Athena SWAN Institution Application · Athena SWAN® is the registered trade mark of, and is used by the Australian Acade my of Science under licence from, Equality Challenge Unit

Athena SWAN Institution Application

Bronze Award

Bronze Award

Name of institution Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research

Date of application 29/03/2018 – Redacted version: 27/04/2018

Award Level Bronze

Date joined Athena SWAN 2015

Contact for application Louise Naughton

Email [email protected]

Telephone 9345 2155

2

2

COMPLETING THE FORM

Please refer to the SAGE Athena SWAN Charter Bronze Institutional Award Handbook when completing this application form.

Do not remove the headers or instructions. Each section begins on a new page.

WORD COUNT

The overall word limit for applications are shown in the following table.

There are no specific word limits for the individual sections, and you may distribute words over each of the sections as appropriate. Please state how many words you have used in each section. Please refer to page 11 of the handbook for inclusions and exclusions regarding word limit.

We have provided the following recommended word counts as a guide.

Word limit 11,000

Recommended word count

1.Letter of endorsement 500

2.Description of the institution 500

3. Self-assessment process 1,000

4. Picture of the institution 2,000

5. Supporting and advancing women’s careers 5,000

6. Supporting transgender people 500

7. Intersectionality 500

8. Indigenous Australians 500

9. Further information 500

10. Action plan N/A

ATHENA SWAN BRONZE INSTITUTION AWARDS Recognise a solid foundation for eliminating gender bias and developing an inclusive culture that values all staff. This includes: • an assessment of gender equality in the institution, including quantitative (staff data) and

qualitative (policies, practices, systems and arrangements) evidence and identifying both challenges and opportunities

• a four-year plan that builds on this assessment, information on activities that are already in place and what has been learned from these

• the development of an organisational structure, including a self-assessment team, to carry proposed actions forward.

3

3

1. LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE VICE CHANCELLOR/DIRECTOR Recommended word count: 500 words Actual word count: 615 Refer to Page 17 of the Handbook

4

4

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTION Recommended word count: 500 words Actual word count: 540 Refer to Page 17 of the Handbook

Please provide a brief description of the institution, including any relevant contextual information. This should include:

i. information on where the institution is in the Athena SWAN process; that is, an indication of how the institution is progressing in their journey to improve gender equity, diversity, and inclusion

ii. information on its teaching and its research focus

iii. the number of staff; present data for academic staff, and professional and support staff

separately

iv. the total number of departments and total number of students

v. list and sizes of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM)

departments; present data for academic staff, and professional and support staff separately

5

5

3. THE SELF-ASSESSMENT PROCESS Recommended word count: 1000 words Actual word count: 905 Refer to Page 18 of the Handbook Describe the self-assessment process. This should include:

(i) a description of the self-assessment team

(ii) an account of the self-assessment process

(iii) plans for the future of the self-assessment team

6

6

4. A PICTURE OF THE INSTITUTION Recommended word count: 2000 words Actual word count: 1005 Refer to Pages 19-20 of the Handbook

4.1 Academic and research staff data

(i) Academic and research staff by grade and gender (ii) Academic and research staff on fixed-term, open-ended/permanent and casual contracts by

gender (iii) Academic staff by contract function and gender: research-only, research and teaching, and

teaching-only (iv) Academic leavers by grade and gender (v) Equal pay audits/reviews

7

7

5. SUPPORTING AND ADVANCING WOMEN’S CAREERS Recommended word count: 5000 words Actual word count: 6211 Refer to Pages 21-25 of the Handbook

5.1 Key career transition points: academic staff (pages 21-22 of the Handbook) (i) Recruitment

(ii) Induction

(iii) Promotion

(iv) Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC)

8

8

5.2 Career development: academic staff (Refer to page 22 of the Handbook)

(i) Training

(ii) Appraisal/development review

(iii) Support given to academic staff for career progression

9

9

5.3 Flexible working and managing career breaks (Refer to page 23 of the Handbook) Note: Present professional and support staff and academic staff data separately

(i) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: before leave (ii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: during leave (iii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: returning to work (iv) Maternity return rate (v) Paternity, shared parental, adoption leave and parental leave uptake (vi) Flexible working (vii) Transition from part-time back to full-time work (viii) Childcare (ix) Caring responsibilities

10

10

5.4 Organisation and culture (Refer to pages 24-25 of the Handbook)

(i) Culture

(ii) HR policies

(iii) Proportion of heads of school/faculty/department by gender

(iv) Representation of men and women on senior management committees

(v) Representation of men and women on influential institution committees

(vi) Committee workload

(vii) Institutional policies, practices and procedures

(viii) Workload model

(ix) Timing of institution meetings and social gatherings

(x) Visibility of role models

(xi) Outreach activities

(xii) Leadership

11

11

6. SUPPORTING TRANSGENDER PEOPLE Recommended word count: 500 words Actual word count: 396 Refer to Page 26 of the Handbook (i) Current policy and practice (ii) Review (iii) Further work

12

12

7. INTERSECTIONALITY Recommended word count: 500 words Actual word count: 481 Refer to Page 26 of the Handbook

(i) Current policy and practice (ii) Review (iii) Further work

13

13

8. INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS Recommended word count: 500 words Actual word count: 525 Refer to Page 27 of the Handbook

(i) Current policy and practice (ii) Review (iii) Further work

14

14

9. FURTHER INFORMATION Recommended word count: 500 words Actual word count: 0 (REDACTED) Refer to Page 28 of the Handbook

Please comment here on any other elements that are relevant to the application.

15

15

10. ACTION PLAN Refer to Pages 28-29 of the Handbook

The action plan should present prioritised actions to address the issues identified in this application.

This application was published by SAGE in July 2017. © Copyright, Equality Challenge Unit, 2015. Reproduced by the Australian Academy of Science under licence from Equality Challenge Unit. Athena SWAN® is the registered trade mark of, and is used by the Australian Academy of Science under licence from, Equality Challenge Unit. Information contained in this publication is for the use of Athena SWAN Charter member institutions only. Use of this publication and its contents for any other purpose, including copying information in whole or in part, is prohibited.

Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical ResearchAthena SWAN bronze application

2Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research Athena SWAN bronze application

Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research

Athena SWAN bronze application

ContentsGlossary 3

1. Letter of Endorsement 4

2. Description of the Institute 5

3. The Self-Assessment Process 10

4. A Picture of the Institution 14

5. Supporting and Advancing Women’s Careers 18

1. Key Career Transition Points: Academic Staff 18

2. Career Development: Academic Staff 25

3. Flexible Working and Managing Career Breaks 28

4. Organisational and Culture 36

6. Supporting Transgender People 44

7. Intersectionality 45

8. Indigenous Australians 47

Gender Equity Action Plan 49

On the cover: Honours student Santini Subramaniam (left) and Dr Alyssa Barry.


Glossary

AAS Australian Academy of Science

AGM Annual general meeting

D&I Diversity and Inclusion

DISC Diversity and Inclusion Steering Committee

FRAC Faculty Recruitment Advisory Committee

FRC Faculty Review Committee

GEiSC Gender Equity in Science Committee

LGBTIQ+ Lesbian Gay Bi Trans Intersex Queer plus all non-binary and gender diverse groups

MCC Victorian Male Champion of Change

RAP Reconciliation Action Plan

RC Reconciliation Committee

SAGE Science Australia Gender Equity

SAT Self-Assessment Team

STEMM Science Technology Engineering Mathematics and Medicine

ToR Terms of reference

UoM University of Melbourne

WEHI Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research

WiSPP Women in Science Parkville Precinct


1. Letter of Endorsement

As director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, I am proud to be leading an Institute that values equity and diversity as drivers of innovation.

From the first day of my directorship, nearly 9 years ago, I have led cultural change towards gender equity. I have championed the importance of active participation from senior leaders in driving this agenda, both internally and externally: as a leader within the independent medical research sector; as a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science (AAS) and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering; as a member of the expert advisory group for the SAGE program; and, as a founding member of the Victorian Male Champion of Change group. I was vocal internally within the AAS from 2004 through 2013, encouraging a greater focus on diversity, and expressed my deep concern when the AAS elected no women, and indeed failed to include any women among the 37 candidates it shortlisted for fellowship.

The progress we have made at the Institute has required the resolve of our leadership group, the imagination and commitment of the Institute’s Gender Equity in Science committee, and the grass-roots passion of our students and staff. We have seen a steady increase in the number of women leading our laboratories and our divisions, and we have committed significant resources to creating an Institute in which women can flourish and gender equity is an engrained part of our values and culture. This submission, for the SAGE Athena SWAN bronze Institutional award, highlights many of the initiatives undertaken and the successes achieved.

The accreditation process has enabled us to identify gaps and areas for further improvement to enable us to address our most significant gender equity issues. This includes improving measurement, accountability and transparency, building shared and sustainable leadership, improving our policies and processes, tackling the pernicious effect of gender stereotypes present in all organisations and creating a positive workplace.

When I commenced as director, there were no women division heads - today there are four - however the pace of change is frustratingly slow and accelerating change remains a priority.

The work we have undertaken during the pilot has been a forensic review of our processes and procedures, so we can better understand the current barriers faced by women, most importantly through listening and then acting on the issues that matter most to our people.

We are also benefitting from the implementation of our Reconciliation Action Plan and our Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Strategy. However, I acknowledge that we need to do more to tackle the structural, cultural and attitudinal barriers that hold women and minority groups back.

Our action plan highlights the initiatives we will undertake to further progress our vision for a workplace where all people have equal access to employment opportunities. The plan includes: maintaining our family friendly supports and benefits; maintaining women’s representation in symposia; and exciting new programs to support women’s career progression, including a conference travel grants program and an innovative reverse sabbatical program. We have made a significant investment to ensure we can deliver the plan.

As chair of the Institute’s Diversity and Inclusion Steering Committee (DISC) I have overseen the work of the Self-Assessment Team (SAT) and personally championed the work, hosting the SAGE Athena SWAN launch event and seminar and providing regular updates to staff. I am confident that our gender action plan will support ongoing strategies to reduce career barriers for women in science and enable us to attract and retain the most talented people from the broadest talent pool.

I can confirm that the information in the application (including data) is an honest, accurate, and true representation of the Institute.

Professor Doug Hilton ao, director


2. Description of the Institute

The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research was established in 1915 and currently houses 16 research divisions, with 82 laboratories and 1,098 staff and students, with an annual budget of approximately $115 million (AUD).

The Institute’s research focuses on cancer (breast cancer, leukaemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, lung cancer, colon cancer, and ovarian cancer), infectious disease (malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, and hepatitis) and chronic inflammatory and immune diseases (coeliac disease, type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and transplantation). The Institute has a strong focus on translation, leading to long-term improvements in disease, diagnosis and treatment; and on entrepreneurship, ensuring we deliver economic benefits in return for the community’s investment in our research.

The Institute’s organisation structure is outlined at Figure 1. The structure includes the high-level management committees with a particular focus on creating a diverse and inclusive workforce including the DISC, Faculty Recruitment and Appointment (FRAC), Gender Equity in Science (GEiSC), and Reconciliation (RC) committees.

Research staff and students make up 72% of total staff (see Figure 2). All Research Divisions have a Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM) focus (see Table 1).


INSTITUTE ORGANISATION November 2017

Deputy Director, Scientific StrategyProfessor Alan Cowman

FundraisingMs Susanne Williamson

Clinical TranslationProfessor Andrew Roberts

Acting Head, Business DevelopmentMs Samantha Ludolf

Chief Information OfficerMr Michael Carolan

Chief Financial OfficerMr Joel Chibert

Internal AuditorMr Stan Balbata

Head, Communications and MarketingMs Carolyn MacDonald

Procurement and Logistics ManagerMr Todd Jasper

Facilities ManagerMr Steve Droste

Laboratory Operations and Scientific Services ManagerDr Helene Martin

Planning ManagerMs Catherine Parker

Grants ManagerDr Julie Mercer

Program ManagerMs Naomi Burke

Head, People and CultureMs Elizabeth McMahon

Deputy Director, Strategy and OperationsMs Samantha Ludolf

Deputy Director, Science Integrity and EthicsProfessor David Vaux

Research divisions and Clinical TranslationBioinformatics Professor Gordon Smyth Cancer and Haematology Professor Warren Alexander Professor Nick NicolaCell Signalling and Cell Death Professor John Silke Professor David VauxACRF Chemical Biology A/Professor Guillaume LesseneDevelopment and Cancer A/Professor Anne Voss Immunology Professor Phil HodgkinInfection and Immunity Professor Alan Cowman Professor Marc Pellegrini Inflammation Professor Ian WicksMolecular Genetics of Cancer Professor Andreas StrasserMolecular Immunology Professor Stephen NuttMolecular Medicine A/ Professor Marnie Blewitt Professor Doug Hilton Population Health and Immunity Professor Melanie Bahlo Professor Ivo MuellerACRF Stem Cells and Cancer Professor Geoff Lindeman Professor Jane Visvader Structural BiologyA/ Professor Matthew Call A/ Professor Peter Czabotar Systems Biology and Personalised Medicine A/ Professor Oliver SieberDr Andrew Webb

DirectorProfessor Doug Hilton

Management CommitteesAnimal Ethics CommitteeBiosafety CommitteeClinical Translation Standing CommitteeDiversity and Inclusion CommitteeEducation CommitteeEngagement CommitteeFaculty Recruitment and Appointment CommitteeGender Equity in Science CommitteeHealth and Safety CommitteeIT Governance CommitteePMO Program BoardReconciliation CommitteeRisk Management CommitteeSenior Scientific Advisory CommitteeSenior Technology Planning Group

Board

Board SubcommitteesAdvocacy and Support CommitteeAppointment and Promotion Review CommitteeAudit and Risk CommitteeCommercialisation CommitteeHuman Research Ethics CommitteeInvestment CommitteeRemuneration Committee

Figure 1 Walter and Eliza Hall Institute organisational structure


Figure 2 Total staff as of 28/09/2017

Research staff

Research staff 51%

Students21%

ProfessionalServices

28%

Total Staff

Professional ServicesStudents

Division No. % women Department No. %

womenInflammation 48 56% (27) Fundraising 7 100% (7)

Immunology 49 53% (26) People and Culture 13 92% (12)

Molecular Genetics of Cancer 52 67% (35) Laboratory Operations 140 76% (107)

Population Health and Immunity 64 59% (38) Finance 20 65% (13)

Infection and Immunity 60 35% (21) Business Development 21 67% (14)

Cancer and Haematology (and Clinical Translation)

51 61% (31) Information Technology Services 26 15% (4)

Structural Biology 48 54% (26) Communications and Marketing 22 77% (17)

Bioinformatics (and Computational Biology)

72 39% (28) Procurement and Logistics 16 31%(5)

Chemical Biology 33 58% (19) Library and Information Management 2 50% (1)

Molecular Medicine 56 64% (36) Grants Management 2 100% (2)

Stem Cells and Cancer 44 68% (30) Facilities 14 21% (3)

Personalised medicine and Systems Biology

88 55% (48) Administration 25 72% (18)

Cell Signalling and Cell Death 41 56% (23)

Development and Cancer 37 57% (21)

Molecular immunology 48 54% (26)

Total Research (including students) 791 55% (435) Total Professional Services 308 66% (203)

Total number of staff/students: 1099 58% (635)

Table 1 Total staff numbers by Division or Department (28/09/2017)


The Institute’s main campus is located within the Parkville biomedical precinct and it has campuses located at La Trobe University in Bundoora and at Kew.

