Institution Application Bronze and Silver Award€¦ · Award Level Silver Date joined Athena SWAN . 2005 – Founder member . Current award Date: 24. th. Sept 2014 Level: Bronze

Institution Application Bronze and Silver Award

Loughborough University

2

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

ATHENA SWAN SILVER INSTITUTION AWARDS

Recognise a significant record of activity and achievement by the institution in promoting gender equality and in addressing challenges in different disciplines. Applications should focus on what has improved since the Bronze institution award application, how the institution has built on the achievements of award-winning departments, and what the institution is doing to help individual departments apply for Athena SWAN awards.

COMPLETING THE FORM

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION FORM WITHOUT READING THE ATHENA SWAN AWARDS HANDBOOK.

This form should be used for applications for Bronze and Silver institution awards.

You should complete each section of the application applicable to the award level you are applying for.

Additional areas for Silver applications are highlighted throughout the form: 5.2, 5.4, 5.5(iv)

If you need to insert a landscape page in your application, please copy and paste the template page at the end of the document, as per the instructions on that page. Please do not insert any section breaks as to do so will disrupt the page numbers.

3

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. At the end of every section, please state how many words you have used in that section.

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

Institution application Silver Actual

Word limit 12,000 12,515

Recommended word count

1.Letter of endorsement 500 518

2.Description of the institution 500 725

3. Self-assessment process 1,000 849

4. Picture of the institution 3,000 2,933

5. Supporting and advancing women’s careers 6,000 7,247

6. Supporting trans people 500 243

7. Further information 500 0

Word Limit Extension

On 15th November 2017, the Equality Charters Team, contacted the University, to advise 500 extra words had been granted to all University award applications. The adjusted word limit is: 12,500. We have used the extra 500 words, as advised, in section 5.

4

Name of institution Loughborough University

Date of application 30th November 2017

Award Level Silver

Date joined Athena SWAN 2005 – Founder member

Current award Date: 24th Sept 2014

Level: Bronze

Contact for application Sam Kirk

Email [email protected]

Telephone 01509 223 047

5

Schools LDS Loughborough Design School London Loughborough University in London

SAACME School of Aeronautical, Automotive, Chemical & Materials Engineering

SABCE School of Architecture, Building & Civil Engineering SAED School of Arts, English & Drama SBE School of Business & Economics Science School of Science SSEHS School of Sport, Exercise & Health Science SSPGS School of Social, Political & Geographical Sciences

WSMEME Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical & Manufacturing Engineering

Acronym List A (followed by number) Action # ACAS Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service AD Associate Deans AS Athena SWAN AHSSBL Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Business & Law ALT Academic Leadership Team BAME Black, Asian & Minority Ethnic CAP Centre for Academic Practice COO Chief Operating Officer CROS Careers in Research Online Survey DVC Deputy Vice Chancellor E&D Equality & Diversity EDWG Equality & Diversity Working Group EHRC Equality and Human Rights Commission EIA Equality Impact Assessment Ex100 Excellence 100 F (followed by number) Figure # FT Full-Time FTE Full Time Equivalent G (followed by number) Grade # HEA Higher Education Academy HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency HEI Higher Education Institute HR Human Resources ILM Institute for Leadership & Management JACS Joint Academic Coding System KiT Keeping in Touch KPI Key Performance Indicator LM Lay Member LSU Loughborough Student’s Union MEC Mathematics Education Centre PDR Performance & Development Review PGCAP Post-Graduate Certificate in Academic Practice PGR Post-Graduate Researcher PSMT Professional Services Management Team PT Part-Time

6

PSS Professional & Support Services PVCE Pro-Vice-Chancellor Enterprise PVCR Pro-Vice-Chancellor Research PVCT Pro-Vice-Chancellor Teaching QS Quacquarelli Symonds (World University Rankings) R&S Recruitment & Selection RAE2008 Research Assessment Exercise 2008 REF2014 Research Excellence Framework 2014 ROTOR Recognition of Teaching for Researchers RTE Research, Teaching & Enterprise (Academic job family) S (followed by number) Section # SAT Self-Assessment Team SD Staff Development SET Science, Engineering & Technology SMT Senior Management Team SPL Shared Parental Leave SSA Specialist & Supporting Academic STEMM Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics & Medicine T (followed by number) Table # UCU University and College Union VC Vice-Chancellor WES Women’s Engineering Society

7

Notes:

Years:

All data presented in S4 covers a full academic year and so includes any member of staff employed, promoted or left in that period.

Data presented in S5 can cover a full academic year or a full calendar year (Jan – Dec) made clear under each table.

Staff Numbers:

Staff numbers presented in S2 & S4 represent a combination of headcount & FTE. RTE & Research-only academics & all PSS staff are all represented as headcount i.e. 1 person = 1. Teaching-only academics are represented as a combination of headcount (Open & fixed term contract staff) & FTE (fractional contract staff) i.e. 1 person = 1 + 1 person = % FT hours (37 hours per week) e.g. fractional contract staff on 18.5 hours per week = 0.5FTE.

FTE is rounded to the nearest 1.

Staff numbers presented in S5 represent headcount only.

Fractional Contracts:

Fractional contracts are used for some academic teaching-only and PSS staff roles. Inadequate data systems mean we can only provide numbers of teaching-only staff on these contracts. S4 details our action to improve this. Teaching-only staff on these contracts can be PhD students, Post-doctoral researchers, visiting academics or holders of a substantive post – we are unable to identify who is who in our current data system.

FTE Headcount

2014/15 150 758 2015/16 173 928 2016/17 210 1029

Table shows breakdown of FTE & Headcount of fractional contract teaching-only academics by year.

Disciplines:

We calculate staff/students belonging to STEMM/AHSSBL discipline by using their School. Detail on which School contribute to each discipline is found in S2.iv.

Our new London campus has a mix of disciplines but our data system does not identify individual staff disciplines, so we have separated our London campus staff from our STEMM & AHSSBL tables for the purpose of this submission. The number of staff in London is small so the impact of not distributing them across discipline areas is minimal. In future submissions they will be integrated.

8

Benchmarking:

Information on how we benchmark is provided in S2.ii. We use the most recent datasets (2015/16) from HESA staff reports.

Capita Survey Benchmarking:

Capita administrated our all-staff survey and, by using questions from their questions back, we are able to compare our responses to other HEIs who have undertaken a survey, with Capita, in the last 2 years. Benchmarking is only available for total staff responses. We are unable to benchmark by gender or job family.

Grades & Academic Roles at Loughborough:

Grade Roles

5 Research G5 (Research Assistant)

Teaching G5

6 Lecturer (lower entry point for probationary lecturers)

Research G6 (Research Associate)

Teaching G6 (University Teacher)

7 Lecturer (automatic progression from G6 lecturer, higher entry point for more experienced lecturer (may or not be probationary))

Research G7 (Research Associate / Research Fellow)

Teaching G7 (Senior University Teacher)

8 Senior Lecturer

Reader

Research G8 (Research Manager / Snr Research Associate / Snr Research fellow)

Teaching G8 (Principal University Teacher)

9 Professor (Includes Deans & Associate Deans) Table shows academic roles within each grade. Roles in italics are the typical role title for that grade. Research-only and Teaching-only roles are grouped under our Specialist and Supporting Academic job family, but have been split for the purposes of this submission. Impact: Throughout the submission, impact has been highlighted using a

9

1. LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE HEAD OF INSTITUTION – WORDS: 518 Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words | Silver: 500 words

An accompanying letter of endorsement from the vice-chancellor or principal should be included. If the vice-chancellor is soon to be succeeded, or has recently taken up the post, applicants should include an additional short statement from the incoming vice-chancellor.

Note: Please insert the endorsement letter immediately after this cover page.

10

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTION – WORDS: 725 Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words | Silver: 500 words

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 – Words: 188

Led by the late Professor Barbara Bagilhole, Loughborough was a founding member of the Athena SWAN charter and has held a Bronze award since 2009. The majority of our STEMM Schools hold or have applied for awards:

• SSEHS (Silver – renewed in 2016) • LDS (Bronze – renewed in 2017) • Science: Mathematical Sciences & MEC (Silver - 2015) • SABCE (Bronze 2017)

Future submissions:

• SSPGS (Bronze 2018 – 1st AHSSBL School) • SAACME (Bronze 2018 – resubmission) • WSMEME (Bronze 2018 – resubmission) • Science (Bronze submission 2019)

Unsuccessful submissions:

• SAACME (2016) • WSMEME (2016)

We are proud that over half of our STEMM Schools hold awards but, it was disappointing, in 2016, when two Schools, despite their best efforts, were unsuccessful. In response we have developed new guidance and now require School champions to present self-assessment findings to the University SAT prior to drafting their submission.

All our ASSHBL Schools and London have champions and have begun their Athena SWAN journey. AHHSBL champions have attended the University SAT since March 2016. The first AHSSBL submission will be SSPGS in November 2018.

We aim for all of our 10 Schools to have applied for an award by 2022 (A11.1).

