena SWAN applications / renewals and diversity initiatives in the Faculty in order to share good practice.” – Faculty Manager

Marking International Women’s Day: We have developed a sustained programme of annual lectures to mark international women’s day. Our speakers have included Professor Clare Elwell (2014), Dame Nicola Brewer, UCL Vice-Provost International (2015), and Harriet Minter, founder and editor of the Guardian's Women in Leadership section (2016).

Marking International Men’s Day: We organised a special issue of the ACDC newsletter to raise awareness of International Men’s Day 2016 and the gender specific issues that affect men (see right).

P a g e | 48 Evidence of our female friendly and inclusive Divisional culture: Our staff survey data shows that the Division has a positive working culture that has been sustained over time.

We can also see some evidence of impact- substantially more female academics feel supported by their colleagues, and feel able to suggest ideas to improve ways of doing things:

2013 2015Female 81% 84%Male 91% 90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

s

Staff survey year

"I am treated with fairness and respect at UCL"

2013 2015Female 81% 84%Male 91% 90%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

sStaff survey year

"I feel sufficiently informed about the benefits available to staff at

UCL (e.g. pension, childcare vouchers, Employee Assistance

Scheme)"

2013 2015Female 72% 86%Male 73% 88%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

s

Staff survey year

"I suggest ideas to improve our ways of doing things"

2013 2015Female 77% 87%Male 93% 80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

s

Staff survey year

"I am effectively supported by my colleagues"

P a g e | 49 We see an improvement in female academics’ perceptions of senior managers – they view them as more visible (22% increase) and as providing more effective leadership (22% increase).

However we see a problem with female academics’ communication with managers and senior managers, and this appears to be a gender-related issue:

Only 66% of female academics, compared to 88% of males, agree that their manager fosters two-way communication (63% in 2013) and only 53% of female academics – substantially lower than the percentage of male academics (76%) – agree there are adequate opportunities for them to pass ideas to senior management (56% in 2013).

2013 2015Female 54% 76%Male 79% 76%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

s

Staff survey year

"Senior management provides effective leadership (by Senior we

mean Heads of Department/ Division or above)"

2013 2015Female 62% 84%Male 79% 76%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

s

Staff survey year

"Senior managers are sufficiently visible in UCL (by Senior we mean Heads of Department/ Division or

above)"

2013 2015Female 63% 66%Male 73% 88%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

s

Staff survey year

"My manager/academic leader fosters two-way communication

within the team"

2013 2015Female 56% 53%Male 71% 76%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

s

Staff survey year

"There are adequate opportunities to get my ideas and suggestions passed up to senior

management"

P a g e | 50

Possibly related to this, female academics feel less of a sense of belonging to the Division compared to male academics (74% of females; 94% of males). This is particularly disappointing given the rise in the positive responses from male members of staff. GA-45 addresses this: we will run focus groups with an external facilitator to try to uncover the sources of these differences.

2013 2015Female 71% 74%Male 86% 94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f pos

itive

resp

onse

s

Staff survey year

"I feel a strong sense of belonging to my department/division"

P a g e | 51

(v) Outreach activities

Outreach is an important Divisional activity and is recognised in appraisal and promotion. In line with the gender balance of the Division, 61% of outreach is conducted by female staff and students.

Staff at all levels engage in outreach. However, we are concerned by the low numbers of junior males involved, particularly given our desire to have male staff and students as role models to aid in the recruitment of male students (GA-09, GA-11, GA-13, GA-16, GA-18). We have therefore included a set of actions to address this (GA-46 to GA-48).

Other PhDStudent

ResearchAssistant PDRA Lecturer Senior

Lecturer Reader Professor

Male 2 0 0 4 1 7 4 7Female 8 1 4 8 1 5 5 8

02468

10

Num

ber o

f sta

ff

Staff grade

Engagement in Outreach Activities 2011-2016

1or2

3to5

6to9

10+1or2

3to5

6to9

10+1or2

3to5

6to9

10+1or2

3to5

6to9

10+1or2

3to5

6to9

10+1or2

3to5

6to9

10+1or2

3to5

6to9

10+1or2

3to5

6to9

10+

Science Events Industry National ScienceWeek

Work ExperienceStudents Hosted School Visits

Talks to non-scientific

audiences

Mediaappearances

PublicEngagement

Activities

male 7 4 1 2 5 3 2 4 2 1 11 2 1 6 4 2 11 3 7 5 8 4 7 5 1 3

female 12 6 2 4 8 3 2 1 5 2 10 5 4 9 4 7 9 7 6 7 11 6 2 3 14 9 2 3

02468

101214

# of

staf

f

Frequency of outreach activities

# of Outreach Activities 2011-2016

P a g e | 52

4.4 Flexibility and managing career breaks (a) Data

(i) Maternity return rate

Over the past five years, 40 out of 44 staff who took maternity leave have returned to work (91% return rate).