Gender equity

The Institute has been a leader in actively championing gender equity in the Australian medical research sector. The GEiSC, established in 2009, has driven the implementation of many best practice initiatives and a recognisable a shift in the culture of the Institute (Figure 3).

Led by the director, the Institute has influenced the broader medical research community by leading discussions within the Australian Association of Medical Research Institutes (AAMRI) and through membership of the Women in Science Parkville Precinct (WiSPP) which drives change within our precinct.

Diversity and Inclusion

The Institute recognises that having a diverse workforce and fostering a spirit of inclusiveness will produce more innovative and creative thinking. In 2017, we published our first Diversity and Inclusion Strategy which focuses our attention and activities on developing leadership, embedding diversity and inclusion into everyday processes, and establishing measurement, accountability and transparency for evidence-driven decision making. Our focus on diversity and inclusion led the Institute to take a public stand supporting marriage equality and subsequently participate in the Midsumma Pride march in 2018.

Figure 3 Timeline of gender equity initiatives

Table 2 :Notable achievements of the GEiSC

Year Description:

2009 Craven and Shearer award: up to $15,000 per year is available to outstanding female postdoctoral fellows and female laboratory heads to assist with the cost of childcare for pre-school-age children.

Additional time for contract renewal lab head, to accommodate for maternity leave. This can extend Lab Head contracts for women for up to 1 year.

2010 Implementation of a policy of family friendly meeting times: 9.15am-4.30pm

2011 Lactation rooms (for expressing milk or breastfeeding for mothers that have returned to work)

2012 Family roomWeb service upgrade: allows staff to work from home enabling more flexibility

Page Betheras award: an annual award provides technical assistance to female scientists while on maternity leave.

2014 Seminar recordings: for streaming from home/off-site or at a more convenient time.

Gender Equity in Speakers: All Institute symposia aim to have equal representation of speakers and session chairs. This encompasses committees, seminars, lectures and conferences as well as those sponsored by the Institute.

2015 Agreement for onsite childcare centre

2016 Family Violence Leave and additional supports introduced with guidelines for managers2017 Beginning of building childcare centre to be complete by 2018

3

Gender Equity policies at WEHI: timeline

Additional time for contract renewal:Lab head level

Family friendly meeting times: 9.30 am - 4pm

Lactation rooms

Web service upgrade: work from home

Seminars recordings:For streaming from home or watching later

Agreement for onsite childcare: to open 2018

Childcare support: Craven & Shearer award Family rooms

Technical help while on maternity leave:Page Betherasaward

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Parental Leave: 14 weeks paid parental leave

Figure 3 : Timeline of GE initiatives

Domestic Violence Leave Policy


Reconciliation

In 2014, the Institute made a formal commitment to reconciliation and closing the gap when it formed a partnership with Reconciliation Australia and published its first Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP). In 2016, we published our second RAP which outlines actions to achieve the Institute’s long-term goals to close health, employment and education gaps, and build connectivity to Indigenous culture. Using the results from the 2014 and 2016 Reconciliation Australia Barometer surveys, we know that attitudes, understanding and engagement by our staff have significantly improved. These changes are outlined below:

• increase of 15% of staff present at a welcome/acknowledgement of country;

• of those that attended, they strongly agreed that:

- they learnt something +29%;

- they enjoyed the event +33%;

- they felt more positive towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and culture +20%; and

• increase of 7% from (5%->12%) of respondents that answered yes to delivering a Welcome to Country or an Acknowledgement of Country.


3. Self-Assessment Process

(i) description of the self-assessment team (SAT)

The SAT was selected to reflect staff diversity across a range of grades and job roles, both academic and non-academic, and includes students at post-graduate and undergraduate levels. The SAT is also representative of the diversity at the Institute in terms of gender, caring responsibilities, cultural background, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and sexual orientation. The increased profile of gender equity created a perception that involvement on the SAT was prestigious and important work. Table 2 identifies all individuals who were actively involved in the SAT.

Table 2 SAT membership

Gender (1)

Institute Role (2)

Career Stage

(3)

Name SAT Role Job Background M/W A, RS, PS EC, MC, L

Terry Speed (Stepped down February 2018)

Chair/ Team leader: Organisational and Culture

Honorary Laboratory Head: Bioinformatics

Previously co-chair - GEiSC, member of WiSPP, major donor to SAGE and ECEC.

M A L

Louise Johansson Project lead/team leader: Transgender, Intersectionality and Indigenous women.

Diversity and Inclusion Manager

Previously worked with UK equality and human rights commission. Identifies: LGBTIQ+.

W PS L

Louise Naughton Project co-ordinator Diversity and Inclusion officer: People and Culture

Previous research in domestic violence in the workplace.

W PS EC

Elizabeth McMahon (joined 10/2017)

Team leader: Data collection

Head of People and Culture

Carer. Previous implementation of flexible work policies.

W PS L

Isabelle Lucet Team Leader: Career Transition and Career Development.

Laboratory Head: Chemical Biology

Utilises purchased leave for caring. Member of Faculty Recruitment Advisory Committee.

W A L

Christine White SAT member/ Assisted group leader: Flexibility

Senior Postdoctoral Fellow: Cancer & Haematology Division

Carer: utilised part-time work over 11 years.

W A ML

Robbie Bonelli SAT member Postgraduate Student: Population Health and Immunity

Identifies as LGBTIQ+. Led Midsumma Pride march. WESA LGBTIQ+ representative

M A EC

Kim Pham SAT member Postdoctoral Fellow: Immunology Division

Ethnic minority background. Took maternity leave and has elder care responsibilities.

W A ML

Merrin Fabre (joined 2017)

Communications lead

Internal Communication Manager

Ethnic minority background. Previous Co-chair Reconciliation Committee. Experience in D&I work.

W PS L

Esther Bandala Team member Senior Postdoctoral Fellow: Population Health and Immunity Division

LGBTIQ+ and co-led Institute’s inaugural Midsumma Pride march.

W A ML

Jason Brouwer Team member Postdoctoral Fellow: Structural Biology Division

Co-chair/Chair of Reconciliation Committee.

M A ML


Gender (1)

Institute Role (2)

Career Stage

(3)

Name SAT Role Job Background M/W A, RS, PS EC, MC, L

Aaron Jex (joined 2017)

Team member Laboratory Head: Population Health and Immunity Division

Institute nominated peer reviewer.

M A L

Izzie Kong Team member Postgraduate Student: Immunology Division

Ethnic minority background. President of the Student Association.

W A EC

Rhiannon Morris (joined 2017)

Team member Postgraduate Student: Structural Biology Division

Student representative. W A EC

Catia Pierotti Team Member Postgraduate student: Chemical Biology Division

Member of the Student Association.

W A EC

Zoe Grant Team member Postgraduate Student: Development and Cancer Division

Student representative. W A EC

*Marnie Blewitt (2016-2017)

Team Leader: Flexibility

Division and Laboratory Head: Molecular Medicine

Carer. Previously GEiSC co-chair, current chair of Education Committee

W A L

*Melanie Bahlo (2016)

Team member Division and Laboratory Head: Population Health and Immunity

Utilised flexible working for caring responsibilities.

W A L

*Carmela Monger (2016-2017)

Team member Intellectual Property & Contracts Manager, Business Development Office

Professional Services representative.

W PS L

*Mikara Robati (2016)

Team member Research Assistant: Molecular Genetics of Cancer Division

From an ethnic minority background and single parent.

W RS ML

*Delphine Merino (2016- 2017)

Team member Senior Postdoctoral Fellow: Stem Cells and Cancer Division

Postdoctoral representative. W A ML/L

*Rita Tiziani (2016-17)

Team member Senior Officer: People and Culture Department

Elder care responsibilities. W PS ML

*Fran Boyd (2016)

Team leader: Data collection

Head of People and Culture

W PS L

*Lee Byrne (2015-2016)

Team Leader: Communication lead

Communication Manager

W PS L

Woman or Man (M/W) Academic(A), Research Service(RS) or Professional Service (PS)Early-career(EC), Mid-career (MC), Leadership (L)

*Left the SAT

1 2 3

Despite our best attempts, women are over-represented on the SAT. We sought to address this imbalance by creating an Athena SWAN Advocates program (see below) which was successful in engaging broader participation and input from across the organisation.


(ii) An account of the self-assessment process

A leadership team was established and leaders were assigned groups based on their skills and experience. Group 1: Data collection, Group 2: Career Transition and Career Development, Group 3: Flexibility, Group 4: Organisational Culture and Group 5: Transgender, Intersectionality and Indigenous women. The remaining SAT members either nominated a group of their choice or were assigned to a group to equalise the workload.

The SAT met quarterly and as required (11 meetings in total) to discuss the findings from the analysis, discuss strategies and assess progress. This enabled a systematic approach that linked the different parts of the application. The SAT leadership team held monthly meetings (17 meetings in total), and each leader presented the progress of their group. Leaders also held meetings with their groups as necessary.

Updates were provided to the DISC, Faculty group and GEiSC as a standing item to the quarterly meetings.

Work began with extracting quantitative employment data from Institute systems. Gaps were subsequently identified, and further data was collected.

The Institute’s systems are not well equipped for collection of gender and diversity and inclusion data, making it difficult to extract reliable data. Improved systems and processes would make reporting more streamlined and support evidence-based decision making.

Action 3-1: Ensure capacity to collect gender and other forms of equity data is incorporated into the development of new business systems (ideally capturing key employee life stages such as application and exit).

Qualitative data collection was undertaken in year 2. Some groups were able to address most of their section with the quantitative data and then work closely with Group 1 to create graphical representations of key data.

Administrative support for the SAT was provided by the Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) project officer. All meetings had agendas to specifically address work aims, minutes were taken, and actions were actively monitored in subsequent meetings.

At the beginning of 2017, a SAT workshop was held to develop initial actions. Further actions were then developed in another SAT workshop. The interim report was produced and communicated across the Institute. Feedback was provided to guide the next steps.

Additional activities included:

• Athena SWAN Launch

• Athena SWAN Advocates (ASA) program, where 270 employees signed up to endorse the Athena SWAN principles, calling out sexism and the ‘50:50 if not why not’ campaign;

• a series of five workshops, conducted by Professor Sharon Bell from the ANU with around 150 staff and students from across the Institute to fill data gaps and test the appropriateness of potential actions;

• qualitative evidence gathering for this application, through an all staff and student gender equity survey carried out in 2017 with a response rate of almost 50%;

• screening of the film ‘Hidden Figures,’ a biographical drama about African-American women mathematicians;

• ongoing internal communications through articles and an internal webpage; and

• a presentation at the AMMRI AGM to promote the work and encourage sector participation.


Diagram 1 Reporting line for the Athena SWAN pilot

In order to streamline and maximise people’s contributions in these sessions, evidence gathered from previous surveys and consultations, including the 2016 Culture Survey, 2010 postdoctoral survey and the 2016 Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, was utilised.

The SAT is incorporated into the Institute’s governance structure both through the GEiSC and the DISC. The DISC is chaired by the director. The deputy director Strategy and Operations and head of People and Culture also sit on these committees. Other members of the DISC are the chairs of the RC, the FRAC, the GEiSC, and the implementation leader for the MCC program. All members advise on progress and inform the group of issues and successes, which enables the SAT to inform and be informed by wider Institute work.

(iii) Plans for the future of the SAT

Our whole-of-institute approach to the gender equity action plan ensures we have a roadmap for tackling the key gender equity issues across our workforce.