11

(ii) information on its teaching and its research focus – words: 344

Since receiving our Royal Charter 50 years ago, the University has grown into a community of over 18,000 staff and students across two campuses; Loughborough and Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London, opened in 2015/16. Loughborough is a top 10 UK University: 6th in the 2018 Guardian University League Table and 7th in the 2018 Times Good University Guide.

STEMM activity, covering engineering, the physical, human and sport science, mathematics and design, has been central throughout the life of the institution. STEMM remains the dominant feature of our subject profile, accounting for over 65% of academic activity.

Loughborough is renowned for its achievements in sports science, sports technology and sports performance. In the 2016 Olympic Games, had Loughborough participated as a country, we would have been 17th in the medal table and 10th in the Paralympic medal table. In 2017 we were ranked number one for academic sport in the world in the global QS higher education league table. We are also proud, that in 2016, the Higher Education Sport Participation Satisfaction Survey found, for the first time, women’s participation in sport on campus had increased and overtaken men’s participation – triggered by matching availability of courses/sports with demand and our Lboro Girls Can campaign, following the national This Girl Can campaign.

Image shows participants in our Women’s Sport Week 2017

We are a research intensive University delivering research-led taught programmes that also feature significant engagement with industry. 59% of taught students study a STEMM course and of those 60% study an engineering course. National trends in these subjects drive our apparent overall gender imbalance: 40% of our students and 34% of our academics are women. Consequently, our gender benchmarking has to be weighted (using HESA cost centres / JACS and size) for our subject mix. For example, while 45% of UK

12

academics are women (HESA), weighting for our subject mix shows that our benchmark figure should be 31% (HESA). At Loughborough the actual figure is 34%, demonstrating the impact of our AS actions and commitment. We therefore routinely calculate benchmarks from HESA data by weighting for our subject mix, where appropriate and possible.

13

(iii) the number of staff. Present data for academic and professional and support staff separately – words: 39

Academic PSS Total

2014/15 1535 2954 4489 Female 498 1842 2340 Female % 32% 62% 52% Male 1038 1112 2150 Male % 68% 38% 48% 2015/16 1658 3008 4666 Female 551 1863 2414 Female % 33% 62% 42% Male 1108 1145 2253 Male % 67% 38% 58% 2016/17 1678 2948 4626 Female 567 1840 2407 Female % 34% 63% 42% Male 1112 1108 2220 Male % 66% 37% 58% Table 2.1. Number of staff over last 3 academic years – split by academic/PSS and gender

Women are overrepresented amongst PSS staff but are underrepresented amongst academics – however, amongst academics, this proportion has increased year on year and is evidence of the impact of our commitment to AS. Further detail can be found in S4.

14

(iv) the total number of departments and total number of students – words: 76

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Female Male F% Female Male F% Female Male F%

LDS 282 526 35% 306 547 36% 335 532 39% London 206 172 54% 277 223 55% SAACME 239 1154 17% 258 1332 16% 256 1307 16% SABCE 234 960 20% 259 940 22% 261 897 23% SAED 1201 334 78% 1183 296 80% 1257 259 83% SBE 1191 1735 41% 1314 1735 43% 1311 1826 42% Science 534 1377 28% 547 1411 28% 545 1450 27% SSEHS 872 862 50% 971 923 51% 1001 951 51% SSPGS 988 811 55% 1054 859 55% 1116 852 57% WSMEM 279 1710 14% 316 1750 15% 315 1667 16% Total 5820 9469 38% 6414 9965 39% 6674 9964 40% STEMM 2440 6589 27% 2657 6903 28% 2713 6804 29% AHSSBL 3380 2880 54% 3551 2890 55% 3684 2937 56% Table 2.2. Total headcount of Students over the last 3 academic years - split by School & gender. STEMM Schools / AHSSBL Schools / London is mixed discipline and opened 15/16

58% of students are in STEMM Schools and of those 29% are women. In AHSSBL Schools proportions of women are greater although men appear underrepresented in SAED – the School’s submission in 2019/20 will explore why men are underrepresented (A11.1). We have 4 Schools of engineering / technology (LDS, SAACME, SABCE and WSMEM) covering 1/3 of our student body - 21% are women which is above our benchmark (17% - HESA Engineering & Technology subject area 2015/16).

15

(v) list and sizes of science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine (STEMM) and arts, humanities, social science, business and law (AHSSBL) departments. Present data for academic and support staff separately – words: 78

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Female Male F% Female Male F% Female Male F%

LDS 53 71 43% 57 67 46% 55 71 43% Academic 33 57 37% 37 53 42% 33 57 36% PSS 20 14 59% 20 14 59% 22 14 61% London 30 41 42% 42 51 45% Academic 18 27 39% 28 37 43% PSS 12 14 46% 14 14 50% SAACME 85 213 28% 86 225 28% 95 229 29% Academic 44 157 22% 48 165 22% 57 170 25% PSS 41 56 42% 38 60 39% 38 59 39% SABCE 67 114 37% 65 105 38% 64 107 37% Academic 40 94 30% 39 89 30% 40 91 30% PSS 27 20 57% 26 16 62% 24 16 60% SAED 78 57 58% 84 54 61% 89 53 63% Academic 54 38 59% 57 37 61% 61 37 63% PSS 24 19 56% 27 17 61% 28 16 64% SBE 152 118 56% 160 124 56% 151 126 55% Academic 72 104 41% 82 113 42% 82 115 42% PSS 80 14 85% 78 11 88% 69 11 86% Science 95 162 37% 112 164 40% 108 161 40% Academic 44 135 24% 51 129 28% 54 137 28% PSS 51 27 65% 61 35 64% 54 24 69% SSEHS 147 122 55% 131 137 49% 135 120 53% Academic 76 104 42% 68 118 37% 75 104 42% PSS 71 18 80% 63 19 77% 60 16 79% SSPGS 116 103 53% 124 110 53% 134 115 54% Academic 74 93 44% 81 97 46% 77 106 42% PSS 42 10 81% 43 13 77% 57 9 86% WSMEM 118 311 28% 137 351 28% 115 322 26% Academic 59 243 20% 70 279 20% 60 257 19% PSS 59 68 46% 67 72 48% 55 65 46% Total 912 1271 42% 986 1379 42% 988 1356 42% Academic 497 1025 33% 551 1108 33% 567 1112 34% PSS 415 246 63% 435 271 62% 421 244 63% STEMM 565 993 36% 588 1050 36% 571 1011 36% Academic 296 790 27% 313 834 27% 318 817 28% PSS 269 203 57% 275 216 56% 253 194 57% AHSSBL 347 278 56% 368 288 56% 375 294 56% Academic 201 235 46% 220 247 47% 221 258 46% PSS 146 43 77% 148 41 78% 154 36 81% Table 2.3. Staff sizes of Schools – split by gender and job role. STEMM Schools / AHSSBL Schools / London is mixed discipline and opened 15/16

As expected, proportions of academic women are higher in AHSSBL than STEMM and we perform better than the AHSSBL benchmark – 45% (HESA). Greater numbers of technical PSS staff in STEMM Schools balances the

16

overrepresentation of women in administrative PSS roles for those Schools but not for AHSSBL Schools. It is encouraging that the proportions of women academics are in line or above the proportions of women students in each School (except SAED where women students are heavily overrepresented).

17

3. THE SELF-ASSESSMENT PROCESS – WORDS: 849 Recommended word count: Bronze: 1000 words | Silver: 1000 words

Describe the self-assessment process. This should include:

(i) a description of the self-assessment team – Words: 76

Core members of the SAT comprise School champions, chaired by the Institutional Champion (PVCR) and a range of staff whose roles are relevant to the SAT. School champions receive workload allocations and represent the views of their School SATs (which comprise a wider membership of grades and roles).

Attendance is flexible and anyone is encouraged to attend. Throughout the self-assessment and the 2014 award period various staff have attended our meetings and contributed to this submission.

Gen

der

Name SAT Role University Role Work-life balance

M Steve Rothberg

Chair / Institutional Champion PVCR FT - Father - 2 children

M Sam Kirk Athena SWAN Project Officer

Athena SWAN Project Officer FT

F Abida Akram

E&D Advisor / HR representative

Staff Development Officer (E&D

FT - Works flexibly due to disabilities

F Fehmidar Munir SSEHS Champion Reader in SSEHS

FT - Mother - Works from home 1 day a week

F Serpil Acar LDS Champion Professor in LDS FT - Mother - 2 children

F Marta Mazzocco Science Champion Professor in Science FT - Mother - 1 child

M Sergey Saveliev

Physics E&D coordinator

AD (Research) in Science FT - Father - 2 children

M Jim Reynolds

Chemistry E&D coordinator Lecturer in Chemistry FT - Father - 1 child

F Shaheen Fatima

Computer Science E&D coordinator

Lecturer in Computer Science FT

F Claudia Garetto

Mathematical Sciences & MEC coordinator

Lecturer in Mathematics FT - Mother - 2 children

M Malcolm Cook SABCE Champion

AD (Research) in SABCE FT - Father - 2 children

F Sara Ronca SAACME Champion Senior Lecturer in SAACME

FT – Mother - 2 children (both at campus nursery)

F Jenny Harding

WSMEME Champion

Professor in WSMEME FT - Mother

F Line Nyhagen SSPGS Champion Reader in SSPGS FT - Mother - 2 children

F Christine Coupland SBE Co-Champion Professor in SBE FT

F Sarah Barnard SBE Co-Champion Lecturer in SBE FT – Mother - 2children

F Clare Hutton SAED Champion

Senior Lecturer in SAED

FT - Mother - 3 children - worked PT 2008 - 2016

F Jo Tacchi London Champion

Professor at Loughborough in London FT – Mother – 1 Dependant

F Kathryn PGR & Researcher Head of Researcher PT - 2 dependants - recently

18

North Development Development increased hours at my request

F Laura Justham WES Chair

Senior Lecturer in WSMEME FT - Mother - 2 children

F Katryna Kalawsky

Project Officer for 2014 award

Doctoral Researcher Development Officer

FT - PT PGT student - Hall Warden

Table 3.1.1. Formal members of University SAT. Formal membership is open to all departmental E&D coordinators, at their digression. Currently, only Science departmental E&D coordinators attend.