(ii) Paternity, adoption and parental leave uptake

Paternity/Parental/Adoption leave policy is always discussed at Induction. We ensure that female employees who apply for maternity leave are aware of shared parental leave.

From 1 April 2013 UCL increased (fully) paid paternity leave from two to four working weeks, thus extending an arrangement which we were already offering to our own staff in PALS. All applications for paternity were fully supported. Despite these efforts, our records show low numbers of males taking formal paternity leave each year. However, we have informal reports of men who become parents essentially taking leave but not declaring it. This may be due to

the informal flexible working culture of the Division.

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

Female 6 10 8 8 12

02468

1012

# of

staf

f

Academic year

Maternity Leave

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

% return 83% 100% 75% 100% 92%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

% o

f sta

ff

Academic year

Maternity Return Rate

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

Paternity 0 1 1 1 4

01234

# of

staf

f

Academic year

Paternity Leave

P a g e | 53 We featured a case study of shared parental leave (see section 7) in our Autumn 2016 newsletter.

(iii) Numbers of applications and success rates for flexible working by gender and grade

43.1% of female academic women in PALS are part-time (i.e. less than 1.0 FTE) compared to only 24.2% men. Over the past 5 years, only one member of staff has requested a formal arrangement to reduce their FTE, which was approved. However, all research departments have received requests from staff to work flexible hours on an informal basis (see section 4.4(b)i).

(b) Key Issues

(i) Flexible working

Flexible working survey Our informal flexible working culture enables staff to work from home, or work consolidated or flexible hours. We conducted a flexible working survey to gather feedback from staff. We received 122 responses from staff (academic, research and PS staff) in the Division (31% response rate). 100% of respondents said that they could work flexibly:

“Most of my colleagues have teaching and similar commitments. Outside of those commitments, we can work wherever we want, whenever we want.” [male academic]

“There is an expectation that all timetabled teaching, supervision etc will be delivered at UCL, but

beyond that, there is flexibility to work at home (and no need for permission from me to do so)." [male academic]

“As long as I have no teaching or meetings scheduled, I can work from home on my remote

desktop, which is effectively the same as sitting at my office desk – I tend to do so one or sometimes two days a week – this saves 3 hours of travel time so is highly efficient.“[female

academic]

Others have more regular arrangements:

“I and some of my team members have arranged to work one fixed day/week from home. Others could do the same but have chosen not to.” [female professional services]

“I do need permission to work from home, however permission is always granted and I have

arranged to have 3 regular days each week that I do work from home, so my work is extremely flexible and this is very useful in the context of having three young children.” [male academic]

“I have fixed days which I've agreed with my HoRD when I work at home” [female academic]

Our flexible culture is clearly highly valued:

P a g e | 54

“I think working from home is a great thing. My kids have left home now, but for long years it was a key element in the work/life balance. Because I value it so much, I take care to surround it

with a culture of responsibility.”[male academic]

“I have the flexibility to choose when to work from home taking meetings/colleagues leave into account. I do agree that this is one of the best things about working at UCL, especially if you have

caring responsibilities (I have 2 young children).” [female professional services]

However we note that this culture may not be uniformly known within the Division:

“I’m not really sure if I’m allowed to work from home to be honest… I have asked in an emergency and have been allowed to do it. Nothing has been discussed as to what the policy in the team is

though.” [male professional services]

GA-49 and GA-50 will communicate our informal flexible working policy to staff via the newsletter and induction materials.

(ii) Cover for maternity and adoption leave and support on return

P a g e | 55

Cover is always provided for maternity and shared parental leave for academic and support staff. Arrangements are made for the supervision of PDRAs and PhD students. Cover is not usually provided for PDRA or PhD student leave – research work is usually held in stasis unless urgent. We have a comprehensive information pack for new and prospective parents on our webpages. This includes information on UCL’s childcare vouchers, parent and carer groups, health and safety forms, facilities for breast feeding and changing, and local nurseries and their waiting lists. Our focus group and interviews told us we could improve support for staff: x becoming new parents x in times of family crisis In response we have introduced a Divisional Extended Leave Mentor to: x guide staff through the various Divisional and College policies and procedures x discuss worries and concerns x provide case studies of how others have managed

similar periods in their life x promote the UCL Parents and Carers Network.

GA-51 we will also introduce formal deputy roles for key leadership positions.

[word count 4995, limit =5,000]

P a g e | 56

5. Any other comments: maximum 500 words

ASPoN forum

The ASPON Forum was founded by UC, Royal Holloway University and Queen’s University in December 2015. The goal of the forum is to provide a place for Psychology Departments in the UK and Ireland to:

1. celebrate EDI successes

2. disseminate and champion best practices

3. gather large data sets relevant to the gender gap in academia

4. identify challenges specific to the Psychology discipline and

5. co-ordinate efforts across Psychology departments.