The ongoing work of the SAT is currently under review. There is considerable cross-over between the SAT and GEiSC, and we are considering merging the two groups into a new Gender Equity Committee with responsibility for delivering the action plan and reporting on progress through the DISC. This will assist in minimising fatigue and increasing engagement. The Terms of Reference of the RC and its use of the RAP to drive and focus its work has been examined as a potential model to adopt. The current SAT will remain in place until any new governance arrangements are in place.

Resourcing of the activities in the plan will come via the D&I budget and consequently, the D&I manager is responsible for providing the program outline and business case for this work in consultation with the SAT and DISC. This is then approved by the deputy director, Strategy and Operations and the Institute Board (Diagram 1).

The Institute has committed to additional investment to deliver the new programs outlined in the gender equity action plan, which has been endorsed by the deputy director, the director and the Institute Board.

Board

Executive

People and Culture

DirectorDISC

SAT

GEISC

FRAC

Head, People and Culture

Deputy Director: Strategy and Operations

D&I Manager


4. A Picture of the Institute

Employment structure and how it impacts attraction, retention and success.

4.1 (i)Academic and research staff by grade and gender (career pipeline)

Figure 4 shows the percentages of women and men at each academic level over the last seven years in a series of “scissor graphs”. These all have the same general form, showing the percentage of women either equals or exceeds that of men at levels A and B, but from level C onwards, men are in the majority, with the gap widening strikingly at level E. However, the trends indicate the Institute’s initiatives are having a positive impact, including a reduction in the gender gap between level A and B, an increased number of women at level C and a reduced gender gap at level D and E, the latter from about 90% to about 80%.

The Institute has been concerned about the blockages in the pipeline for at least the period depicted by the data. Most actions aimed at achieving gender equity since 2009, including financial support for women with childcare responsibilities, creating a more flexible and family friendly workplace and greater oversight over faculty recruitment have been aimed at increasing the representation of women at levels C and above. The new scientific capability framework being developed in 2018 will further enhance this ongoing process. Our publicly stated goal is to have 40% women laboratory heads and 25% women division heads by 2020.

Further discussion of how recruitment and promotion impact on the career pipeline is discussed in 5.1.

Figure 4 Academic levels from 2010-2016

Divided by categories (scissors plot)

The following plot shows the proportions of employees by gender through by year and academic rank.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E0

25

50

75

1002010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Category

Perc

enta

ge

Women Men

Divided by categories (scissors plot)The following plot shows the proportions of employees by gender through by year and academic rank.

KeyUniversity equivalent

CODE CLASSIFICATION COMMENTS

A RO Research officer Early career postdoc

B SRO Senior Research Officer Mid-career postdoc

C SRF Senior Research Fellow Laboratory head entry level

D PRF Principal research fellow Senior laboratory head on D level some appointed by NHMRC

E SPRF Senior principal research fellow Division Head level


4.1 (ii) Academic and research staff on fixed-term, open ended/permanent and casual contracts by gender.

As a research-only institution dependent on grant or donor funding, the Institute has very few permanent employees. The overwhelming majority of our staff, and essentially all research staff (>99%) are on fixed-term contracts, with a few on casual contracts (<1%). Of the fixed-term contracts, women make up 40% and men 60%, reflecting the gender split of all academic staff.

For academic staff, median contract length is between 12 months and 24 months and there is largely gender parity in contract length. When contract lengths are broken down by occupation category there is wide variation: the median length is 12 months for postdoctoral fellows and scientists, animal services and research technicians; 24 months for administrative and infrastructure support; 36 months for scientists, and 48 months for senior scientists.

In 2016, new laboratory head contracts were increased from five to seven years to ensure ample time to establish a laboratory.

Contract length is a recognised area of concern for Institute staff. Job security was highlighted as a key concern in the Institute’s Culture Survey in 2016. Contract length was also raised in the Institute’s 2017 gender equity workshops where some staff expressed a concern that their contract length did not correctly reflect the funding term, and some felt that contract length was being used as a performance management tool. Staff also noted a wide variation in practice across the different parts of the Institute.

The Institute recognises that short contract lengths add to stress in an industry that already experiences high levels of uncertainty. It is Institute convention that wherever possible, staff are redeployed into suitable roles when contracts associated with grant funding end.

Action 4-1 Develop and communicate guidance on contract length, (including expectation that the length of contract should correspond to the funding term), and the management process for renewal and assessment to managers.

Action 4-2: Monitor the application of new guidelines for contract length for any gender differences and report to the GEiSC and DISC annually

Section 4.1 (iii) Academic staff by contract function and gender: research-only, research and teaching and teaching-only.

The Institute is a research-only Institution that is formally constituted as an independent company limited by guarantee. For teaching purposes, we act as the department of Medical Biology within the University of Melbourne (UoM). Teaching at the Institute is restricted to supervision of Honours, Masters and PhD students, and the occasional expository lecture.

The primary supervisors for PhD students are predominantly at the division and laboratory head level, and the proportion of men to women supervisors reflects that profile. PhD students themselves are approximately 57% women and 43% men, and women laboratory heads tend to have a higher proportion of women students than do laboratory heads that are men (see table 3).

Table 3 Gender of Supervisors and PHD students 2014-17

Primary PhD Supervisors

Men Women Total PhD Students Men Women Total

2014-2017 38 25 63 2014-2017 45 60 105

60% 40% 43% 57%


Section 4.1 (iv) Academic leavers by grade and gender

Figure 5 shows the departures from the Institute for the last seven years. Departures for women were 20% per annum from level A, 13% from level B, 1% from levels C and D combined, and a negligible rate from level E. Overall, women and men tend to leave the Institute in the ratio 4:3. The labour market analysis referenced under 5.2 also indicated that women leaving at Level A is an area that requires further analysis.

The Institute provides an exit form for optional completion. In 2016 the Institute standardised the exit forms making it easier to collate responses. While this new exit form has improved the data collection, it is paper-based and is still not well used. Forms have only been completed in a small number of cases and provide insufficient information to identify themes regarding why people leave.

Action 4-3: Develop and implement an easy to use on-line exit-survey form and analyse data disaggregated by gender. Report annually on key findings to the GEiSC and DISC, including actions to address any issues identified.

Figure 5 Departures for each academic rank, by gender, aggregated across all years (2010-2016).

Category

Perc

enta

ge d

epar

ting

Female Male

Question 4.1 iv - Academic Leavers by Grade and Gender (referalso to exit forms)

The following plot shows the proportion of leavers for each academic rank. The data has been aggregated(mean) across all years (2010-2016) since there were not enough observations.

0

5

10

15

20

A B C+D E


Section 4.1 (v) Equal Pay audits

The Institute commissioned its first independent equal pay review by Mercer in 2017 to forensically examine salaries across the organisation and identify any gender pay gaps and potential causes.

The review confirmed the Institute does not have a like-for-like pay gap.

Gender pay gaps were identified at the organisation–wide and job-family levels. The organisation-wide pay gap was 18.1% which is less than the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) organisation-wide industry benchmarks (19.9% for scientific research services and 20.7% for all industries). The job-family pay gaps were: academics: 13.2%; technical laboratory based: 3.3% and professional services: 16.1%. The Mercer review attributed the organisation-wide and job-family gender pay gaps to men disproportionately occupying the more senior jobs across the Institute.

At level-by-level (for example, all staff at level A or Higher Education Worker (HEW) level 10), there are particular hot-spots, predominantly within the most senior levels in professional services. This largely reflects the individualised nature of these positions with only one incumbent in each role.

The review also examined the impact of occupational segregation. Occupational segregation was present in a number of key areas (refer to Table 1).

The review found that occupation categories dominated by men, for example engineering and IT, are mostly in professional or higher levels of the organisation and make up 11% of the workforce while conversely, occupational categories dominated by women, like animal technicians and research technicians are mostly in para-professional or lower levels of the organisation, and make up almost 30% of the entire workforce.

Action 4-4: Conduct pay audit review every two years and further investigate the job value and pay scale anomalies of senior roles in Professional Services and address any inequities found.

Action 4-5: Address gender segregation in Professional Services by:

• Implementing and monitoring targets for improving gender representation in professional service departments

• Communicating the lessons learned from improving gender representation in graduate IT recruitment and apply to areas exhibiting high levels of gender segregation.

Refer also to Action 5-9 regarding new academic promotion process and addressing barriers to women’s academic promotion.


5 Supporting and Advancing Women’s Careers

5.1 Key Career Transition Points: Academic Staff

5.1(i) Recruitment

Until recently, the Institute did not systematically collect the gender of applicants for advertised positions. Systematic collection of shortlisted candidates commenced in January 2018 and analysis will be presented to the GEiSC and DISC regularly.

Action 5-1: Record all applications, shortlists and appointments disaggregated by gender and academic level and report quarterly to the GEiSC and DISC.

The Institute undertook a position-by-position analysis of the laboratory head recruitment process over the period 2009 to 2016 (excluding 2013 as unable to obtain data) - see Figures 6a and 6b. Direct appointments have been excluded so the following analysis only applies to externally advertised positions.

Figure 6a Lab Head recruitment to 2009-2012.

Men Women

26%20%80%

70% 30%

54% 67%

MenShortlisted

WomShor

Rejected Appointed

74%

MenRejected

WomenRejected

46%100%100% 33%

Men Women

44%36%64%

70% 30%

62% 40%

MenShortlisted

WomenShortlisted

Rejected Appointed

56%

MenRejected

WomenRejected

38%100%100% 60%

Applicantions

After advertising the positionWEHI receinves applications

of interest.

Applications by women havea shortlist rate of 44% while

applications by men only 36%.

After candidates have appliedWEHI shortlists the bestapplicants that will be

interviewed.

Shortlisted applicants get interviewed by a panelof experts that make the

final decision whetherto appoint the applicant or

to reject it.

Sucess rate for menjumps to 62% while women

success rate for women drops to 40%.

Shortlisting

Appointment

Applicantions

After sponsorising the positionWEHI receinves applications

of interest.

Women application havea shortlist rate of 26% whilemale application only 20%.


interviewed.



to reject it.

Male sucess rate at this pointjumps to 54% and women

success rate increase to67%.

Shortlisting

Appointment


Both Figure 6a & 6b show the application pool as 70% men and 30% women. For both periods, women were shortlisted at a higher rate, 6a. (44% women v. 36% men) and 6b (26% women v. 20% men).

The two figures diverge at the appointment phase. For the period shown in 6a, men were appointed at higher rate than women (40% women v. 62% men) while for the period shown in 6b, women were appointed at a higher rate than men (67% women v. 54% men), indicating an improved success rate for women at the interview stage over the two periods.

The FRAC was established in 2016 to support the Institute to achieve 50/50 gender balance in scientific leadership. The FRAC monitors all parts of the recruitment process for laboratory and division head recruits, and particular effort has been made to ensure there is gender balance in applications. The FRAC has assisted the Institute to start to proactively identify women candidates. As a first step to broadening the talent pool, the Institute has developed a ‘Rising Star App’ with a focus on tracking high potential women in science.

The Institute will continue to monitor all phases of the recruitment process with a particular focus on advertising and attracting applications from women, as this represented the largest gender gap in the laboratory head data analysis.

Figure 6b Lab Head recruitment by gender (2014-2016)

Men Women

26%20%80%

70% 30%

54% 67%

MenShortlisted

WomShor

Rejected Appointed

74%

MenRejected

WomenRejected

46%100%100% 33%

Men Women

44%36%64%

70% 30%

62% 40%

MenShortlisted

WomenShortlisted

Rejected Appointed

56%

MenRejected

WomenRejected

38%100%100% 60%

Applicantions

After advertising the positionWEHI receinves applications

of interest.

Applications by women havea shortlist rate of 44% while

applications by men only 36%.


interviewed.



to reject it.

Sucess rate for menjumps to 62% while women

success rate for women drops to 40%.

Shortlisting

Appointment

Applicantions

After sponsorising the positionWEHI receinves applications

of interest.

Women application havea shortlist rate of 26% whilemale application only 20%.


interviewed.



to reject it.

Male sucess rate at this pointjumps to 54% and women

success rate increase to67%.

Shortlisting

Appointment


Action 5-2: Monitor and promote gender representation in all faculty recruitment and selection procedures and report quarterly to GEiSC and DISC.

Action 5-3: Monitor gender equity in Rising Star and talent development program cohorts and report annually to the GEiSC and DISC.

Broader Institute data collected in the 2017 gender equity survey indicated men were more likely than women to be appointed through a direct appointment or internal process while women were more likely than men to be appointed though reclassification or other process – see Figure 7.

Women respondents were more likely to have a woman manager than men (44% of women compared to 27% of men). Research on unconscious bias indicates affinity bias may lead people to favour candidates who are like themselves. The Institute implemented an unconscious bias education program in 2017 which was attended by over 120 employees. The program was very successful in raising awareness. Further work is planned to address unconscious bias including the development of a toolkit. Section 5.2 outlines other activities the Institute has and intends to take to address unconscious bias in recruitment.

Figure 7 Appointment to current position (Gender Equity Survey 2017)

Q44: A man Q44: A woman

Appointment to current position

45%40%35%30%25%20%15%10%5%5%

External recruitment process

Internal recruitment process

Direct appointment

Reclassification

Prefer not to say

Unsure

Other (please specify)


Action 5-4: Publish and communicate to all staff a new recruitment and selection policy and procedure with a focus on addressing unconscious bias.

Action 5-5: Publish and circulate a toolkit for managers to support them to recognise and eliminate unconscious bias.

Action 5-6: Implement a de-identified candidate recruitment trial to counter the effect of unconscious bias and report on findings to FRAC, GEiSC and DISC.