(ii) an account of the self-assessment process – Words: 557

Since our 2014 award, the SAT has continued to meet every 2 months to review School submissions, progress the institutional action plan and to work towards gender equality in areas outside of the action plan.

Outside of meetings, members of the SAT communicate via email and have regular catch ups with the AS Project Officer.

AS is fully integrated into the University governance and is reported through Human Resources Committee (HRC). The SAT has updated HRC annually with an action plan progress update. HRC is the direct reporting route for the SAT and must approve all AS submissions. HRC itself is chaired by the COO and members include lay members of University Council, SMT and elected representatives from each job family (T5.6.11). HRC reports to University Council.

Self-Assessment Process

Data analysis took place throughout 2016 to discuss and outline areas of impact and further action – each meeting focused on specific datasets.

In June 2016, a University wide staff survey was carried out to coincide with our Silver submission which saw a 72% response rate. Findings from the survey and outcomes fed into the self-assessment.

2016 Staff Survey

Led by Professor Jacqui Glass (AD, SABCE), the approach to the survey reflects how we have embedded AS into our structures and have been influenced by its principles. An advisory group was set up with membership representative of all job families, grades, PT/FT, and a 50/50 gender split. Having views representative of our entire campus community helped ensure questions were relevant and solutions to maximise response rates were found. Members of the group became survey champions in their areas of work and some even volunteered to be in videos, as part of our media campaign, to encourage participation!

19

From the outset, the AS Project Officer was involved (and was a member of the group) to ensure the survey asked questions relevant to our self-assessment. With support from our campus unions, E&D questions were broadened to be more inclusive of trans staff and a wider range of sexualities. Involving the AS Project Officer in the staff survey will be continued (A1.4).

~72% of eligible staff responded to the survey - an improvement from the previous survey of 64%. This is an excellent response and has helped identify our successes and weakness, which are further discussed in this self-assessment.

In support of an action from our previous action plan and this self-assessment, a further survey of recent maternity returners was undertaken by HR in 2017. 52 maternity returners responded (~50% of those contacted) and focus groups were organised to follow up the issues identified.

To support assessment of Research-only staff we drew upon previous work undertaken as part of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers in 2016. We also used our CROS 2017 survey to identify specific issues for Research-only staff.

Throughout 2017, actions were devised in response to the self-assessment and a final action plan was agreed by HRC in October 2017. In March 2017, our development of actions and assessment of impact was developed by a workshop, delivered by the ECU and attended by 14 members of the SAT.

As part of the self-assessment, relevant staff were consulted to support the process and collaboratively develop actions with the SAT. This self-assessment has been a collaborative effort across campus with many contributions being made outside of the SAT.

20

(iii) plans for the future of the self-assessment team – Words: 216

The self-assessment has identified a need to broaden our membership to be more reflective of the charter principles and our University. We had hoped that our existing membership and consultations would facilitate this but we have found we need specific formal representation for PSS colleagues and ensure School SATs follow our lead (A1.1). This academic year we have introduced student membership to the SAT via the LSU’s Women’s Officer and a PGR student representative.

We are also aware that our SAT is not gender balanced – caused by the current gender composition of our champions. The Chair reaffirmed to ALT (Deans & SMT) the requirement of champions to be senior figures in their School and could be either gender, highlighting that men were currently underrepresented on the SAT. With several champions being rotated over this award period, the Chair will continue to encourage Deans to consider men for the role. The impact of this action has recently been evidenced with Dr Sara Ronca’s replacement – Professor GianLuca Li Puma for SAACME.

The SAT will continue to meet every two months, provide support for School award applications and will update HRC on progress against the action plan annually. To structure our work during the award period we have also committed several agenda items as actions in our action plan.

21

4. A PICTURE OF THE INSTITUTION – WORDS: 2933 Recommended word count: Bronze: 2000 words | Silver: 3000 words

4.1. Academic and research staff data – Words: 2416 (i) Academic and research staff by grade and gender - Words: 720

Look at the career pipeline across the whole institution and between STEMM and AHSSBL subjects. Comment on and explain any differences between women and men, and any differences between STEMM and AHSSBL subjects. Identify any issues in the pipeline at particular grades/levels.

Total University

G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 Total

2014/15 61 553 319 355 248 1535 Female 22 208 114 110 44 498 Female % 36% 38% 36% 31% 18% 32% Male 39 345 205 245 204 1038 Male % 64% 62% 64% 69% 82% 68% 2015/16 70 579 380 381 248 1658 Female 27 211 140 127 46 551 Female % 38% 36% 37% 33% 19% 33% Male 43 368 240 254 202 1108 Male % 62% 64% 63% 67% 81% 67% 2016/17 80 566 414 377 241 1678 Female 32 213 159 116 46 567 Female % 40% 38% 38% 31% 19% 34% Male 48 353 255 261 195 1112 Male % 60% 62% 62% 69% 81% 66% Table 4.1.1. Total academic and research staff across the University - split by grade and gender.

Over the three year period (T4.1.1), we have seen a 9% growth in academic (including research) staff. In this context of significant overall growth, it is of particular note that the overall percentage of female staff has grown from 32% to 34%, just short of 70 additional female staff. This is a positive outcome and demonstrates the impact of our commitment to AS.

Weighting for our subject mix, we are above our benchmark (31% HESA). Our proportions of women are fairly consistent from G5 to G7, where we also see a steadily increasing percentage. Proportions at G8 and G9 have not yet risen to the G5-G7 level but, while there is long-term steady growth, the proportions of senior academic women is not improving quickly enough, despite our interventions. At G9 our professorial level we remain below our weighted benchmark (24% HESA).

22

Fixing the academic leaky pipeline remains our priority and our actions, concentrated around recruitment, promotion and career support, reflect this ambition.

To fix the academic leaky pipeline, we are prioritising the following actions in our plan:

3.1. Ex100 is our high profile recruitment campaign and aims to improve our representation of underrepresented groups. It includes several examples of good practice that, following evaluation, will be shared across our other recruitment campaigns.

3.2. Through Ex100 we will continue to explore using different platforms such as FaceBook to target our job advertisements to increase applications from our underrepresented target groups.

5.2. We will embed an annual review of women RTE staff not promoted in the last 2 years with Deans. This will identify eligible individuals in advance of PDR and/or facilitate discussions around support required, if necessary.

5.3. We will run professorial briefing sessions, delivered by members of the promotion committee to improve our communication and support for prospective applicants.

11.1. Change needed locally, in our Schools, will be facilitated by departmental AS awards. All of our Schools will hold or have applied for awards by 2022 – the end of this University award.

23

STEMM Schools


2014/15 49 439 206 240 151 1086 Female 14 150 52 61 18 296 Female % 29% 34% 25% 25% 12% 27% Male 35 289 154 179 133 790 Male % 71% 66% 75% 75% 88% 73% 2015/16 62 466 223 248 147 1147 Female 20 152 59 67 15 313 Female % 32% 33% 26% 27% 10% 27% Male 42 313 165 182 132 834 Male % 68% 67% 74% 73% 90% 73% 2016/17 66 439 233 255 143 1135 Female 20 151 66 64 17 318 Female % 30% 35% 28% 25% 12% 28% Male 46 287 167 190 126 817 Male % 70% 65% 72% 75% 88% 72% Table 4.1.2. Academic and research staff in STEMM Schools - split by grade and gender.

Since our 2014 AS award, our success at recruiting STEMM women lecturers, (S5.1.i) has impacted our overall proportions of women at G6 and, in particular, G7. This is encouraging and one of our significant successes since receiving our first AS award in 2009 is that we have increased our STEMM women lecturers by 69% from 36 in 2008/09 to 61 in 2016/17.

The proportion of STEMM women at G9 has doubled over the last 10 years but, despite the promising increases at lower grades, it has remained static over the last 3 years. The proportion is at the weighted benchmark (12%) but we are resolute, all the way up to the VC, that we must improve. To this end, in 2017, we began an ambitious recruitment drive (Excellence 100) with a specific aim to increase our representation of women and BAME professors (S5.1.i). We also recognise the challenges women face in promotion and so have committed to take an equally active role in increasing the representation of women through promotion (S5.1.iii).