The forum was launched at a workshop in February 2016 at which attendees shared good practice & established “buddying” relationships to support the preparation of AS

applications. The second workshop is will be held at UCL on 13th February 2017.

The UCL ACDC created and maintains the website https://asponforum.wordpress.com and twitter account. The website includes:

x our terms of reference

x relevant events

x links to successful applications from Psychology departments

x interviews with successful applicants

Our continued work is included as actions GA-56 to GA58.

Support for Professional Services Staff

We have already responded to the inclusion of PS in the new AS Charter introduced in May 2015. We are aware that the structure of PS jobs within UCL means that staff cannot usually get promoted without moving to another job which may be in another department or institution. Some staff lack that confidence to apply for such opportunities or find it challenging to identify their transferable skills. To address this we introduced the Job Shadowing SHARE@UCL scheme to provide development and career opportunities to PS staff within the Division. The scheme has been embraced by many UCL Faculties. Building on this, we

P a g e | 57 have led the creation of a COPS (Career Opportunities for Professional Services) Network to focus on EDI and career progression for PS staff. The network will contribute to the AS action plan, respond to the UCL Staff Survey, encourage cultural diversity, explore and encourage career path/progression/opportunities and influence upcoming UCL policy in this area on the formation of ‘job families’ which will be critical for PS staff career progression. Continued leadership in this area GA52 & GA53.

Grant Review

We explored whether grant success rates might account for gender differences at senior levels:

In line with the gender ratio of the Division, female staff apply for more grants providing further support that existing grant writing workshops are sufficient intervention. The additional number of large grants applied for by male professors is accounted for by the gender ratio at that level.

Pay Review

We conducted a pay & promotions review that uncovered some gender-correlated inequities in salary that were subsequently corrected in conjunction with HR outside of the normal promotion cycle.

Word count 434

Smallgrants

Largegrants

Female 121 159Male 136 163

020406080

100120140160180

# of

gra

nt a

pplic

atio

ns

Size of grant

Grant Applications 2012-2016

PDRA Lecturer SeniorLecturer Reader Professo

rFemale 27 5 24 32 71Male 17 8 14 25 96

0

20

40

60

80

100#

of g

rant

app

licat

ions

Staff grade

Large Grant Applications by Grade 2012-2016

P a g e | 58

7. Case study: impacting on individuals: maximum 1500 words Describe how the department has changed and how its staff have benefited on the journey to applying for Gold.

Provide a small number of case studies of individuals working in the department and show how the inclusive culture and working practices of the department have enabled them to pursue a career in STEMM.

At least one of these case studies should be a member of the self-assessment team, and at least one should be someone else in the department. There should also be at least one case study from a male member of staff. More information on case studies is available in the guidance.

Some parts of this section have been removed.

Indu Dubey, PDRA.

Indu recently finished her PhD and joined the ICN as a PDRA when she was 6 months pregnant. She took 6 months maternity leave and returned to work fulltime.

“I was worried that at this stage it might be difficult for me to find a job and progress as a researcher. Contrary to my fears, I was not only accepted but welcomed at the ICN. I live in Nottingham so it was difficult for me to shift to London during last few months of pregnancy. I was given the opportunity to work from the ICN for 3 days a week and use an alternate office in Nottingham for the other days. I took six months maternity break and wanted to get back to work fulltime, however with a little baby at home it was impossible for me to be in London for a couple of days every week. The ICN collaborated with University of Nottingham, to secure a desk and facilities so I could work there. My team members arrange a skype conference so I can attend lab meetings every Monday morning. I am supported by Dr Hamilton through online meetings and visits to the lab. The flexible work arrangements provided by UCL have encouraged me continue to work full time and flourish as a full time researcher.”

P a g e | 59

Chloe Campbell, Research Fellow in the Psychoanalysis Unit, Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Policy.

She joined the Unit in 2012 after a career break.

‘My position at the Psychoanalysis Unit has afforded me career stability and development, both of which tend not to be compatible with the more flexible, freelance route that suited me when my children were very small. Being able return to a long-term position has been extremely fortunate, in fact it has enabled me to branch into ever more satisfying and interesting work in a varied portfolio of projects. Now that I have two school-aged children – with the inevitable challenges of school holidays, sick days and so on – I have been given extremely high levels of support in the form of working from home and flexible working, which has enabled me to continue with the fascinating work that I do here without compromising my family’s quality of life.’

Kate Shobbrook, Senior Teaching Fellow, Language and Cognition

Kate joined UCL in 2010 and has had two periods of maternity leave. She lives in Buckinghamshire with her husband and their two young children. Kate works part time, teaching students on the MSc in Speech and Language Sciences, achieving promotion to Senior Teaching Fellow in October 2016.