There has not been a dedicated focus on the recruitment of other underrepresented groups, however the unconscious bias training is a first step to address this. Initial actions to address this issue are outlined in sections 7 and 8 related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and minority women. Improved data collection and evidence gathering will form the foundation for further work.

For initiatives impacting on recruitment for underrepresented groups refer to Actions 7-1 and 8-4.

5.1(ii) Induction

The Institute’s induction process provides all new employees with a standard set of employment documentation and signposting to intranet resources. The Institute’s New Starter Guide includes information on flexible working arrangements, meeting times, leave and holidays (including parental leave). New employees are also required to complete online compliance related training through the e-learning platform which includes a module on Equal Employment Opportunity. This is complemented with department or laboratory specific courses or training.

Staff feedback at the gender equity workshops indicated it would be beneficial to improve knowledge and access to workplace policies and entitlements, particularly related to flexibility and parental leave. The Institute plans to incorporate additional diversity, gender and inclusion information into the induction process.

Action 5-7: Implement new Institute induction processes to include information on gender equity, and diversity and inclusion (including information on key policies, committees and initiatives).

Action 5-8: Publish and communicate a brochure outlining the key components of the Institute’s parental leave and flexible working policies and incorporate into the induction pack.


5.3(iii) Promotion

Limited quantitative data on the eligible cohort makes meaningful analysis of promotion difficult. Figure 8 shows women are promoted at a higher percentage to level B (from level A) and there is then a reduction in the rate at which women are promoted from senior postdoc (level B) to laboratory head (level C/D) positions. The promotion rate from laboratory head (C/D) to division head (E) is similar for men and women.

The Mercer Internal labour market analysis which included both academic and professional staff indicated that in aggregate over the last two years men have been promoted at twice the rate of women across the promotion pipeline (11.3% versus 5.3%).

The gender equity survey highlighted that:

• women respondents were 10% less likely than men to respond that their applications for another position involved a promotion or advancement (63% women v. 73% men). Additionally, 11% of women reported being not sure of outcome or outcome unknown compared to 0% of men; and

• 31% of respondents stated that they did not have an effective mentor in the Institute. A higher proportion of men (8% higher) than women responded that they had an effective mentor.

Figure 8 Promotions over the eligible cohort (2010-2015)

100%

0%

50%

75%

25%

Category

Per

cent

age

of e

ligib

le c

ohor

t pro

mot

ed

Female

From A to B From B to C/D From C/D to E

Gender Male


The current promotion process has not been well documented. The uncertainty of promotion pathways was raised in the focus groups, where transparency and fairness in promotion/recruitment were cited as barriers to gender equity in a number of sessions. Improving the transparency of the promotion processes through Advancing and Developing Exceptional People (ADEPt) is well advanced and incorporates consideration of unconscious bias.

The Institute has commenced a project to support the professional development processes for academics, including producing a scientific capability framework that outlines the skills, behaviours and attributes for academic roles and levels. This will provide a transparent framework to inform the promotion assessment process.

As part of a renewed focus on career development and leadership capability, the Institute has also set up a panel of leadership coaches (comprising nine women, six men) to support our emerging, mid-career and senior leaders.

Action 5-9: Develop and implement a new academic promotion process to address the barriers to women’s academic promotion by implementing a targeted program to support/prepare women post-docs and senior post-docs to successfully apply for promotion (see below).

Action 5-10: Review the membership and Terms of Reference for the Faculty Review Committee (FRC) to enable it to oversee all academic promotions from academic levels B-(C/D) and (C/D)- E.

Action 5-11: FRC to report annually to the GEiSC, DISC and Board on gender breakdown of promotion application and success rate.

Wider Institute Action: Develop a new academic promotion process and supporting documentation including:

• KPIs expected to be achieved for renewal of academic positions.

• Milestone conversations.

• Systematic career discussions.

• Schedule annual information session/s to support the academic promotion process with supporting resources on intranet. Initial session to be scheduled to align with call for promotion applications.

• Review the membership and Terms of References of the FRC to enable it to handle all academic promotions.


5.1(iv) Higher Education research data collection

Table 4 shows the raw data of both Institute success and NHMRC success percentage broken down by gender over three years. The results fluctuate greatly but overall the Institute has a higher success rate for women scientists compared to the average observed at the NHRMC.

The 2017 gender equity survey indicated that 55% of women respondents had written or contributed to writing a grant application compared to 77% of men. Furthermore, 62% of women respondents received no awards compared to 54% of men. While it is undoubtedly a larger issue than simply the internal processes of the Institute, there is still more that we can do to help support women in applying for funding.

Action 5-12: Develop and implement a program targeted specifically at supporting women’s success in nationally competitive grant programs.

Action 5-13: Collect gender disaggregated data on the Institute’s grant applications and grant successes and report to the GEiSC, DISC and Board annually.

Early Career Fellowships 2014 2015 2016

WEHI

Success Rate for Female Applicants 33% 17% 75%

Success Rate for Male Applicants 0% 25% 40%

NHMRC



Career Development Fellowships 2014 2015 2016

WEHI



NHMRC



Research Fellowships 2014 2015 2016

WEHI



NHMRC



Table 4 Percentage of successful applicants by gender for WEHI and NHMRC (years 2014-2016)


5.2 Career Development: Academic Staff

5.2(i) Training

Leadership/management training:

The Institute places a strong focus on developing leaders. Management and leadership training currently offered to senior and emerging leaders at the Institute includes the Mobius, Williamson Leadership Program, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Leadership Program, Chief Executive Women Leadership Program, Centre for Ethical Leadership Vincent Fairfax Fellowship program and the Committee for Melbourne Future Focus Group programs. Individual coaching is also offered through a coaching panel. Participation in these programs is recorded using the Institute’s learning management system, however this is not systematically monitored.

Historically all new laboratory heads and division heads were offered the opportunity to attend a leadership and management program related to their role, which while highly encouraged, was not compulsory. There was mixed feedback regarding the programs provided and the Institute recently piloted an Induction program for new laboratory heads and division heads. The pilot has received positive feedback. More broadly there is an opportunity to provide new leaders with a development program that is tailored to different learning styles and development needs and addresses the specific needs of women.

Action 5-14: Monitor and report on leadership/management training participation and evaluation by gender to the GEiSC, DISC and Board.

Action 5-15: Implement individual development plans for new scientific leaders to facilitate the development of leadership capabilities, which will address the specific needs of women.

Diversity and Equity training:

As mentioned earlier, the Institute provided a number of sessions of unconscious bias awareness training in 2016, with a focus on senior leaders and managers. This training explored the types of unconscious bias and the identification of key bias hotspots as the Institute.

These sessions were well attended with over 120 staff (2/3 attendees were women), including 12 division heads, 50 laboratory heads and 16 department heads. The feedback from the sessions was overwhelming positive with over 78% of participants agreeing that the knowledge gained in the workshops would assist them in their role. Leaders requested additional training with a focus on practical applications of the content. A second phase of training is being delivered in 2018 which will deliver two workshops and a toolkit that will be accessible to all leaders.

Action 5-16: Conduct inclusive leadership training with managers to increase staff awareness and address unconscious bias in key decision-making processes.


5.2(ii) Appraisal/development review

Research

During the last year of Laboratory or Division Head contracts, staff undergo a review of their performance and provide supporting documentation, such as ‘career-best’ papers and details of any career breaks. Over the past two years, staff have also undergone a 360-degree review. Women laboratory heads who take primary carer’s leave are provided an extension to their contract which increases their review date by a year (per child).

To provide oversight and fairness to the review process, the FRC - which consists of senior scientific leaders - provides advice and recommendations to the director. If the laboratory head or division head review is successful, they will then be renewed for a further five years.

The Institute has not had a systematic process to support a post-doctoral performance and development.

Apart from the end of contract review described above, there is currently no performance development scheme in place for academics at level C and above. It was strongly expressed by both men and women at gender equity workshops that there is a need for clear expectations and requirements for senior scientific positions. Staff also reported that it was important to provide a structured and safe environment to give feedback and to ensure that senior women receive mentoring as part of the process. It was also felt that laboratory head position descriptions lack review elements and 360-degree feedback, which have subsequently been implemented.

The ADEPt project commenced in 2017 with a specific focus on attracting and developing Exceptional People.

Wider Institute Action: Implement ADEPt:

• Develop and implement a scientific capability, career development and performance development and planning frameworks which will include recognition of service, contributions and citizenship.

• Develop and implement a talent identification and development program.

• Develop and implement a program to support alternate career pathways in science.

• Implement individual development plans for new leaders to support and facilitate the development of leadership capabilities across the Institute.

• Develop and implement leadership workshops to build skills in giving and receiving feedback and coaching skills, incorporating techniques for managing unconscious bias during performance conversations and career planning discussions.

Students and their supervisors follow the UoM protocol for assessment/appraisal.

Professional Services

A performance and development process was implemented for professional services staff in 2015 and reviewed in 2017. The process includes a series of conversations between staff and their manager throughout the year in conjunction with a plan detailing work goals, career development and future opportunities. Development opportunities are tailored to individual needs. Annual salary increases are aligned with positive performance.


5.2(iii) Support given to academic staff for career progression

The GEiSC has run various activities including women in science lunches and lectures and a post-doctoral mentoring program. There is no formal program currently in place related to supporting career progression but this is being addressed through the significant career development program (ADEPt) to be implemented in 2018, as described under 5.2 (ii). This program will be further enhanced by targeted support as set out in the actions below. Institute staff have also been involved in various activities under the WiSPP program focussed on post-doctoral scientists including cross-sector mentoring and science communications.

Action 5-17: Run and expand on our, ‘Lunch and learn’ series for senior leaders bringing in leaders from diverse organisations to share their personal experiences on inclusive leadership.

Action 5-18: Run quarterly cross-sector/discipline networking events for women in science.

Action 5-19: Implement a pilot shadowing scheme program to build leadership skills by matching women researchers with senior leaders in medical research, academia and industry.

Action 5-20: Run a series of small group lunches on themes of importance for women academics, to provide networking opportunities and peer support.

Conferences are viewed as an important component of supporting career progression for research scientists. Laboratory heads are expected to encourage and support their staff to attend conferences. Staff apply for conference and travel funding to their division heads. The Craven and Shearer Award assists post-doctoral women with children to attend conference.

Data from the gender equity survey highlighted that in the last two years, 35% of women respondents had not attended any national conferences compared to 18% of their colleagues who are men. One third of the women indicated caring responsibilities as the reason for not attending. Other reasons cited were lack of funding and time constraints.

Half of the women had not been to any international conferences in the last two years compared to 32% of men. The women indicated lack of funding and travel grants as the reason for not attending in 38% of cases, with caring responsibilities cited in 23% of cases.

Action 5-21: Launch a women’s grants program aimed at early and mid-career researchers to assist them with conference travel and other professional development opportunities.

Action 5-22: Implement a ‘reverse sabbatical’ award for early and mid-career women researchers, including the provision of funding to bring an international collaborator to the Institute.


5.3 Flexible working and managing career breaks 5.3(i) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: before leaveAll staff wishing to take parental leave as either a primary or secondary carer work with their manager and People and Culture business partner to discuss their options and arrangements for taking leave and flexible working. The business partner will also explain the financial support available to parents such as Craven and Shearer and Page-Betheras awards for women in science and how they can apply for the support.

Information related to parental leave and family friendly working is accessible through the Institute’s intranet, including the Institute’s parental leave policy. The policy was revised in 2017 to incorporate current best practice and is gender neutral and inclusive of LGBTIQ+ families; provides additional leave for single parents and flexibility for couples at the Institute; and increases leave entitlement for secondary carers from one to four weeks.

The Institute has recognised the need to better communicate the support provided for families, which was also raised during the gender equity workshops. A communication plan is being developed.

Refer to Actions 5-7 and 5-8: re improved induction including parental leave and flexible working policies.

The Institute ensures that no employee contracts ends while parents are on parental leave. People and Culture business partners contact the relevant manager to make a decision on whether they intend to extend or renew the contract before the staff member goes on leave. On return from leave, a minimum of three months remaining on the contract is standard practice.

5.3(ii) Cover and support for maternity leave and adoption leave: during leaveThe Institute recognises that for women scientists, one of the greatest impediments to making the transition from postdoctoral fellow to laboratory head is the potential for reduced productivity when taking maternity leave.

The Institute has led the sector through the Page-Betheras Award which has provided $501,280 for support to 28 women since 2012. The Page Betheras Award provides additional technical support for postdoctoral women researchers and women laboratory heads taking maternity leave. The timing of the support is flexible to suit the individual, and can be taken while the employee is on maternity leave, after her return to work or a combination of both.

When on maternity leave, employees are entitled to 10 paid ‘keeping in touch days’ designed to keep employees connected to the Institute and their work and assist in the transition back to work. The Institute believes gains could be made by formalising a program for those on or returning from parental leave.

Action 5-23: Implement and communicate the transition support program for all carers at the Institute moving out/into workforce to include:

• keeping in touch program

• buddy network to support staff when returning to work

• transition coaching.

The gender equity survey found that 55% of women work while on parental leave (range of hours per week: 2 peaks at 10-15 hours and 1-4 hours). The Institute aims to give staff maximum choice and flexibility in terms of how and when they use their leave. For example, a laboratory head can request to work for one day a fortnight during their paid leave and leave is adjusted accordingly. Information on the support available during parental leave is available on the staff intranet.


5.3(iii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: return to work.

The Institute offers financial assistance to support women scientists on their return to work.