24

AHSSBL Schools


2014/15 11 108 111 112 94 436 Female 8 57 62 49 26 201 Female % 68% 53% 56% 43% 28% 46% Male 4 51 49 63 68 235 Male % 32% 47% 44% 57% 72% 54% 2015/16 8 103 139 122 94 467 Female 7 55 72 55 31 220 Female % 92% 53% 52% 45% 33% 47% Male 1 48 67 67 63 247 Male % 8% 47% 48% 55% 67% 53% 2016/17 14 111 156 111 87 479 Female 12 55 79 48 27 221 Female % 88% 50% 51% 43% 31% 46% Male 2 56 77 64 60 258 Male % 12% 50% 49% 57% 69% 54% Table 4.1.3. Academic and research staff in AHSSBL Schools - split by grade and gender.

Across the grades there are better proportions of women than STEMM. The high proportion at G5 is an artefact of small numbers but there is a genuine leak from G8 to G9 – comparable to that in STEMM. Although we have already exceeded our weighted benchmark (25% HESA) and the sector average of 30% (HESA), we are determined to address the leak further through external recruitment and internal promotion (S5.1).

At G8, we are encouraged by the proportion of women readers, now 50% (S4.1.iii). At Loughborough, our promotion criteria define a reader as somebody “on a clear trajectory towards achieving … Professor”. However, the proportion of senior lecturers has correspondingly dipped to 38% (S4.1.iii); in particular, we found that SSPGS had only 18% women senior lecturers (2016/17). SSPGS will submit for their first AS award (and be the first AHSSBL School to submit) in 2018/19 and this will capture their aim to work towards improvement (A 11.1).

25

London

G6 G7 G8 G9 Total

2015/16 10 18 10 7 45 Female 4 9 5 18 Female % 36% 53% 47% 0% 39% Male 6 8 5 7 27 Male % 64% 47% 53% 100% 61% 2016/17 17 26 11 11 65 Female 7 15 4 2 28 Female % 39% 58% 38% 18% 43% Male 10 11 7 9 37 Male % 61% 42% 62% 82% 57% Table 4.1.4. Academic and research staff in London - split by grade and gender.

Our London campus took its first students in 2015. Small staff numbers at each grade prohibits detailed assessment but 43% staff overall are women with 2/11 women professors so this is an acceptable start in the national context. We have appointed an AS champion, Professor Jo Tacchi to lead our London SAT and work towards securing an award before 2022 (A11.1).

26

(ii) Academic and research staff on fixed-term, open-ended/permanent and zero-hour contracts by gender – Words: 513

Comment on the proportions of men and women on these contracts. Comment on what is being done to ensure continuity of employment and to address any other issues, including redeployment schemes.

The majority of academics are on open contracts driven –by the greater number of RTE roles (F4.1.5). In STEMM Schools there is a greater proportion of staff on fixed contracts, reflecting the greater number of contract funded research-only roles, though open contracts remain the majority (T4.1.6). Differences between genders are not significant.

Research, Teaching & Enterprise Academics:

Female Male Female Male Female Male2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Zero 21 30 26 37 29 44Fixed 191 366 187 373 191 368Open 286 642 338 698 347 700

57% 62% 61% 63% 61% 63%

38% 35% 34% 34% 34% 33%

4% 3% 5% 3% 5% 4%

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

100%

Figure 4.1.1. Academic and research staff by Contract Type & Gender


Fixed 19 47 11 40 11 37Open 229 558 270 588 273 604

92% 92% 96% 94% 96% 94%

8% 8% 4% 6% 4% 6%

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

100%

Figure 4.1.2. RTE academics by Contract Type & Gender

27

The proportion of RTE staff on fixed-term contracts has been decreasing since our 2014 award action to reduce fixed term contract use. There are no significant gender differences. We note the difference in AHSSBL fixed term contracts between men and women from 2015/16 onwards (T4.1.7). This is reflective of small numbers however the SAT will monitor this throughout the award period, as part of its wider data monitoring remit.

Research-only Academics:

Our use of fixed term contracts for Research-only staff has remained stable, for both men and women. This reflects the uncertain nature of research funding which limits our ability to reduce our reliance on these contracts.

Proportionally, more women than men are on open contracts. Whilst open contracts are beneficial in terms of stability, development and training, open contracts are associated with being in a post for 4 years and may suggest that a higher proportion of women have not been able to progress from Research-only roles to open-ended academic posts. Focus groups will be undertaken to explore this observation (A8.1).

Before the end of their contract, staff on fixed term contracts are put on the redeployment register. Where all essential criteria are met staff are able to interview for vacancies before they are made public.


Fixed 158 299 163 320 160 308Open 38 37 43 50 37 38

19% 11% 21% 14% 19% 11%

81% 89% 79% 86% 81% 89%

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

100%

Figure 4.1.3. Research-only academics by Contract Type & Gender

28

Teaching-only academics:

At Loughborough we have relatively few substantive teaching-only posts but we offer our postgraduate research students and research staff opportunities to teach as career development. Consequently, a large proportion of our Teaching-only staff appear on zero-hour contracts. Our system for recording staff on these contracts cannot currently differentiate between PGRs and research staff gaining career development opportunities, visiting academics, or holders of a substantive post. We are currently addressing this and HRC commit to review our use of these contracts (A2.1) following completion of this work. It is now a priority for us to identify who is working on a zero-hours contract and, in doing so, the reasons for their use.

Proportionally more men are on open teaching-only contracts than women. These contracts are more common in STEMM and, in particular, are used for technical tuition and so are exposed to the same gender trends seen in other academic roles in these subjects. The number of women on open contracts has increased due to reviews of fixed contracts in our AHSSBL Schools (T4.1.7). Following our review of zero-hour contracts we will be better placed to identify actual trends and any areas for action.

Teaching-only academics at our London campus are on zero-hour or fixed term contracts (T4.1.8). This reflects its recent opening and the temporary use of casual staff as one of the ways in which we manage increasing student numbers in advance of the appointment of permanent faculty. Again our review of zero-hour contracts will enable better assessment and identification of any areas for action.


Zero 21 30 26 37 29 44Fixed 14 20 13 13 20 23Open 19 47 25 60 37 58

35% 49% 39% 55% 43% 46%

26% 21%

20% 12%

23% 18% 38%

31% 40%

33% 33% 35%

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

100%

Figure 4.1.4 Teaching-only academics by Contract Type & Gender

29

Total University

RTE Research-only Teaching-only

Fixed Term Open Fixed Term Open Fixed Term Open Zero

2014/15 66 787 457 75 34 66 50 Female 19 229 158 38 14 19 21 Female % 8% 92% 81% 19% 26% 35% 38% Male 47 558 299 37 20 47 30 Male % 8% 92% 89% 11% 21% 49% 31% 2015/16 51 858 483 93 26 85 62 Female 11 270 163 43 13 25 26 Female % 4% 96% 79% 21% 20% 39% 40% Male 40 588 320 50 13 60 37 Male % 6% 94% 86% 14% 12% 55% 33% 2016/17 48 877 468 75 43 95 72 Female 11 273 160 37 20 37 29 Female % 4% 96% 81% 19% 23% 43% 33% Male 37 604 308 38 23 58 44 Male % 6% 94% 89% 11% 18% 46% 35% Table 4.1.5. Total University academic staff - split by function, contract & gender. % are a calculation of contract type within gender for each academic function e.g. % RTE women on open contract in 2014/15: 92%

STEMM Schools



2014/15 34 509 399 55 22 44 23 Female 8 117 121 26 10 8 6 Female % 6% 94% 82% 18% 42% 34% 24% Male 26 392 278 29 12 36 17 Male % 6% 94% 91% 9% 18% 55% 26% 2015/16 19 537 428 67 15 55 26 Female 2 129 128 27 7 12 8 Female % 2% 98% 83% 17% 26% 45% 29% Male 17 408 300 40 8 43 18 Male % 4% 96% 88% 12% 12% 62% 26% 2016/17 20 548 406 55 20 59 27 Female 5 133 123 22 8 19 8 Female % 4% 96% 85% 15% 23% 54% 23% Male 15 415 283 33 12 40 19 Male % 3% 97% 90% 10% 17% 56% 27%

Table 4.1.6. STEMM academic staff - split by function, contract & gender. % are a calculation of contract type within gender for each academic function e.g. % RTE women on an open contract in 2014/15: 94%

30

AHSSBL Schools



2014/15 32 269 53 20 12 22 28 Female 11 111 37 12 4 11 15 Female % 9% 91% 76% 24% 13% 37% 50% Male 21 158 16 8 8 11 13 Male % 12% 88% 67% 33% 25% 35% 40% 2015/16 25 300 47 26 6 30 33 Female 6 133 33 16 3 13 16 Female % 4% 96% 67% 33% 9% 40% 51% Male 19 167 14 10 3 17 17 Male % 10% 90% 58% 42% 8% 47% 45% 2016/17 21 298 53 20 16 36 35 Female 3 127 34 15 7 18 17 Female % 2% 98% 69% 31% 17% 43% 40% Male 18 171 19 5 9 18 18 Male % 10% 90% 79% 21% 20% 40% 40% Table 4.1.7. AHSSBL academic staff split - by function, contract & gender. % are a calculation of contract type within gender for each academic function e.g. % RTE women on an open contract in 2014/15: 91% London


Fixed Term Open Fixed Term Fixed Term Zero

2015/16 7 21 8 5 4 Female 3 8 2 3 2 Female % 27% 73% 100% 66% 34% Male 4 13 6 2 2 Male % 24% 76% 100% 49% 51% 2016/17 7 31 9 7 11 Female 3 13 3 5 4 Female % 19% 81% 100% 57% 43% Male 4 18 6 2 7 Male % 18% 82% 100% 23% 77% Table 4.1.8. London academic staff - split by function, contract & gender. % are a calculation of contract type within gender for each academic function e.g. % RTE women on an open contract in 2015/16: 73%

31

(iii) Academic staff by contract function and gender: research-only, research and teaching, and teaching-only – Words: 751

Comment on the proportions of men and women on these contracts and by job grade.