“I was apprehensive about my return to work from maternity leave, particularly my second leave when there was a great deal to juggle in terms of child care, the commute and getting my head around work again. However, the support and encouragement of my managers together with the flexibility in the department meant that my concerns were not realised. I can fit my work around demands at home. I use my commute to do work, and on the days where I need to leave early to collect my children, I can catch up on missed time in the evenings or other times that week. As many of us that teach on the MSc are parents to young children, there is a shared understanding that we need to be flexible and work together as a team. I never feel that I am not making a valuable contribution to the department by not working 9 – 5 from the office. From the start of my return from maternity leave, my manager and senior members of the department encouraged me to apply for promotion and supported me in this process by giving me additional opportunities and advice. I was promoted 18 months after my return.”

Paul Marshall, Senior Lecturer & Aisling O’Kane, PDRA in UCLIC Paul & Aisling both stayed home on parental leave after the birth of Conor. Paul has now returned to work whilst Aisling takes leave for the next 4.5 months. Early next year they will take advantage of shared parental leave and swap roles - with Aisling returning to work, and Paul staying at home for the following 4.5 months. Paul remarked: “In addition to help from HR in organising our parental leave, my colleagues in UCLIC have been amazingly supportive, going above and beyond what was required to formally cover my duties whilst I was on leave. Some have rescheduled their teaching to make my life easier on my return whilst others have provided additional support to my PhD students whilst I have been away. Over the past 5 years that I have been at UCL my colleagues have been great role models as I

P a g e | 60 have watched them combine bringing up young children with successful academic careers. I have always wanted to take an equal role with my partner in childcare and the flexibility offered at UCL will enable me to achieve this.”

Nichola Raihani, Royal Society University Research Fellow, Experimental Psychology

“I moved to Experimental Psychology in 2015 after coming back to work following my second maternity leave. Joe Devlin (HoRD) was extremely encouraging and supportive about my prospects in the department encouraging me to apply for promotions. One of the most appealing aspects of working in the Department is the flexibility it affords. My husband and I have two young children, both work full time and have no immediate family in the surrounding area. That means that we regularly have to attend to sick children or take time off to manage school holidays and inset days. I cannot imagine any other job where I would so easily be able to fit work in around my home life. The department is also very receptive and responsive to ideas that can increase inclusivity – for instance moving the time of the departmental seminar series to core hours have been well received.”

Elizabeth Wonnacott, Senior Lecturer, Language and Cognition

“I have two children, aged 6 and 11. Our family home is in Oxford and door to door the commute is over two hours. To save time, I generally work at home at least two days per week. The days I work in London I stay overnight and work long days fitting is as many meetings as I can. I try and always work at home on Fridays so I can pick my children up from school. My days working in London can be long and tiring, but I'm lucky to be able to do that with the support I have at home, and I feel that it is worth it to be around for my children on the other days. It works well for my family right now.

Key to being able to work the way I do is making use of technology. My PhD students, undergraduate project students, tutees and postdocs all have access to an online calendar where they can see what days I am in and book slots to meet with me. They also know that if it’s more urgent and can’t be dealt with via email, we can meet on skype on a homeworking day.

I have found the Division to be very supportive and accommodating - no one has ever made me feel guilty about not being present, and home working is regarded as normal. It’s easy to underestimate the importance of this, but without this flexibility, I wouldn’t be here.”

Essi Viding, Professor, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Policy.

“I had my first child two years after joining the PALS. My HoRD encouraged me to apply for a promotion while I was pregnant and I submitted my promotion application (prepared just before going on maternity leave) when my daughter was a few months old. My second promotion application was, again, prepared while pregnant.

I took six months’ maternity leave with both of my children. Both Peter and David were very supportive when all the plans were upended because of the premature arrival of my son. Flexible working arrangements have never been an issue. This has helped enormously as I have juggled

P a g e | 61 work and family commitments, in particular various appointments for my son who has a medical condition (my husband shares responsibility for the appointment visits, but there are many!).

Peter has actively and proactively encouraged me to be strategic about career development opportunities. He has helped me identify funding opportunities, research prizes that I could apply for, as well as policy and other leadership opportunities that have ensured I gain visibility in the academia and beyond. I have also been encouraged to undertake leadership training, which has been sponsored by my Head of Division and Dean (Alan Thompson).

My first sabbatical was an excellent opportunity to concentrate on research while my children were younger. I am looking forward to my impending sabbatical, during which I will write a book and develop public/policy outreach activities.”

[1478 words, max 1500 words]

P a g e | 62

6. Action plan Provide an action plan as an appendix. An action plan template is available on the Athena SWAN website.

This should be a table or a spreadsheet comprising plans to address the priorities identified by the analysis of relevant data presented in this application, success/outcome measures, the post holder responsible for each action and a timeline for completion. The Plan should cover current initiatives and your aspirations for the next three years.

P a g e | 63