Craven & Shearer Awards of up to $15,000 per year are available to outstanding women postdoctoral fellows and laboratory heads to assist with the cost of childcare for pre-school-age children. The Award was created in recognition that the transition from postdoctoral scientist to laboratory head and, from there, to more senior roles often corresponds to the early years of having and raising children, with a strong potential for career disruption.

Funds can be used to offset the out-of-pocket costs of regular childcare fees, costs of securing a childcare place before returning to work; and/or to contribute to additional after-hours childcare that would allow work to be done that would otherwise not be possible, such as attending a conference, meeting, or experiment going into the evening. Assistance with childcare payment is seen as a means to assist outstanding women scientists to maximise research opportunities and progress toward their high potential in a research career. The Institute has been able to assist over 45 women with total funding of $706,470.

The new on-site childcare centre will provide a major support for parents returning to work and will cater for children from three months to five years. Other existing supports include family and lactation rooms.

The Institute also supports people with family responsibilities to access flexible working arrangements to help them balance their family and work responsibilities which are outlined in section (vi) below.

The period between an initial seven-year appointment and renewal of this position often coincides with bearing and raising children. The Institute provides women laboratory heads with an additional 12 months (per child) before they are assessed for appointment renewal.

5.3(iv) Maternity return rate

Data in Figure 9, shows that the maternity return rate ranges from 100% to 86% over the three years, indicating positively the majority of staff return from maternity leave. A breakdown by academic and professional services staff was not available, so no comparisons can be made between the two groups. Reasons for departure were not recorded.

Figure 9 Total number of women who took maternity leave and total number that returned (2014-2016)

Commenced

Num

ber o

f sta

ff

2013/14

29 29

100% 86% 87%

2014/15 2015/16

50

0

Returned Return %

26 24 2131


Figures 10a and 10b show that for academic staff, seniority directly impacts time taken for parental leave - the more senior a person is the less time they take on parental leave. At level C, the length of leave taken did not exceed 6 months.

Professional services staff leave is on average double that of academic staff (just under 12 months and just over 6 months respectively). In addition, seniority of professional service staff does not have the same impact on length of time taken on parental leave as found with the academic women.

Figure 10a Aggregate Time take on maternity leave over 2014-2016 by level

5

10

15

20

25

A B C HEW4 HEW5 HEW6 HEW7 HEW5 HEW6 HEW7 HEW8

Num

ber o

f Mon

ths

in M

ater

nity

Lea

ve

Laboratory HEW

Category

Subcategory Academics Professional Services HEW

Figure 10b Time taken on maternity leave over 2013-2016 by category

Laboratory HEW

2013 2014 2015 2016

Category

Num

ber o

f Mon

ths

in M

ater

nity

Lea

ve

Subcategory Academics Professional Services HEW

Academics Laboratory HEW

Prof Services HEW


Prof Services HEW


Prof Services HEW


Prof Services HEW

5

10

15

20

25


The return to work graphic (Figure 11) shows that professional services women are more likely to return to work after parental leave on a part-time basis compared to their academic colleagues (85% v 72% respectively), and are more likely to remain in a part-time role on a permanent basis (91% v 66% respectively). Some women in our 2017 gender equity survey reported not taking their entitlement of leave because of ‘fear of effect on their career’.

Institute funding for technical and operational support does alleviate some pressure to return to work. We consulted with different groups on the potential to backfill laboratory head level (C/D) roles while the staff member is on maternity leave. The overwhelming perception was that leadership on scientific direction and collaborations can only be undertaken by the laboratory head. This combined with authorship makes backfilling these roles challenging.

Maternity leave replacement roles in other parts of the Institute can provide a development opportunity for other less experienced staff.

Action 5-24: Trial a program to improve the transition from/to laboratory head roles after career disruption:

• pilot and evaluate maternity leave replacement roles for laboratory heads, providing 6 months’ salary for an acting laboratory head position.

• pilot and evaluate job shared laboratory head positions with 1 day cross over (.6FTEx2).

• stop clock on contracts for 2 years.

Figure 11 Maternity leave return rate from 2013-2015

Academics Professionals

15%22%72%

60% 40%

34% 9%

AcaFT

ProfFT

Part Time Full Time

85%

AcademicPart Time

ProfessionalPart Time

66% 91% 100% 100%

Intial Leave

WEHI employess are entitledto take paid maternity leaves

At this stage 85% ofprofessionals return part time

Only 72% of academicsdo the same.

After the first period of leaveemployess decide whether

to return at WEHI infull time or part time.

After the first return period employees decide whether

to remain part time oricrease to a full time

contract.

Again only 66% of academicsdecide to remain part-timewhile 91% of academics

make that choice.

Middle Return

Final Return


5.3(v) Paternity, shared parental, adoption and parental leave uptake

Uptake of paternity leave (now called secondary carers leave) is shown in Figure 12, due to small numbers and the previously short leave entitlement (1 week), no clear findings can be made.

32% of men that responded to the gender equity survey reported becoming a father while at the Institute, with 73% of these men accessing paternity leave. 21% of respondent fathers worked during their paternity leave with an even spread across the hours worked (10+, 15+, 20+ and 30+ hours per week).

The feedback from the gender equity workshops was that gender norms continued to place societal pressure on men to be provider and more focus should be given to men taking parental leave and highlighting the benefits to them and their family.

A key focus for the revision of our parental leave policy was to encourage equal sharing of caring responsibilities and help achieve gender equity. The policy recognises a broad definition of family.The policy now provides four weeks of secondary carer’s leave, is gender neutral and there are several components that seek to encourage more uptake and remove any barriers to men accessing parental leave. More assistance is provided to single parent families.

Figure 12 Paternity leave uptake by level

A

B

C

D

H = HEW

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Year

Perc

enta

ge

100%

0%

50%

75%

25%


5.3(vi) Flexible working

The Institute offers a range of flexible working options that are available to all staff. These include flexibility to negotiate working hours; part-time work; shortened working year (46/52 working year); job sharing and home-based work.

Figure 13 shows the number of requests for flexible work between 2014 and 2016. Requests from both academic women and men are relatively low even at levels A and B, although there are some gender differences. Requests for part-time work are far higher in professional services and almost all of these are from women. It should be noted that academic roles are inherently flexible and autonomous so there may be more informal flexible work practices in the academic areas.

The gender equity survey provided valuable feedback on the use and perceptions of flexible working at the Institute. In this context, the broader meanings of flexible work including change of working hours, working from home and other informal flexible working arrangements were considered.

The key findings were:

• similar uptake and success rate (~85%) between genders when applying for flexible working arrangements;

• 10% more men reported complete control over their working hours compared to women (28% vs 17%);

• 40% of respondent men thought men were not actively encouraged to work flexibly at the Institute compared to 16% of women;

• around 25% of staff agreed their commitment to the Institute would be questioned if they chose flexible working options; and

• just over half of staff believed everyone at the Institute was entitled to use flexible working options.

Figure 13 Requests for flexible work. (H = HEW scale)

2016 20162016 2015

2016 2014

A B C D H

0

20

40

60

0

20

40

60

0

20

40

60

Grade

Num

ber o

f req

uest

s

Gender Women Men


Additional supporting feedback from the focus groups held with staff and students indicated an expectation of the need to be ‘seen’ at work, to be available and work long hours.

The gender equity survey found:

• 44% of men and 40% of women respondents stated that caring for children was the reason they requested flexible working (largest category);

• no gender differences were observed in the following categories:

- other caring responsibilities: 28%

- an outside endeavour 17%

- religious observance: 3%

- preferred way of working: 50%; and

• almost 15% more women than men stated they requested flexibility due to disability/mental health/injury. 27% and 13% respectively.

Feedback from the gender equity workshops indicated an opportunity to reinforce a greater range of opportunities for staff to work flexibility and also support leaders to manage a more flexible workforce across the organisation.

Action 5-25: Run a workshop for leaders on how to manage a flexible workforce, including part-time work, job sharing, working from home, time in lieu, flexible start/ finish hours, 46/52 work weeks.

Action 5-26: Publish and disseminate a new flexible work policy and procedure outlining different flexible options and strategies to make flexible working arrangements successful and consider options to improve financial literacy and reduce the financial impact of caring responsibilities on superannuation.

Action 5-27: Run a communications campaign on flexible working and the benefits for staff and managers.

5.3(vii) Transition from part-time back to full-time work

There are no formal supports to assist with the transition from part- to full-time work. As a result, the most informative data is the maternity leave return to work which is discussed in detail in section (iv) above.

5.3(viii) Childcare facilities

In response to feedback from women scientists that access to childcare was the biggest obstacle to career development in medical research, the Institute invested $9.9 million in the construction of a purpose-built 100 place childcare centre on the forecourt of its Parkville campus. The centre, which opens in July 2018, is the first of its kind for a medical research institute in Australia.

The Institute has also established family rooms and lactation rooms at its Parkville and Bundoora campuses to assist employees to attend to the needs of children in the workplace. The family rooms have been established to provide a convenient short-term emergency space for employees who need assistance with the care of their children. The rooms can be used where a parent is unable to make alternative care arrangements for a child recovering from an illness or normal childcare arrangements have broken down at the last minute. The lactation rooms provide a clean, private space for expressing milk and/or breastfeeding.


5.3(ix) Caring responsibilities

Supporting staff with caring responsibilities is currently addressed through the policies outlined above related to parental leave and flexible working, along with financial support for women scientists with pre-school age children.

The gender equity survey found:

• 48% of men and 39% of women are parent/guardian of a child (of any age);

• 12% of staff care for a family member other than a child (men 13% and women 12%); and

• 28% of staff indicated they had other caring responsibilities.

• Men were more likely to cite caring for a sick family member as a need/want for flexible working arrangements (22% men vs. 17% women).

This is the first time we have asked our staff about caring responsibilities outside of childcare. We will build on this baseline data to shape our flexible working and other relevant policies going forward.

Refer also to actions 5-26 and 5-27 above.


5.4 Organisation and Culture

5.4(i) Culture

One of the Institute’s strategic goals, as outlined in our Strategic Plan 2015-2020, is to provide a vibrant and inspiring organisation culture that encourages, promotes and rewards excellence, creativity, mutual respect and collaboration. In recent years the Institute has undergone a significant period of cultural change to embed the values related to the pursuit of gender equity, reconciliation, and diversity and inclusion into everything we do.

In 2016 the Institute undertook a comprehensive culture survey that validated the work being done in this area. Staff agreed the Institute values and respects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and saw gender equity as important to the Institute’s performance and success.

Other ‘signature strengths’ included equal treatment of women and men and intolerance of sex-based harassment (see Figure 14). Strengths including helpfulness of co-workers and being proud of working for the Institute were common for both women and men across the Institute (minor variations to scores only).

Areas for improvement included job security, fair and transparent selection and promotion processes, and feeling safe and knowing how to report bullying. Again, these were common across both genders with only small variations in scores. These issues are being addressed through significant programs led by the director and other senior leaders and referenced throughout this plan.

When analysing the 10 factors that influence culture, the Institute performed well against factors including work-life balance, respected management, and co-worker quality. Areas where average scores were recorded include career development and training opportunities, and pay and benefits. Issues and opportunities in these areas have been further explored as part of the Athena Swan process and are addressed elsewhere in the plan.

See actions under Equal Pay 4.1(v) and Career development 5.2

Figure 14 Institute strenghts by gender (2016 culture survey)

Female Male

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagreeA B C D E F G H I J

A: I am proud to work for the Walter & Eliza Hall InstituteB: In my work group / Laboratory we truly value high quality workC: My manager/Laboratory Head shows respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, history and cultureD: I would like to be working for our institute in 12 monthsE: Gender equity is important to our institutes performance and successF: I would recommend our institute as a good place to workG: I believe our institute values and respects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, culture and historyH: My manager/Laboratory Head treats men and women equallyI: In my work group / Laboratory my co-workers are very helpful when I have a work problemJ: In my work group / Laboratory sex-based harassment is not tolerated


Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of our staff and students is a constant focus for a workforce that is committed to making scientific discoveries in an environment often characterised by long hours, significant funding pressures and limited contract lengths. Stress was identified as a key concern by academic women in the gender equity focus groups.

During Mental Health Week in 2017, the Institute ran a series of sessions for staff and students, focusing on building resilience and managing stress. These were overwhelmingly well received with a net performer score of 57 (from a score of -100 to 100) from 169 attendees, which is considered excellent. The popularity of these sessions combined with feedback from our culture survey, gender equity survey and focus groups has resulted in a commitment to develop our first mental health and wellbeing strategy in 2018.

Wider Institute action - Promote a wellbeing culture through a Wellbeing Strategy:

• developing the skills and ability of our people;

• developing guidance for supervisors and staff;

• raising awareness of mental health and wellbeing; and

• employee led wellbeing initiatives.

The Institute can clearly demonstrate how it has worked to build the Athena SWAN principles into the culture of the organisation.

Our Diversity and Inclusion Strategy states:

We recognise that talent does not sit within a single identifiable group in our society and that the Institute’s ability to shape contemporary scientific thinking

relies on diversity of thought within our organisation and an environment which encourages individual differences and fosters collaboration.

5.4(ii) Human resources (HR) policies As mentioned above, the 2016 culture survey indicated bullying, harassment and discrimination was a key hotspot for the Institute to investigate and address. 22% of respondents stated they had either seen or experienced bullying or harassment or discrimination in the last 12 months. These results require further investigation. In 2017, a program of work was developed to better understand workplace behaviour and how to create a more positive workplace. This included updating and reviewing all policies and procedures related to workplace behaviour and increasing resources to address workplace concerns.