Overall, ~58% of men are on RTE contracts compared to ~50% of women. There are correspondingly higher proportions of women in both Research-only and Teaching-only roles across the University.

We have commented previously (S4.1.ii – F4.1.3) on the higher proportion of women in research-only roles. We have also commented previously (S4.1.ii – F4.1.4) on our data on teaching-only roles and committed to a review (A2.1).


Teaching 54 97 64 110 86 125Research 196 336 206 370 197 346RTE 248 605 281 628 284 641

50% 58% 51% 57% 50% 58%

39% 32%

37% 33% 35%

31%

11% 9% 12% 10% 15% 11%

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

100%

Figure 4.1.5. Academic staff by Function and Gender

University Total

STEMM AHSSBL London

RTE Research-only Teaching-only RTE Research-only Teaching-only RTE Research-only Teaching-only

2014/15 543 454 89 301 73 62 Female 125 147 24 122 49 30 Female % 42% 50% 8% 61% 24% 15% Male 418 307 65 179 24 32 Male % 53% 39% 8% 76% 10% 14% 2015/16 556 495 96 325 73 69 28 8 9 Female 131 155 27 139 49 32 11 2 5 Female % 42% 50% 9% 63% 22% 15% 63% 11% 26% Male 425 340 69 186 24 37 17 6 4 Male % 51% 41% 8% 75% 10% 15% 63% 22% 15% 2016/17 568 461 106 319 73 87 38 9 18 Female 138 145 35 130 49 42 16 3 9 Female % 43% 46% 11% 59% 22% 19% 58% 11% 31% Male 430 316 71 189 24 45 22 6 9 Male % 53% 39% 9% 73% 9% 17% 60% 16% 24%

Table 4.1.9. Academic staff - split by contract function, gender & discipline.

33

Research, Teaching & Enterprise Academics (T4.1.10):

This group of academic staff are one focus of our AS activity. Since 2009, previous actions around recruitment and promotion have grown our proportions of women at each level, across the University, and in particular, in STEMM Schools.

In STEMM, over the last three years (T4.1.10), proportions of women lecturers have increased by 3% and proportions of women readers have increased by 7%. This has contributed to overall increases in women across the University in the reporting period: Lecturers ↑ 28% (29 women) and Readers ↑ 40% (12 women). This is encouraging and demonstrates the successful impact of our actions and AS commitment. It is also encouraging that the impacts of our AS activity, which prior to 2016 was focused in STEMM Schools, has been felt in AHSSBL Schools where increases in lecturers (usually new appointments) and readers (usually internal promotions) are also seen.

As mentioned previously, our proportion of women professors has remained static across the institution and we have committed to a range of actions to tackle this. Variations in senior lecturer proportions (T4.1.10) are a consequence of a concerted effort to promote more women to reader and a slower rate of promotion due, in part, to a diminishing pool of eligible lecturers (S5.1.iii).

0%5%

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

Lecturer Senior Lecturer Reader Professor

Figure 4.1.6. University RTE Academic F% Pipeline

2016/17 2014 Award 2009 Award

34

While the natural volatility in year-on-year data masks genuine trends, looking back over a longer time period, to our first award, shows the sustained impact of our AS activity (F4.1.6). In STEMM (F4.1.7), our increases at each level, and in particular Lecturer and Reader, are apparent as is the need to focus on Senior Lecturers and Professors where increases are smaller (A5.2 & A5.3).

It is also encouraging that our AS activity has been felt in our AHSSBL Schools. The impact of our actions to improve promotion and recruitment are already apparent at Senior Lecturer and Reader levels.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


Figure 4.1.7. STEMM RTE Academic F% Pipeline

2016/17 2014 Award 2009 Award

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Figure 4.1.8. AHSSBL RTE Academic F% Pipeline

2009 Award 2014 Award 2016/17

University STEMM AHSSBL

Lecturer S. Lecturer Reader Professor Lecturer S. Lecturer Reader Professor Lecturer S. Lecturer Reader Professor

2014/15 271 276 59 247 161 190 42 150 107 83 17 94 Female 104 82 18 44 48 48 11 18 55 34 7 26 Female % 38% 30% 31% 18% 30% 25% 26% 12% 51% 41% 41% 28% Male 167 194 41 203 113 142 31 132 52 49 10 68 Male % 62% 70% 69% 82% 70% 75% 74% 88% 49% 59% 59% 72% 2015/16 304 290 68 247 171 193 46 146 119 91 21 94 Female 118 88 29 46 52 48 16 15 59 37 12 31 Female % 39% 30% 43% 19% 30% 25% 35% 10% 50% 41% 57% 33% Male 186 202 39 201 119 145 30 131 60 54 9 63 Male % 61% 70% 57% 81% 70% 75% 65% 90% 50% 59% 43% 67% 2016/17 332 275 78 240 184 190 52 142 128 80 24 87 Female 133 75 30 46 61 43 17 17 61 30 12 27 Female % 40% 27% 38% 19% 33% 23% 33% 12% 48% 38% 50% 31% Male 199 200 48 194 123 147 35 125 67 50 12 60 Male % 60% 73% 62% 81% 67% 77% 67% 88% 52% 63% 50% 69%

Table 4.1.10. Academic staff in RTE roles - split by discipline, grade and gender.

36

London

Lecturer S. Lecturer Reader Professor

2015/16 14 6 1 7 Female 7 3 1 Female % 50% 50% 100% 0% Male 7 3 7 Male % 50% 50% 0% 100% 2016/17 20 5 2 11 Female 11 2 1 2 Female % 55% 40% 50% 18% Male 9 3 1 9 Male % 45% 60% 50% 82%

Table 4.1.11. London academic staff in RTE roles - split by discipline, grade and gender.

37

Intersectionality

Through our major programme of work around the BAME attainment gap, influenced by changes in the AS charter, we have started to focus attention on ethnicity and its intersection with gender. Overall, our proportions of BAME staff decline from 23% of Lecturers to 15% of Professors (2016/17). Our proportions are positive compared to sector benchmarks (12% - RTE BAME academics & 9% BAME Professor – HESA).

Lecturer Senior Lecturer Reader Professor Total

White 136 156 48 116 456 Female 47 39 15 16 117 Male 89 117 33 100 339 BAME 42 33 4 22 101 Female 13 4 2 1 20 Male 29 29 2 21 81 Table 4.1.12. RTE academic staff numbers split by level, ethnic group & gender. Staff with unknown ethnicity are not included.

Both external recruitment and internal promotion are parts of our work to eradicate the BAME attainment gap by appointing visible role models. This has fed into our Excellence 100 recruitment campaign (S5.1.i), alongside our ambitions to increase our proportion of women. Gender and ethnicity must be considered together. Traditionally, our proportions of women academics rely on white women whilst our proportions of BAME academics rely on BAME men. Through Excellence 100 and its associated actions (S5.1.i), we are committing to improve our proportions of BAME women and we are already seeing impact: 3 of our recent appointments through Excellence 100 have been BAME women professors.

Lecturer SeniorLecturer Reader Professor

White Male 45% 60% 58% 67%White Female 31% 25% 35% 19%BAME Male 14% 12% 4% 13%BAME Female 10% 2% 4% 1%

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

Figure 4.1.9. 2016/17 RTE Academic Intersectionality Pipeline

38

Research-only (T4.1.13):

The proportions of women in G6 Research-only roles drive the overall proportions – in 2016/17 66% of all Research-only academics were G6 and in STEMM. The proportion of women in G6 STEMM roles (33% 2016/17) is below our STEMM PGR proportion of women (36% 2016/17). Through local AS action in our Schools and events run through DC such as Inspiring Women we are encouraging PGR women to continue in academia.

Image shows 1 of our Inspiring Women, Professor Jacqui Glass, delivering her session at our

Inspiring Women PGR event - 2017

We use the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers as a tool to improve Researcher support and increase the proportion of women in these roles. By aligning our actions from the Concordat with this award we are committing to that aim (A8.2). Further detail on these actions is in S5.3.iii.

The decline in the total proportion of women at G7 has been caused by the appointment of more men. To change this trend we are committing to encourage more applications to fellowships from women through the Research Leaders strand of our research strategy (A8.6).

University STEMM AHSSBL London

G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G5 G6 G7 G8 G6

2014/15 49 433 41 8 1 39 378 32 4 1 10 50 9 4 Female 18 158 15 5 11 127 7 2 7 31 8 3 Female % 37% 36% 37% 63% 0% 28% 34% 22% 50% 0% 70% 62% 89% 75% Male 31 275 26 3 1 28 251 25 2 1 3 19 1 1 Male % 63% 64% 63% 38% 100% 72% 66% 78% 50% 100% 30% 38% 11% 25% 2015/16 57 467 45 6 1 51 405 35 3 1 6 54 10 3 8 Female 22 163 17 4 16 129 8 2 6 32 9 2 2 Female % 39% 35% 38% 67% 0% 31% 32% 23% 67% 0% 100% 59% 90% 67% 25% Male 35 304 28 2 1 35 276 27 1 1 22 1 1 6 Male % 61% 65% 62% 33% 100% 69% 68% 77% 33% 100% 0% 41% 10% 33% 75% 2016/17 62 422 51 7 1 51 360 44 5 1 11 53 7 2 9 Female 23 152 17 5 13 118 11 3 10 31 6 2 3 Female % 37% 36% 33% 71% 0% 25% 33% 25% 60% 0% 91% 58% 86% 100% 33% Male 39 270 34 2 1 38 242 33 2 1 1 22 1 6 Male % 63% 64% 67% 29% 100% 75% 67% 75% 40% 100% 9% 42% 14% 0% 67%

Table 4.1.13. Academic staff in Research-only roles – split by discipline, grade and gender. London only has G6 research-only staff.

40

Teaching only (T4.1.14):

Year on year, in the reporting period, there is greater volatility in numbers of Teaching-only academic staff. Proportions of women in each grade reflect broader subject trends and so we find gender parity in AHSSBL Schools and declining proportions of women in STEMM Schools.

University STEMM AHSSBL London

G5 G6 G7 G8 G5 G6 G7 G8 G5 G6 G7 G8 G6 G7 G8

2014/15 9 174 165 31 3 102 69 15 6 71 85 15 Female 5 74 57 8 3 34 11 1 2 39 41 6 Female % 56% 43% 35% 26% 100% 33% 16% 7% 33% 55% 48% 40% Male 4 100 108 23 68 58 14 4 32 44 9 Male % 44% 57% 65% 74% 0% 67% 84% 93% 67% 45% 52% 60% 2015/16 8 147 173 70 5 65 67 24 3 73 99 15 9 7 31 Female 5 70 62 23 3 29 10 5 2 36 47 6 5 5 12 Female % 63% 48% 36% 33% 60% 45% 15% 21% 67% 49% 47% 40% 56% 71% 39% Male 3 77 111 47 2 36 57 19 1 37 52 9 4 2 19 Male % 38% 52% 64% 67% 40% 55% 85% 79% 33% 51% 53% 60% 44% 29% 61% 2016/17 8 165 235 65 4 69 70 22 4 87 112 10 9 41 32 Female 7 80 95 21 4 32 15 2 3 45 54 6 3 20 12 Female % 88% 48% 40% 32% 100% 46% 21% 9% 75% 52% 48% 60% 33% 49% 38% Male 1 85 140 44 37 55 20 1 42 58 4 6 21 20 Male % 13% 52% 60% 68% 0% 54% 79% 91% 25% 48% 52% 40% 67% 51% 63%

Table 4.1.14. Academic staff in Teaching-only roles split by discipline, grade and gender.

42

(iv) Academic leavers by grade and gender – words: 175

Comment on the reasons academic staff leave the institution. Comment on and explain any differences between men and women, and any differences in schools or departments.

T4.1.15 shows G6 has the highest turnover as the majority of roles in this grade are fixed-term researchers. This accounts for the difference between STEMM and AHSSBL Schools as there are more researchers in STEMM Schools (T4.1.13). The gender distribution of leavers at each grade is in line with our academic populations. Although G7 has a low turnover, in our AHSSBL Schools, more women have left than men. This has been caused by the number of specific fixed-term research posts coming to the end of their contract. Research-only G6 staff on fixed-term contracts drive the overall trend for academics leaving the University. Of those that have resigned, over 50% have been fixed-term academics securing new roles before the end of their contract. In our analysis we found that women were more likely to leave at the end of their contract than men and were less likely to have retired than men. This is explained by the greater proportion of women on fixed-term research posts than at more senior open-ended levels of the academic pipeline (F4.1.5).

G5 G6 G7 G8 G9

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

2014/15 4 33% 8 67% 39 38% 65 63% 7 41% 10 59% 3 18% 14 82% 5 16% 26 84% STEMM 2 29% 5 71% 25 30% 57 70% 2 18% 9 82% 1 8% 12 92% 3 20% 12 80% AHSSBL 2 40% 3 60% 14 64% 8 36% 5 83% 1 17% 2 50% 2 50% 2 13% 14 88% 2015/16 9 35% 17 65% 48 35% 91 65% 8 50% 8 50% 6 35% 11 65% 6 21% 22 79% STEMM 9 35% 17 65% 38 32% 82 68% 3 27% 8 73% 2 25% 6 75% 1 6% 15 94% AHSSBL 10 56% 8 44% 5 100% 0% 3 38% 5 63% 5 42% 7 58% London 0% 1 100% 1 100% 0% 2016/17 0% 1 100% 45 39% 71 61% 11 44% 14 56% 7 44% 9 56% 4 17% 19 83% STEMM 0% 1 100% 32 34% 63 66% 5 42% 7 58% 3 38% 5 63% 1 8% 12 92% AHSSBL 13 62% 8 38% 5 45% 6 55% 4 50% 4 50% 3 30% 7 70% London 1 50% 1 50%

Table 4.1.15. Academic leavers – split by grade, gender and discipline. Blank cells indicate there were no leavers at that grade/gender.

44

(v) Equal pay audits/reviews – words: 257

Comment on the findings from the most recent equal pay audit and identify the institution’s top three priorities to address any disparities and enable equality in pay.

Following our previous award action, to extend equal pay reviews to all staff, we have implemented annual equal pay audits since 2015/16. These comprehensive audits have revealed only 1 disparity. The 2017 disparity at professorial grade is 3.1% in favour of men, below the threshold for further investigation set by the EHRC, below the sector average of 4.7% (UCU 2017 Gender Pay Report) and declining. Our analysis has shown that the gap is driven by having had more men in professorial posts for longer.

We attribute the small size of the gap and its ongoing reduction to the impact of a number of actions implemented through our commitment to AS since 2009. Most notably, in 2013, it was decided that all Professors were to be considered in the annual senior salary review – removing any bias introduced through self-submission or selection by a Dean. This has resulted in an increased number of rewards, demonstrated in our annual EIA, and ultimately, by the overall smaller pay disparity for professors.

Whilst this is encouraging, we still aim to further reduce this disparity by maintaining our interventions. By continuing to undertake our annual equal pay audit and EIA of rewards, we will be able to respond if the gap does not continue to close (A2.2a & A2.2b). The professorial pay deficit is a priority for the University and as such is a specific measure within Council’s diversity KPI (S5.6.i).

Pay disparities are not found at any other grade so we only have one priority: to continue to reduce the professorial disparity.

45

SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY – Words: 517

4.2. Professional and support staff data

(i) Professional and support staff by grade and gender – Words: 274

Look at the career pipeline across the whole institution and between STEMM and AHSSBL subjects. Comment on and explain any difference between women and men, and any differences between STEMM and AHSSBL subjects. Identify any issues at particular grades/levels.

Total University

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 Total

2014/15 639 193 425 490 400 399 308 72 28 2954 Female 472 96 268 355 203 229 176 32 11 1842 Female % 74% 50% 63% 72% 51% 57% 57% 44% 39% 62% Male 167 97 157 135 197 170 132 40 17 1112 Male % 26% 50% 37% 28% 49% 43% 43% 56% 61% 38% 2015/16 614 231 410 496 416 427 310 76 28 3008 Female 449 105 262 371 226 238 171 32 9 1863 Female % 73% 45% 64% 75% 54% 56% 55% 42% 32% 62% Male 165 126 148 125 190 189 139 44 19 1145 Male % 27% 55% 36% 25% 46% 44% 45% 58% 68% 38% 2016/17 517 218 393 539 429 446 306 76 24 2948 Female 375 102 248 406 251 247 168 36 7 1840 Female % 73% 47% 63% 75% 59% 55% 55% 47% 29% 62% Male 142 116 145 133 178 199 138 40 17 1108 Male % 27% 53% 37% 25% 41% 45% 45% 53% 71% 38% Table 4.2.1. Total PSS Staff – split by grade & gender G5 – G8 have more balanced gender proportions whereas G1 – G4 are overrepresented with women and G9 is overrepresented with men. Our total proportion is in line with the sector – 63% (HESA) – except at G9 where we are below the sector benchmark for women – 42% (HESA). Small numbers mean this amounts to just 3 staff but this proportion is also declining. Our training and career support for PSS staff are detailed in S5.4.iii but our SAT will run further assessment of the challenges women face achieving appointment at G9 (A2.3), during the award period, following changes to SAT membership (A1.1). Over the three years, the proportion of women at G5 has increased. This is caused by increased numbers of administrative staff – overrepresented by women and decreased numbers of technical staff – overrepresented by men (F4.2.1).