As a follow-up to the culture survey, a workplace behaviour review was conducted by an external provider, which included a survey and interviews with staff and students to further examine and understand the behaviours that might be negatively impacting on Institute culture.

In 2017, the Institute held 10 sessions to raise awareness of appropriate and inappropriate workplace behaviour, and the process for resolving workplace issues. Over half of all staff and students (58%) at the Institute attended the sessions with further sessions included to respond to demand. 75% of professional servive staff and 52% of research staff attended. The gender breakdown of attendees was reflective of the Institute’s gender composition (62% of attendees were women and 38% were men). Attendees reported the sessions as beneficial, improving their knowledge of the options available and how to report concerns over inappropriate workplace behaviour.

To support a safe and positive workplace the Institute established the positive workplace program to review and update the Institute’s People and Culture related policies and procedures, raise awareness, and create a safe environment to encourage reporting of inappropriate workplace behaviour.


Wider Institute action:

The positive workplace program includes:

• a revised workplace behaviour policy;

• new guidelines for resolving workplace conflict and having constructive conversations;

• updated formal complaints procedure overseen by the Head of People and Culture;

• updated investigation process;• team based positive workplace sessions to collectively discuss and agree behaviours

and actions to make team environments more positive; and• training of staff in conflict and issues resolution strategies.

Action 5-28: Monitor uptake of team based positive workplace sessions by gender and report on findings to GEiSC.

More can be done to support and develop staff in their roles as managers and leaders of people. Currently, People and Culture business partners coach leaders in their staff groups and ensure they are kept up-to-date on policies and practices at the Institute. All staff are asked to complete the online compliance modules when they start working at the Institute and are strongly encouraged to attend any face-to-face training offered, such as the recent Appropriate Workplace Behaviour sessions. In addition, at faculty and professional services team leadership meetings any People and Culture updates or developments are communicated and resources provided.

Wider Institute action:

• Implement individual development plans for new leaders to support and facilitate the development of leadership capabilities across the Institute.

5.4 (iii) Heads of school/faculty/department by gender

As a medical research institute, we do not operate a system of schools/faculties/departments, rather a structure of research divisions and independent laboratories. Around 12% of the heads of our 16 research divisions are women, and approximately 30% of the almost 80 heads of our research laboratories are women.

As discussed elsewhere, the Institute has been focussed on addressing this gender disparity at both laboratory and division head levels since 2009 through its GEiSC. More recently, the FRAC has played a central role in defining openings, encouraging a gender balanced set of applicants, and selecting the appointee. The Institute’s strategic plan (2015-2020) includes targets to achieve by 2020: 40% women laboratory heads; 25% women division heads and 25% women Professors. See actions under 5.1-5.2. More ambitious targets will be included in the Institute’s next strategic plan.

Professional services is made up of 13 departments, with 68% headed by women.

Refer to Action 4-5 regarding addressing gender segregation in Professional Services.


5.4(iv) Representation of men and women on senior management committees

The Institute Board and sub-Board committees are the most appropriate groups to analyse in this section. It was found that (Table 5):

• there is low representation of women - on average, 30% of committee members are women and no chairs are women (2016 only);

• Board appointments are determined by sub-Board committees comprising a combination of Board members, external members and Institute management staff.

This was the first gender audit of these committees. The gender imbalance in the membership of the Board and Board sub-committees is recognised and the Institute’s Board Chair is actively addressing this with recent Board appointments. The target is 50:50.

Action 5-29: Monitor the gender representation on key committees, implement 50/50 gender targets and increase transparency by publishing committee information, including membership, on the intranet.

5.4(v) Representation of men and women on influential Institute committees

Institute committees cover a range of areas including education, gender equity and ethics. Membership often includes both permanent and rotating roles, with members usually having expertise in the topic area.

Table 6 indicates:

• gender segregation is occurring with a high percentage of women on committees with a ‘people focus’ including GEISC, engagement and consumer advice;

• the representation of women on these committees is very good with the average percentage of women being 49% and the percentage of women as chairs is 54% (2016 only); and

• GEiSC, the FRAC and the Reconciliation Committee have specifically included a gender representation statement in their Terms of Reference on chairing responsibilities.

Senior management committee % of women 2014

% of women 2015

% of women 2016

Chair (2014, 2015,

2016)Institute Board 31% 36% 27% M, M, M

Human Research Ethics Committee 46% 54% 54% M,M, M

Financial Sustainability Committee renamed Advocacy & Support Committee 43% 43% 56% M, M, M

Appointment and Promotion Review Committee 33% 0% 33% F, M, M

Audit and Risk Committee 27% 25% 36% M, M, M

Commercialisation Committee 0% 18% 18% M, M, M

Investment Committee 27% 25% 17% M, M, M

Remuneration Committee 0% 0% 0% M, M, M

Table 5: Senior management committees (Board and sub-board) % of women over 2014-2016


Refer to Actions 5-29 and 5-30 above.

5.4(vi) Committee workload There is no formal committee workload model at the Institute and committee participation is not routinely included in position descriptions. Despite this, supervisors and managers are responsible for ensuring a balance of core work and committee duties is achieved and to prevent an over-burdening of individuals. However, this may not be well managed in practice. Refer to section 5.4(v) above on gender representation on committees.

Wider Institute action: Develop and implement a scientific capability, career development and performance development and planning frameworks which will include recognition of service, contribution and citizenship.

5.4(vii) Institutional policies, practices and procedures.People and Culture policies are reviewed by the diversity and inclusion team to ensure equality considerations have been adequately addressed. In 2017, an Equality Impact Assessment tool (based on the Equality Challenge Unit model in UK) was trialled on a number of key policies. This tool will continue to be refined for use on People and Culture policies and more broadly across the Institute. Older polices and those outside the People and Culture remit, have undergone ad hoc reviews which were often instigated by the GEiSC to drive best practice policy. For example,

Influential Committees: % of women 2014

% of women 2015

% of women 2016

Chair (2014, 2015,

2016)Animal Ethics Committee 43% 47% 50% M, M, M

Biosafety Committee 46% 46% 55% M, M, M

Clinical Translation Standing Committee 29% 28% 29% M, M, M

Consumer Advisory Panel 67% 67% 57% F, F, F

Education Committee 67% 56% 59% F, F, F

Emergency Planning Committee 20% 33% 14% M, M, M

Engagement Committee 73% 68% 67%Co-chairs

(50:50)

Faculty Recruitment Advisory Committee NA NA 66%Co-chairs

(50:50)

Gender Equity in Science Committee 72% 71% 77%Co-chairs

(50:50)

Health, Safety and Environment Committee 57% 52% 52% M, M, F

IT Governance Committee NA 40% 33% NA, M, M

Professional Services Leadership Team (PSLT) 55% 50% 58% F,F,F

Reconciliation Committee 57% 55% 65%F, F, F&M (co-chair)

Senior Scientific Advisory Committee renamed Division Head Committee 8% 14% 19% M, M, M

Senior Technology Planning Group 37% 28% 35% M, M, M

Table 6: Influential committees % of women over 2014-2016


gender equity considerations have been included in community relations policy documents which have had a real impact on driving equal gender representation in conference speakers.

The Institute recently developed a policy framework which includes a requirement for policy owners to consider diversity and inclusion principles and to use gender neutral language when drafting or amending policies.

Refer to action 7-2 regarding development of an Equality Impact Assessment Tool.

5.4(viii) Workload model

Unlike at universities, there is no teaching component in Institute positions and workload models are not used. Position descriptions specify the key responsibilities of a role. The Institute uses the Mercer benchmarking tool for position descriptions and valuation of roles and training on the tool is refreshed every two years.

All position descriptions include the overarching requirement to make a ‘contribution to the Institute mission and key objective of engagement’. This implies an Institute expectation that staff will make a contribution to Institute life more broadly through committee and outreach activities. This is not systematically monitored.


The Institute’s Education department, working closely with the UoM (and other universities) administers student supervision, administration and, in part pastoral care. Individual supervisors of honours and PhD students have specific duties related to their student/s. The gender breakdown of student supervisors is covered in section 4 (iii).

5.4(ix) Timing of Institute meetings and social gatherings

The Institute has endorsed a core hours policy of 9.30am-4.30pm to enable those with caring responsibilities to attend meetings and other Institute activities. These meeting times have been well received by employees and are largely adhered to. A monitoring exercise of meeting times in early 2017 found that a number of weekly laboratory /group meetings occurred before and after core times. Institute core hours will be further promoted through communications on the new flexible working policy.

Focus group feedback indicated that women in particular felt that some business was being done in social settings outside of work. This also links to findings reported in section 5.3 (vi) on a culture of long hours and valuing of ‘presenteeism’ which excludes people with outside responsibilities that are not undertaken or shared by a partner.

Action 5-30: Conduct biannual monitoring of institute meeting times and report to DISC.


5.4(x) Visibility of role models

The Institute’s gender equity in speakers’ policy was created in response to historical norms and barriers that prevent women being selected for speaker and chair roles at scientific symposia at the same frequency as their colleagues who are men. Through this policy, gender equity in speakers and chairs is required at all forums organised or financially sponsored by the Institute. In terms of monitoring the effectiveness of the policy, the events team has commenced collecting data in relation to gender representation.

The Institute has a communication policy related to diversity of images on internal and external platforms such as the Institute website and social media. An initial audit of the ‘face’ of the Institute was undertaken to measure gender representation on our communications platforms. The audit indicated good gender representation across the platforms.

The Institute celebrates women throughout the year by highlighting their achievements, including discoveries, papers and awards. Over the past two years the Institute has run a ‘WEHI women’ campaign for International Women’s Day. A series of posters was created showcasing both present and past Institute women across our workforce and celebrating their contribution to the organisation and sector more broadly. The celebration of women from diverse backgrounds was a key consideration. The posters were displayed in prominent locations around the Institute and online. The celebration was recognised by a government department who made their own posters to celebrate International Women’s Day.

Action 5-31: Conduct regular monitoring of the gender representation in the Institute’s internal and external communication channels (intranet, internet, social media), take remedial action (if necessary) and report annually to the GEiSC and DISC.

Action 5-32: Collect and analyse data on the gender of all speakers and chairs of Institute events and sponsored events and provide data annually to the GEiSC, DISC and Board.

5.4 (xi) Outreach activities

There is currently no systematic data collection for outreach activity participation, largely due to the many and varied number of these activities including Institute tours, open days and school programs. There is no measurement of time contributed. As such, there is no empirical evidence to confirm a perception of gender bias or over-representation of women in these activities. However, there is a perception that volunteers are predominantly women.

Action 5-33: Collect and analyse data of the gender of all volunteers for Institute outreach activities and report annually to the GEiSC.



5.4(xii) Leadership support for SAGE - Athena SWAN award

The Institute’s leaders have demonstrated full and continued support for the application for the bronze award by ensuring the internal resources were made available from the outset and communicating regularly on the importance of the pilot program.

A full-time project coordinator was appointed at the start of the pilot to lead the project and a portion of a project manager’s time was allocated to overseeing the pilot delivery. A communications manager was also given responsibility to lead the work in their area. Further funding was allocated for workshop facilitation and other internal Athena SWAN events.

The SAT membership demonstrates the commitment of a number of key senior and influential staff who have been involved with the SAGE pilot from its initial stages, including laboratory heads, department heads and division heads.

Furthermore, the Athena SWAN project has been a central consideration for the Institute’s broader diversity and inclusion strategy and ensuring that actions under other programs such as Male Champions of Change are connected to build a holistic gender plan for all staff and students.

As outlined in section 2, the Institute’s director, Professor Doug Hilton, has been a strong public advocate for gender equity in STEMM for many years, and now as a Male Champion of Change, provides crucial leadership on how to achieve a cultural shift within an organisation. He was invited to speak at the Baker IDI in 2017 about how to embed gender equity at a medical research institute.

To ensure the sustainability of the work into the future, the monitoring, implementation and review of the action plan will be led by the GEiSC.

The actions will be resourced through the annual budgeting process and those with named responsibility in the action plan will be held accountable through the above governance structure and the new performance development plan process.

Action 5-34: The new performance and planning frameworks to include accountabilities for leaders to support the Institute’s D&I strategy and to work actively to promote gender equity in their teams.

Action 5-35: Assign an annual budget to activities in action plan to ensure financial sustainability for the work.


Section 6: Supporting Transgender People 6(i) Current policy and practice

The Institute has recognised the need to develop a process to assess the impact of policy and practice on diverse groups, including trans and gender diverse people (see section 7).

While still at an early stage in policy and practice relating to trans and gender diverse people, the Institute’s GEiSC has been proactive in ensuring key gender equity policies are inclusive in terms of gender diversity. A practical example of this was the updating of the Institute’s Gender Equity in Speakers policy to ensure it was inclusive of trans women.

This included a specific statement: The Institute acknowledges gender diversity and operates an inclusive policy in this regard, including for transgender women.

The use of gender inclusive language is an important consideration and the Institute promotes the use of ‘women and men’ rather than the biological ‘female and male’. An example of this is ensuring the language in our gender equity survey was inclusive in this regard.

The Institute’s Diversity and Inclusion Strategy includes a commitment to undertake awareness raising activities such as celebrating key dates in the diversity calendar. There is an opportunity to raise awareness of issues faced by trans and gender diverse people in the workplace and more broadly through our communications and in terms of formal training for key groups.

Action 6-1: Celebrate trans awareness week including an event to launch the Institute’s gender transition policy and manager guidelines.