46

Splitting PSS staff by subject discipline (T4.2.2) demonstrates that women occupy the majority of roles in Schools with the exception of G5 in STEMM (and to a lesser extent G6). This is caused by the higher proportion of technical staff at these grades, where the proportion of women is low at 19% (2016/17 – increased from 14% in 2014/15). Whilst this follows national gendered work trends, we are committed to improving our proportions of women technical staff and, as shown by the increasing proportion, changes to our recruitment processes have translated into impact beyond our academic job families.

Female Male Female Male Female Male1415 1516 1617

Technical 42 219 51 226 49 191Operational 624 457 608 441 547 426Management and Specialist 439 299 441 319 448 331Administrative 737 137 763 159 796 160

40%

12%

41%

14%

43%

14%

24%

27%

24%

28%

24%

30%

34%

41%

33%

39%

30%

38%

2% 20% 3% 20% 3% 17%

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

100%

Figure 4.2.1 PSS Staff split by job family & gender

STEMM AHSSBL London

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G9

2014/15 1 7 54 117 149 93 55 13 1 14 69 44 44 13 4 Female 1 7 33 103 56 43 31 8 1 11 68 27 26 11 2 Female % 100% 100% 61% 88% 38% 46% 56% 62% 100% 79% 99% 61% 59% 85% 50% Male 21 14 93 50 24 5 3 1 17 18 2 2 Male % 0% 0% 39% 12% 62% 54% 44% 38% 0% 21% 1% 39% 41% 15% 50% 2015/16 6 7 47 112 143 110 59 11 1 12 82 45 35 10 4 1 1 10 4 8 2 Female 1 7 30 100 58 45 32 6 1 10 78 29 18 10 2 6 3 3 Female % 17% 100% 64% 89% 41% 41% 54% 55% 100% 83% 95% 64% 51% 100% 50% 0% 0% 60% 75% 38% 0% Male 5 17 12 85 65 27 5 2 4 16 17 2 1 1 4 1 5 2 Male % 83% 0% 36% 11% 59% 59% 46% 45% 0% 17% 5% 36% 49% 0% 50% 100% 100% 40% 25% 63% 100% 2016/17 6 10 38 105 124 101 51 12 9 89 48 31 9 4 3 12 4 7 2 Female 1 6 26 92 53 43 26 6 9 84 33 17 9 2 1 7 3 3 Female % 17% 60% 68% 88% 43% 43% 51% 50% 100% 94% 69% 55% 100% 50% 33% 58% 75% 43% 0% Male 5 4 12 13 71 58 25 6 5 15 14 2 2 5 1 4 2 Male % 83% 40% 32% 12% 57% 57% 49% 50% 0% 6% 31% 45% 0% 50% 67% 42% 25% 57% 100% Table 4.2.2. PSS staff – split by grade, gender & discipline. London opened in 2015/16.

48

Central PSS Divisions

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9

2014/15 638 185 355 303 206 259 236 55 26 Female 471 88 224 184 119 159 131 22 11 Female % 74% 48% 63% 61% 58% 61% 56% 40% 42% Male 167 97 131 119 87 100 105 33 15 Male % 26% 52% 37% 39% 42% 39% 44% 60% 58% 2015/16 608 223 350 301 218 278 233 61 26 Female 448 97 222 193 133 172 126 24 9 Female % 74% 43% 63% 64% 61% 62% 54% 39% 35% Male 160 126 128 108 85 106 107 37 17 Male % 26% 57% 37% 36% 39% 38% 46% 61% 65% 2016/17 511 208 343 345 245 310 239 60 22 Female 374 96 212 230 158 184 130 28 7 Female % 73% 46% 62% 67% 64% 59% 54% 47% 32% Male 137 112 131 115 87 126 109 32 15 Male % 27% 54% 38% 33% 36% 41% 46% 53% 68% Table 4.2.3. Central PSS staff – split by grade & gender The gender profile of PSS in central University divisions reflects the total university pattern – overrepresentation of women in lower grades and overrepresentation of men at G9. As the majority of G9 PSS staff are in central divisions A2.3 will be focused around these divisions.

49

(ii) Professional and support staff on fixed-term, open-ended/permanent and zero-hour contracts by gender – Words: 115

Comment on the proportions of men and women on these contracts. Comment on what is being done to ensure continuity of employment and to address any other issues, including redeployment schemes.

Administrative

Management and Specialist Operational Technical Total

Fixed Open Fixed Open Fixed Open Fixed Open Fixed Open

2014/15 211 663 96 642 81 1000 42 219 430 2524 Female 156 581 64 375 42 582 9 33 271 1571 Female % 21% 79% 15% 85% 7% 93% 21% 79% 15% 85% Male 55 82 32 267 39 418 33 186 159 953 Male % 40% 60% 11% 89% 9% 91% 15% 85% 14% 86% 2015/16 212 710 91 669 47 1002 38 239 388 2620 Female 166 597 62 379 26 582 10 41 264 1599 Female % 22% 78% 14% 86% 4% 96% 20% 80% 14% 86% Male 46 113 29 290 21 420 28 198 124 1021 Male % 29% 71% 9% 91% 5% 95% 12% 88% 11% 89% 2016/17 207 749 93 686 54 919 29 211 383 2565 Female 163 633 59 389 24 523 10 39 256 1584 Female % 20% 80% 13% 87% 4% 96% 20% 80% 14% 86% Male 44 116 34 297 30 396 19 172 127 981 Male % 28% 73% 10% 90% 7% 93% 10% 90% 11% 89% Table 4.2.4. PSS staff split by job family, gender & contract

Overall, the proportions of men and women on open and fixed term contracts are similar. When split by job family the proportions between men and women generally remain similar. We note the difference in fixed term contracts between technical men and women but the small numbers make these not significant. More administrative men than women are on fixed contracts due to the proportion of placement students within these figures, reflecting the higher proportion of men in our undergraduate student body.

Limitations with our fractional contract data means we are unable to provide figures for staff on these contracts. Improvements in progress will enable us to analyse PSS staff in the review undertaken by HRC (A2.1).

50

(iii) Professional and support staff leavers by grade and gender – words: 128

Comment on the reasons staff leave the institution. Comment on and explain any differences between men and women, and any differences in schools or departments.

Female Male

No. % No. %

2014/15 255 64% 145 36% 1 103 74% 37 26% 2 12 44% 15 56% 3 49 56% 39 44% 4 27 61% 17 39% 5 21 60% 14 40% 6 17 65% 9 35% 7 24 67% 12 33% 8 1 33% 2 67% 9 1 100% 0%

2015/16 236 64% 132 36% 1 80 71% 32 29% 2 17 52% 16 48% 3 43 65% 23 35% 4 38 84% 7 16% 5 18 49% 19 51% 6 21 57% 16 43% 7 14 52% 13 48% 8 3 33% 6 67% 9 2 100% 0%

2016/17 226 62% 141 38% 1 71 69% 32 31% 2 8 28% 21 72% 3 51 66% 26 34% 4 42 78% 12 22% 5 22 55% 18 45% 6 18 55% 15 45% 7 11 48% 12 52% 8 3 43% 4 57% 9 0% 1 100%

Table 2.4.5. PSS leavers – split by grade and gender. Leaver proportions higher than expected compared to the total population (T4.2.1) highlighted in red The majority of the leavers reflect the gender proportions in each grade. Where differences from the total population are observed, they are related to exceptional events as follows: 2014/15 G4 – a spike in retirements saw higher proportions of operational men leave

51

G5/6/7 – structural changes in Marketing & Advancement, where women are overrepresented, saw a higher proportion of women leave alongside a spike of G6 fixed-term contracts ending. 2015/16 G4 – a spike in administrative fixed-term contracts ending across the University with no clear trend has contributed to the higher proportion of women leaving. 2016/17 G2 – structural changes in our Facilities Management department has contributed to the higher proportion of men leaving. An EIAs were carried out and did not identify any areas of unfairness or discrimination by protected characteristic.

52

5. SUPPORTING AND ADVANCING WOMEN’S CAREERS – WORDS: 7247 Recommended word count: Bronze: 5000 words | Silver: 6000 words

5.1. Key career transition points: academic staff – Words: 2860 (i) Recruitment – Words: 1184

Break down data by gender and grade for applications, long- and shortlisted candidates, offer and acceptance rates. Comment on how recruitment processes ensure that women (and men in underrepresented disciplines) are encouraged to apply.

Actions taken since our 2014 Bronze Award:

• Job adverts set out our commitment to E&D, policies, and AS. Statement to encourage all underrepresented groups to apply included. Recruitment pack now contains information on family friendly policies, childcare and flexible working arrangements.