Action 6-2: Conduct training for the GEiSC, People and Culture team and DISC on gender diversity in collaboration with TransVictoria.

6.2 Review

The SAT sub-group sought resources, research and guidance from expert organisations working in this space including Transgender Victoria. This helped to inform the SAT in terms of key issues within the policy and practice arena.

One significant policy gap we identified is in relation to gender transition in the workplace and guidance for managers to manage this process. There is no guidance regarding gender transition within the leave policy. In addition, research indicates that trans and gender diverse people are more likely to be affected by mental health issues and so this will be recognised in new policies related to health and wellbeing currently being developed. It was also noted that the Institute does not currently have gender neutral bathrooms (apart from the accessible toilets).

Action 6-3: Working with Transgender Victoria, develop a best practice policy to support gender transition in the workplace and guidelines for managers to manage the process.

6.3 Further work

The Institute carried out a consultation process as part of the development of its D&I Strategy in 2016, which included speaking with staff from the LGBTIQ+ community. This consultation informed the strategy, particularly in terms of creating an inclusive workplace and guided the decision to set up an LGBTIQ+ employee-led group to inform future policy and practice.

Action 6-4: Facilitate the introduction of an LGBTIQ+ employee led group to inform policy and practice including trans or gender diverse people (external member/s if appropriate).


Section 7. Intersectionality

7(i) Current policy and practice

The intersection of gender and other identity characteristics has not been a focus to date, and we recognise there is work to do. The D&I Strategy has expanded from gender equity into a range of diversity areas, providing a framework to conduct this work. In developing the strategy, we consulted with a range of staff and were conscious of including minority women in the stakeholder interviews including Muslim queer and ethnic minority women.

The Institute is committed to improving its equality data and qualitative evidence to understand the experiences of diverse groups. As part of this we are committed to understanding the barriers and challenges for minority women, particularly those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds given the ethnic diversity among Institute staff. For example, we have a relatively high number of staff and students from an Asian background but see few progress to the senior positions within the Institute. We need to understand the barriers in place for these staff, particularly women who face the compounding disadvantage of gender and being from an ethnic minority.

Action 7-1: Undertake a project to examine the experiences of minority women at the Institute with a focus on ethnicity covering key employment stages.

7(ii) Review

The Institute is formalising a process to assess the impact of policy and practice on diverse groups and their intersecting identities. We have commenced development of an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) tool based on the EIA recommended by the Equality Challenge Unit for the UK Higher Education sector. We have trialled this model on several key People and Culture policies including ‘Institute Leave’, ‘Flexibility in the workplace’, ‘Career development’ and ‘Appropriate workplace behaviour’.

In developing the EIA tool, we discovered a lack of evidence to assess how policies and practice impact on diverse groups. The Institute believes that equality data collection is a vital component of its diversity and inclusion work and takes the view that collecting data - both quantitative and qualitative - across all equality characteristics is an important goal.

Action 7-2: Further develop and implement an Equality Impact Assessment tool, building it into the Institute’s policy development framework and undertake a review of:

• gender equity policies and consultation on changes to ensure they meet the needs of diverse women; and

• all new and existing policies with the potential to impact on diverse staff groups and their intersecting identities and consult with key stakeholders.

As stated in section 6, as part of the D&I strategy the Institute will be setting up employee-led groups including for LGBTIQ+ staff. The Institute will ensure that employee-led groups have gender equity in terms of chairs and that the voices of all can be heard. For example, evidence suggests that LGBTIQ+ staff groups are often led by gay men and lesbian and bisexual women may have less opportunity for involvement.


In terms of awareness raising on intersectionality we are at an early stage, with the concept only coming into the consciousness of many as a result of the Athena SWAN pilot. We recognise we have work to do to raise awareness of the multiplying factors of disadvantage resulting from intersectional identities.

Action 7-3: Invite speakers and promote stories that raise awareness of intersectionality at key Diversity and Inclusion events including International Women’s Day.

7(iii) Further work

The gender equity initiatives within the Diversity and Inclusion implementation plan will be reviewed using an intersectional lens to ensure they address the issues face by minority women. For example, work on everyday sexism should reflect the compounding nature of non-white women’s experiences which often contains both sexist and racist elements.

Action 7-4: Review the diversity and Inclusion implementation plan gender focused activities to ensure they address the needs and experiences of minority women.


Section 8. Indigenous Australians

8(i) Current policy and practice

The Institute’s formal and active commitment to reconciliation began in 2014 (see section 2) and as such it is still establishing its policies, practices and programs to increase opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. However, gender equity has been an aim across several work programs.

The Institute recognises its responsibility to help build the pipeline of Indigenous scientists. Since 2014, the Institute has provided seven science and medical undergraduates with paid internships in the laboratory in partnership with the CareerTrackers Indigenous Internship program. A key aim of the internship program is ensuring gender representation, and four out of the seven interns have been women.

Action 8-1: Monitor gender equity in participation rates on the CareerTrackers Indigenous Internship program.

The Institute understands the importance of ensuring the voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is enshrined in decision making processes and is also conscious of not overburdening our small cohort of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff. We have sought to address this through the inclusion of external members on our Reconciliation Committee and by building relationships with key community leaders in the Parkville precinct. The SAT has used the reconciliation committee as the forum for consultation on the application.

The Institute’s Reconciliation Committee runs an annual reconciliation seminar series and invites Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers and community leaders to present on their work. The committee ensures an equal representation of women and men on the program in line with our gender equity in speakers policy. The committee also operates a policy of gender equality for its co-chairs and ensures gender balance in for its external Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander committee members.

The Institute welcomed its first Aboriginal Laboratory Head, Dr Misty Jenkins (Gunditjmara) in 2016 as the Institute’s second recipient of the Cory Fellowship, a five-year $500,000 fellowship for outstanding women in science. Dr Jenkins presented her views and experiences of gender equity at our Athena SWAN launch event.

Our women student interns have been widely celebrated through internal communications channels and promoted externally. The Institute was invited by Women in Science Australia to present on their work supporting young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in science at their 2016 conference.

Action 8-2: Celebrate the achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in science through internal communications channels and during events including International Women’s Day.


8(ii) Review

As described in section 6, the Institute has developed a model to assess the impact of policy and practice on diverse groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The tool has been trialled on key People and Culture policies and opportunities to better promote equality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were identified for action.

Action 8-3: Amend leave policies to reflect the lived experience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in terms of family and culture and undertake consultation on policy changes with key stakeholders including the Reconciliation Committee.

8(iii) Further work

A key focus of the work going forward is to investigate opportunities to increase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment. To our knowledge, the Institute currently only employs two Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and five undergraduate interns.

We have committed to developing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment strategy in 2018 and this provides an opportunity to build gender equity considerations at the foundation of this work. Alongside this will be a cultural learning program to ensure a better understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture at the Institute.

Action 8-4: The specific needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and men will be built into the forthcoming Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment strategy.

The Institute will begin developing its third RAP in 2018 and the intersection with gender will be built into the plan.

Action 8.5: Build gender equity considerations into the development of the Institute’s next RAP, including employment and education programs.


Gender Equity Action Plan (2018-2021)

Action no.

Issue/Opportunity identified Action Timescales Responsibilities Success measures

3 Self-assessment Team

3-1 Data capture and quality

The Institute’s systems are not well equipped for the collection of gender, and diversity and inclusion data. This made it difficult to extract reliable data. Improved systems and processes would make reporting more streamlined and support evidence based decision making.

Ensure capacity to collect gender and other forms of equity data is incorporated into the development of new business systems (ideally capturing key employee life stages such as application and exit).

2021 Research Support Team

Reliable equity data can be easily extracted and is regularly reported to the Board and relevant Institute committees.

4 A Picture of the Institute

4-1 Contract length and management

Short fixed-term contracts and misalignment of contracts creates uncertainty.

Develop and communicate guidance on contract length, (including expectation that the length of contract should correspond to the funding term), and the management process for renewal and assessment to managers.

December 2018

Head of People and Culture (Head of P&C)

Guidelines developed and available on Catalyst, our staff intranet site. Improved satisfaction and understanding of process.

4-2 Monitor the application of new guidelines for contract length for any gender differences and report to the GEiSC and DISC annually.

December 2018, and annually thereafter

Head of People and Culture (Head of P&C)

No significant differences in contract length between men and women.

4-3 Better understand why academic women leave the institute

Exit survey data has not been systematically collected or analysed.

Develop and implement an easy to use on-line exit-survey form and analyse data disaggregated by gender. Report annually on key findings to the GEiSC and DISC, including actions to address any issues identified.

December 2018, and annually thereafter

Head of P&C % increase in number of staff completing exit survey

4-4 Remuneration inequity

Gender pay gaps were identified at the organisation-wide and job-family levels.

Conduct a pay equity review every two years and further investigate the job value and pay scale anomalies of senior roles in Professional Services and address any inequities found.

Analysis: Quarter 4, 2018

Address inequities: Quarter 4 2020

Head of P&C Reduction in pay gap at level by level

4-5 Gender segregation

Gender segregation was identified in some areas of Professional Services.

Address gender segregation in Professional Services by:

• Implementing and monitoring targets for improving gender representation in professional service departments

• Communicating the lessons learned from improving gender representation in graduate IT recruitment and apply to areas exhibiting high levels of gender segregation.

Quarter 2 2019

Deputy director, Strategy and Operations

Head of P&C

Improved gender representation across departments.


Action no.


5 Supporting and advancing women’s careers

5.1 Key career transition points: Academic Staff

5.1(i) Recruitment

5-1 Insufficient data is collected at the initial stages of recruitment making it difficult to identify issues and trends.

Record all applications, shortlists and appointments disaggregated by gender and academic level and report quarterly to the GEiSC and DISC.

Quarter 1 2018 and then quarterly thereafter

Head of P&C Improvement to score in next culture survey for question: the selection and promotion processes are fair and transparent.

5-2 Achieving 50/50 gender balance in scientific leadership

Monitor and promote gender representation in all faculty recruitment and selection procedures and report quarterly to GEiSC and DISC.

Quarter 1, 2018 and quarterly thereafter

FRAC

Head of P&C

50/50 shortlists for all faculty recruitment

5-3 Monitor gender equity in Rising Star and talent development program cohorts and report annually to the GEiSC and DISC.

Quarter 3, 2019

Learning and & Organisational Development (L&OD) manager

Equal gender representation in Rising Star and talent development programs

5-4 There is a lack of awareness of best practice recruitment and selection processes across the organisation.

Unconscious bias has been shown to influence decision making.

Publish and communicate to all staff a new recruitment and selection policy and procedure with a focus on addressing unconscious bias.

Quarter 2 2018


5-5 Publish and circulate a toolkit for managers to support them to recognise and eliminate unconscious bias.

Quarter 3 2018


5-6 Implement a de-identified candidate recruitment trial to counter the effect of unconscious bias and report on findings to FRAC, GEiSC and DISC.

Quarter 2 2019


5.1(ii) Induction

5-7 There is a lack of awareness of institute policies regarding gender equity, and diversity and inclusion.

Implement new Institute induction processes to include information on gender equity, and diversity and inclusion (including information on key policies, committees and initiatives).

Quarter 3 2018

Head of P&C Same or improved responses related to gender equity and diversity in culture survey

5-8 Publish and communicate a brochure outlining the key components of the Institute’s parental leave and flexible working policies and incorporate into the induction pack.

Quarter 1 2018

Head of Communications and Marketing

Same or improved responses related to gender equity in culture survey

5.1(iii) Promotion

5-9 Women are promoted at a lower rate. Develop and implement a new academic promotion process to address the barriers to women’s academic promotion by implementing a targeted program to support/prepare women postdocs and senior postdocs to successfully apply for promotion.

Quarter 3 2018


5-10 Review the membership and Terms of Reference for the Faculty Review Committee (FRC) to enable it to oversee all academic promotions from academic levels B-(C/D) and (C/D)- E.

Quarter 4 2018

FRAC in conjunction with P&C

Improvement to score in next culture survey for question: the selection and promotion processes are fair and transparent.

5-11 FRC to report annually to the GEiSC, DISC and Board on gender breakdown of promotion application and success rate.

Quarter 4 2018, then annually thereafter

FRC


Action no.


5.1(iv) Higher education research data collection

5-12 Grant success rate

There is a lower participation and success rate for women in competitive funding applications.

Develop and implement a program targeted specifically at supporting women’s success in nationally competitive grant programs.

Quarter 4, 2019

L&OD manager

Research Grants Manager

Increase in the number of grant and fellowship applications from women and improvement in the success rate

5-13 Collect gender disaggregated data on the Institute’s grant applications and grant successes and report to the GEiSC, DISC and Board annually.

Quarter 4 2018

Research Grants Manager

Increase in the number of grant and fellowship applications from women and improvement in the success rate

5.2 Career Development: Academic Staff

5.2(i) Training

5-14 An Induction program for new laboratory heads and division heads is being piloted.

Monitor and report on leadership/management training participation and evaluation by gender to the GEiSC, DISC and Board.

Quarter 1 2019 and then annually

L&OD Manager Improvement to score in next culture survey for question: I feel our Institute provides me with clear career opportunities.

5-15 There is currently no formal program to facilitate career progression.

Implement individual development plans for new scientific leaders to facilitate the development of leadership capabilities which will address the specific needs of women. Report on implementation to GEiSC and DISC.

Quarter 1 2018

Head of P&C As above

5-16 Leaders have requested additional unconscious bias training with a focus on practical applications of the content.

Conduct inclusive leadership training with managers to increase staff awareness and address unconscious bias in key decision-making processes. Report on the evaluation of the training to GEiSC and DISC.

Training pilot -

Quarter 2 2018

Roll out Quarter 3, 2018

Head of P&C L&OD manager

Improvement to score in next culture survey for question: the selection and promotion processes are fair and transparent.

5.2(iii) Support given to academic staff for career progression

5-17 Reduced networking opportunities for women with caring responsibilities.

Run and expand on our, ‘Lunch and learn’ series for senior leaders bringing in leaders from diverse organisations to share their personal experiences on inclusive leadership.

Quarter 4, 2018, then annually thereafter

L&OD Manager As above

5-18 Run quarterly cross-sector/discipline networking events for women in science.

Quarter 4 2018 then quarterly thereafter

L&OD Manager As above

5-19 Implement a pilot shadowing scheme program to build leadership skills by matching women researchers with senior leaders in medical research, academia and industry.

Quarter 2, 2019

L&OD manager As above

5-20 Run a series of small group lunches on themes of importance for women academics, to provide networking opportunities and peer support.

Quarter 4, 2018

L&OD manager As above

5-21 Women attending conferences at lower rate than men.

Launch a women’s grants program aimed at early and mid-career researchers to assist them with conference travel and other professional development opportunities. Report bi-annually to GEiSC and DISC.

2020 Head of P&C and GEiSC

Increase in number of women attending conferences in next gender equity survey

Increase in number of women in senior leadership positions

5-22 Implement a ‘reverse sabbatical’ award for early and mid-career women researchers, including the provision of funding to bring an international collaborator to the Institute. Report bi-annually to GEiSC and DISC.

2020 Head of P&C and GEiSC

Increase in number of women in senior leadership positions


Action no.


5.3 FLEXIBLE WORKING AND MANAGING CAREER BREAKS

5.3 i – iii. Support for maternity/ adoption leave

5-23 No formal transition program for those on, or returning from, leave

Implement and communicate the transition support program for all carers at the Institute moving out/into workforce to include:

• keeping in touch program;

• buddy network to support staff when returning to work; and

• transition coaching.

Report bi-annually to GEiSC and DISC.

Quarter 3, 2019

Head of P&C 95% Parental leave return rate annually

80% continuous employment 24 months after parental leave

5-24 Trial a program to improve the transition from/to Laboratory Head roles after career disruption:

• pilot and evaluate maternity leave replacement roles for Laboratory heads, providing 6 months’ salary for an acting laboratory head position;

• pilot and evaluate job shared laboratory head positions with 1 day cross over (.6FTEx2); and

• stop clock on contracts for 2 years.

Report bi-annually to GEiSC and DISC.

Quarter 3, 2020

Head of P&C Increase in the number of women in senior leadership positions

5.3 (vi) Flexible working

5-25 Benefits of flexible working not well understood across the organisation.

Run a workshop for leaders on how to manage a flexible workforce, including part-time work, job sharing, working from home, time in lieu, flexible start/ finish hours, 46/52 work weeks.

Quarter 3, 2019

Head of P&C Improvement to gender equity survey responses: everyone in organisation entitled is to use flexible working arrangements (from 50%); staff reporting flexible working arrangements as being flexible; control over scheduling working hours; men actively encouraged to work flexibly; commitment to organisation questioned if choose flexible working

5-26 Publish and disseminate a new flexible work policy and procedure outlining different flexible options and strategies to make flexible working arrangements successful and consider options to improve financial literacy and reduce the financial impact of caring responsibilities on superannuation.

Quarter 1, 2018

Head of P&C As above

5-27 Run a communications campaign on flexible working and the benefits for staff and managers.

Quarter 3, 2019


As above


Action no.


5.4 ORGANISATION AND CULTURE

5.4(ii) Human Resources Policies

5-28 Awareness of appropriate and inappropriate workplace behaviour is essential for a positive workplace culture.

Monitor uptake of team based positive workplace sessions by gender and report on findings to GEiSC

Quarter 4, 2018

Head of P&C Improvement to score in next culture survey for the questions related to bullying, harassment and discrimination.

5.4(iv)&5.5(iv) representation on committees

5-29 Women are under-represented on many key committees and as chairs but are over-represented on ‘people’ committees.

Monitor the gender representation on key committees, implement 50/50 gender targets and increase transparency by publishing committee information, including membership on the intranet.

Monitoring and timelines developed by Quarter 4, 2018

DISC 50:50 gender representation on committees

5.4(ix) Timing of Institute meetings and social gatherings

5-30 Policy of core hours not routinely followed

Conduct biannual monitoring of Institute meeting times and report to DISC.

Quarter 2 and Quarter 4 2018 and annually thereafter

GEC chairs Improvement in number of meetings held between 9:30 and 4pm

5.4 (x) Visibility of women role models.

5-31 Opportunity to strengthen existing policies to ensure 50:50 gender representation.

Conduct regular monitoring of the gender representation in the Institute’s internal and external communication channels (intranet, internet, social media), take remedial action (if necessary) and report annually to the GEiSC and DISC.

Quarter 2 and Quarter 4 2018 then biannually thereafter


50:50 gender representation in communications channels

5-32 Collect and analyse data on the gender of all speakers and chairs of Institute events and sponsored events and provide data annually to the GEiSC, DISC and Board.

Quarter 2 and Quarter 4 2018 then biannually thereafter

Events Manager 50:50 gender representation for speakers and chairs

5.4 (xi) Outreach activities

5-33 Perceptions that women over-represented in outreach activities

Collect and analyse data of the gender of all volunteers for Institute outreach activities and report annually to the GEiSC.

Quarter 4 2018 and annually thereafter

Events Manager

Education Manager

Equal gender representation in outreach activities.

5.4(xii) Leadership

5-34 Building sustainable leadership requires commitment and resources.

The new performance and planning frameworks to include accountabilities for leaders to support the Institute’s D&I Strategy and to work actively to promote gender equity in their teams.

June 2018. Head of P&C Improved responses in culture survey to questions:

Our senior leaders are held accountable for gender equity outcomes; Our senior leaders’ actions and decisions are open to review.

5-35 Assign an annual budget to activities in action plan to ensure financial sustainability for the work.

Quarter 3, 2018

D&I Manager

GEC chairs

Successful delivery of action plan


Action no.


6. SUPPORTING TRANSGENDER PEOPLE

6-1 Awareness of trans and gender diverse people

Celebrate trans awareness week including an event to launch of the Institute’s gender transition policy and manager guidelines.

Quarter 4 2018 then annually

D&I Manager As above

6-2 Absence of policy to support transition in the workplace

Conduct training for the GEiSC, People and Culture team and DISC on gender diversity in collaboration with TransVictoria.

Quarter 3 2018


6-3 Working with Transgender Victoria, develop and communicate a best practice policy to support gender transition in the workplace and guidelines for managers to manage the process.

Quarter 3 2018

D&I Manager Maintained or Improved response rate to the culture survey question: I believe our Institute is committed to ensuring all staff, students and visitors are treated with dignity and respect.

6-4 Strengthened Involvement of Institute’s LGBTIQ+ community in policy making

Facilitate the introduction of an LGBTIQ+ employee led group to inform policy and practice including trans or gender diverse people (external member/s if appropriate).

Quarter 3 2018


Action no.


7 INTERSECTIONALITY

7-1 Limited understanding of experiences of women from ethnic minority backgrounds

Undertake a project to examine the experiences of minority women at the Institute with a focus on ethnicity covering key employment stages.

Quarter 3 2021

D&I Manager Increase in number of minority women in senior leadership positions.

7-2 Policies may not adequately address the needs of minority groups

Further develop and implement an Equality Impact Assessment tool, building it into the Institute’s policy development framework and undertake a review of:

• gender equity policies and consultation on changes to ensure they meet the needs of diverse women; and

• all new and existing policies with the potential to impact on diverse staff groups and their intersecting identities and consult with key stakeholders.

Quarter 4 2018

Quarter 2, 2019

Quarter 3, 2020

D&I Manager Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken as part of new policy development.

Policies changes initiated as result of EIA.

7-3 Raise awareness of how diverse identities impact on individuals.

Invite speakers and promote stories that raise awareness of intersectionality at key Diversity and Inclusion events including International Women’s Day.

2018 and annually thereafter


D&I Manager

50% of speakers to be from a minority group

7-4 Review gender focused activities in the Diversity and Inclusion Implementation Plan to ensure they address the needs and experiences of minority women

Quarter 3 2018

D&I Manager Activities better meet the needs of minority women


Action no.


8 INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS

8-1 Women under represented in Career Trackers Indigenous internship program.

Monitor gender equity in participation rates on the CareerTrackers Indigenous Internship program.

Report to Reconciliation Committee and DISC.

Quarter 2 2018 and annually thereafter

Reconciliation Committee

D&I Manager

50:50 gender representation of interns

8-2 Raising awareness of achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in science.

Celebrate the achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in science through internal communications channels and during events including International Women’s Day.

NAIDOC week 2018 and annually thereafter

Head of Comms and Marketing

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women celebrated in communications activities.

8-3 Ensure there are no barriers for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in institute policies and practices.

Amend leave policies to reflect the lived experience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in terms of family and culture and undertake consultation on policy changes with key stakeholders including the Reconciliation Committee.

Quarter 2 2018

Head of P&C Leave policies best practice in incorporating cultural considerations

8-4 Consider gender when developing institute programs and policies related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The specific needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and men to be built into the forthcoming Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment strategy. Report to Reconciliation Committee and DISC.

2018 Head of P&C Increase in number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at the Institute

8-5 Gender equity considerations to be built into the development of the Institute’s next RAP, including employment and education programs.

Quarter 4 2018

Reconciliation committee

D&I Manager

RAP actions have gender specificity


CURRENT ACTIONS

This Section outlines wider Institute actions already progressed with relevance to Athena Swan principles and activities.

Childcare centre • The Institute has invested $9.9 million in the construction of a purpose-built 100 place childcare centre on the forecourt of its Parkville campus. The centre will open in July 2018.

ADEPt project (Attracting and Developing Exceptional People)

• Develop and implement a scientific capability, career development and performance development and planning frameworks which will include recognition of service, contributions and citizenship

• Develop and implement a talent identification and development program

• Develop and implement a program to support alternate career pathways in science

• Implement individual development plans for new leaders to support and facilitate the development of leadership capabilities across the Institute

• Develop and implement leadership workshops to build skills in giving and receiving feedback and coaching skills, incorporating techniques for managing unconscious bias during performance conversations and career planning discussions.

Academic promotions Develop a new academic promotion process and supporting documentation including:

• KPIs expected to be achieved for renewal of academic positions

• Milestone conversations

• Systematic career discussions

• Schedule annual information session/s to support the academic promotion process with supporting resources on intranet. Initial session to be scheduled to align with call for promotion applications

• Review the membership and Terms of References of the Faculty Renewal Committee to enable it to handle all academic promotions

• Evaluate impact

Contract guidelines Develop and communicate guidance on contract length (including expectation that the length of contract should correspond to the funding period) and management, process on renewal and assessment (linked the PDP process).

Induction New induction program to be developed in 2018.

Grants L&OD team to collaborate with the Grants Management Team to ensure researchers have access to development opportunities to support competitive applications for fellowships and grants. Evaluate and report to GEiSC and DISC.

Positive workplaces The People and Culture department has updated and reviewed all policies and procedures related to workplace behaviour.

This includes:

• A revised appropriate workplace behaviour policy;

• New guidelines for resolving workplace conflict and having constructive conversations;

• A procedure for formal complaints overseen by the Head of People and Culture; and

• An investigation process where either an internal or external investigator will be assigned.

Other supporting activities include:

• positive workplace team workshops to collectively discuss and agree behaviours and actions to make positive team environments.

• Training of staff and students in conflict and issues resolution strategies.

Wellbeing Strategy Develop a Wellbeing Strategy and promote a wellbeing culture in 2018 by:

• Introducing employee led Wellbeing initiatives

• Providing guidance to supervisors and staff

• Developing the skills and ability of our people

• Raising awareness of mental health and wellbeing

• Building the capability of our people to manage effectively through periods of change

• Running a series of mindfulness and resilience programs

• Holding sessions for supervisors on managing expectations and workloads to assist them in managing the stress levels of team members.

• Evaluating and reporting outcomes.


Gender Equity Survey 2017 The Gender equity survey built on from the Women in Parkville Precinct (WiSPP) survey, with additional questions around flexibility, more inclusive language and removal of questions that we had already covered in our 2016 Culture Survey. It was open to the whole Institute and promoted through the screening of ‘Hidden Figures’ as an Athena SWAN event. The survey ran from 27 June-14 July, 2017 with 423 respondents which accounts for 38% of the staff and students. 36% of respondents were men and 64% were women. 63% of respondents were classified as academic and 34% were classified as professional services (HEW), the remainder did not specify.

Australian Reconciliation Barometer

The Australian Barometer measures the progress of reconciliation throughout Australia across five dimensions of reconciliation; historical acceptance, race relations, institutional integrity, equality and equity, and unity.

For the Institute in 2014 there were 350 participants and in 2016 were 372. For 2016 from 1077 staff and students there was a 34.5% participation rate.

1G Royal ParadeParkville Victoria 3052 Australia+61 3 9345 2555www.wehi.edu.au

WEHIresearch

@WEHI_research

WEHImovies

wehi_research

Walter and Eliza Institute

1800

67

Documents

Athena SWAN Institution Application · Athena SWAN® is the registered trade mark of, and is used by the Australian Acade my of Science under licence from, Equality Challenge Unit