• Mandatory R&S training (1 day workshop) now includes session on unconscious bias as well as E&D compliance

• New Assistant Registrar post to manage strategic recruitment mandated to support the appointment of underrepresented groups

• Piloting use of social media to target adverts at underrepresented groups

• Implemented a fellowship scheme for partners of successful applicants to support family relocation to Loughborough

• Overhauled the recruitment system enabling improved data collection

Impact of these actions:

• % women applying to academic vacancies ↑ to 30% in 2016 from 22% in 2014

• % women shortlisted for academic vacancies ↑ to 35% in 2016 from 26% in 2014

• % women offered an academic vacancy ↑ to 45% in 2016 from 32% in 2014. In particular, at Lecturer level, just under 50% of successful shortlisted candidates are women

• Launched in 2017, Ex100 campaign has recruited 20 RTE academics – 50% are women. 56% of Professors (5) are women and 3 are BAME. 63% of Lecturers (5) are women and 4 are STEMM lecturers.

Total University

Table 5.1.1. Total University academic recruitment – split by role, stage and gender. Recruitment data systems have undergone substantial change since our previous award. All recruitment campaigns are now fully recorded (Research-only vacancies fully recorded from 2013 and teaching-only vacancies fully recorded from 2016) and we are now able to produce data by grade however, for consistency, we have grouped vacancies by role. Year refers to a full calendar year: 1st January – 31st December.

Applied Shortlisted Offered Accepted

Female Male F% Female Male F% Female Male F% Female Male F%

2014 524 1871 22% 108 314 26% 47 102 32% 42 94 31% Teaching-only 17 47 27% 2 9 18% 2 2 50% 2 2 50% Research-only 197 618 24% 60 174 26% 24 54 31% 21 48 30% Lecturer 261 948 22% 40 104 28% 19 35 35% 18 33 35% Senior Lecturer 35 153 19% 5 21 19% 1 6 14% 6 0% Professor 14 105 12% 1 6 14% 1 5 17% 1 5 17%

2015 1659 3646 31% 264 485 35% 84 146 37% 82 134 38% Teaching-only 21 69 23% 12 22 35% 4 12 25% 4 11 27% Research-only 289 936 24% 86 207 29% 31 80 28% 30 74 29% Lecturer 1259 2426 34% 142 218 39% 38 44 46% 37 40 48% Senior Lecturer 59 121 33% 15 20 43% 6 6 50% 6 6 50% Reader 2 4 33% 2 1 67% 1 100% 1 100% Professor 29 90 24% 7 17 29% 4 4 50% 4 3 57%

2016 1270 3035 30% 270 493 35% 99 123 45% 91 109 46% Teaching-only 167 123 58% 31 21 60% 9 6 60% 8 6 57% Research-only 462 1164 28% 122 213 36% 53 68 44% 47 61 44% Lecturer 549 1350 29% 97 199 33% 31 33 48% 30 26 54% Senior Lecturer 56 277 17% 9 29 24% 3 5 38% 3 5 38% Reader 6 0% 3 0% 2 0% 2 0% Professor 36 115 24% 11 28 28% 3 9 25% 2 7 22%

STEMM Schools



2014 358 1541 19% 70 260 21% 33 79 29% 31 72 30% Teaching only 17 47 27% 2 9 18% 2 2 50% 2 2 50% Research only 156 545 22% 47 157 23% 19 48 28% 17 43 28% Lecturer 148 740 17% 20 78 20% 12 23 34% 12 21 36% Senior Lecturer 27 121 18% 1 14 7% 5 0% 5 0% Professor 10 88 10% 2 0% 1 0% 1 0%

2015 409 1445 22% 117 307 28% 41 109 27% 40 100 29% Teaching only 19 67 22% 11 22 33% 3 12 20% 3 11 21% Research only 223 803 22% 65 186 26% 22 74 23% 21 68 24% Lecturer 147 484 23% 36 78 32% 13 18 42% 13 16 45% Senior Lecturer 16 61 21% 5 11 31% 3 3 50% 3 3 50% Professor 4 30 12% 10 0% 2 0% 2 0%

2016 658 2165 23% 157 379 29% 60 92 39% 55 80 41% Teaching only 24 32 43% 7 10 41% 2 2 50% 2 2 50% Research only 305 982 24% 83 182 31% 40 60 40% 35 53 40% Lecturer 278 898 24% 59 157 27% 16 23 41% 16 18 47% Senior Lecturer 48 235 17% 8 22 27% 2 3 40% 2 3 40% Reader 5 0% 2 0% 1 0% 1 0% Professor 3 13 19% 6 0% 3 0% 3 0%

Table 5.1.2. STEMM academic recruitment – split by role, stage and gender. Recruitment data systems have undergone substantial change since our previous award. All recruitment campaigns are now fully recorded (Research only vacancies fully recorded from 2013 and teaching only vacancies fully recorded from 2016) and we are now able to produce data by grade however, for consistency, we have grouped vacancies by role. Year refers to a full calendar year: 1st January – 31st December. Figures refer to vacancies in our STEMM Schools only – centrally run campaigns across all disciplines are not included here.

AHSSBL Recruitment



2014 152 238 39% 33 36 48% 14 14 50% 11 14 44% Research-only 32 24 57% 11 8 58% 5 1 83% 4 1 80% Lecturer 110 175 39% 19 19 50% 7 9 44% 6 9 40% Senior Lecturer 6 23 21% 2 6 25% 1 1 50% 1 0% Professor 4 16 20% 1 3 25% 1 3 25% 1 3 25%

2015 620 874 41% 80 78 51% 24 25 49% 24 22 52% Teaching-only 2 2 50% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% Research-only 62 116 35% 18 15 55% 7 4 64% 7 4 64% Lecturer 519 700 43% 52 52 50% 12 18 40% 12 16 43% Senior Lecturer 17 21 45% 5 5 50% 1 1 50% 1 1 50% Professor 20 35 36% 4 6 40% 3 2 60% 3 1 75%

2016 496 699 42% 92 91 50% 29 26 53% 27 22 55% Teaching-only 143 91 61% 24 11 69% 7 4 64% 6 4 60% Research-only 156 182 46% 38 31 55% 12 8 60% 11 8 58% Lecturer 166 317 34% 23 29 44% 8 7 53% 8 5 62% Senior Lecturer 6 25 19% 1 3 25% 1 1 50% 1 1 50% Professor 25 84 23% 6 17 26% 1 6 14% 1 4 20%

Table 5.1.3. Total AHSSBL academic recruitment – split by role, stage and gender. Recruitment data systems have undergone substantial change since our previous award. All recruitment campaigns are now fully recorded (Research only vacancies fully recorded from 2013 and teaching only vacancies fully recorded from 2016) and we are now able to produce data by grade however, for consistency, we have grouped vacancies by role. Year refers to a full calendar year: 1st January – 31st December. Figures refer to vacancies in our AHSSBL Schools only – centrally run campaigns across all disciplines are not included here.

56

Success Rates

Total University

Shortlisted Offered Accepted

Female Male Female Male Female Male

2014 Teaching only 12% 19% 100% 22% 100% 100% Research only 30% 28% 40% 31% 88% 89% Lecturer 15% 11% 48% 34% 95% 94% Senior Lecturer 14% 14% 20% 29% 0% 100% Professor 7% 6% 100% 83% 100% 100%

2015 Teaching only 57% 32% 33% 55% 100% 92% Research only 30% 22% 36% 39% 97% 93% Lecturer 11% 9% 27% 20% 97% 91% Senior Lecturer 25% 17% 40% 30% 100% 100% Reader 100% 25% 50% 0% 100% Professor 24% 19% 57% 24% 100% 75%

2016 Teaching only 19% 17% 29% 29% 89% 100% Research only 26% 18% 43% 32% 89% 90% Lecturer 18% 15% 32% 17% 97% 79% Senior Lecturer 16% 10% 33% 17% 100% 100% Reader 50% 67% 100% Professor 31% 24% 27% 32% 67% 78% Table 5.1.4. Candidate success rates across the University – split by gender at shortlisting, offer and acceptance stages of recruitment. Success rates are calculated as: Shortlisted = shortlisted / applied, Offered = offered / shortlisted, Accepted = accepted / offered

STEMM Schools



2014 Teaching only 12% 19% 100% 22% 100% 100% Research only 30% 29% 40% 31% 89% 90% Lecturer 14% 11% 60% 29% 100% 91% Senior Lecturer 4% 12% 0% 36% 100% Professor 0% 2% 50% 100%

2015 Teaching only 58% 33% 27% 55% 100% 92% Research only 29% 23% 34% 40% 95% 92% Lecturer 24% 16% 36% 23% 100% 89% Senior Lecturer 31% 18% 60% 27% 100% 100% Professor 0% 33% 20% 100%

2016 Teaching only 29% 31% 29% 20% 100% 100% Research only 27% 19% 48% 33% 88% 88% Lecturer 21% 17% 27% 15% 100% 78% Senior Lecturer 17% 9% 25% 14% 100% 100% Reader 40% 50% 100%

57

Professor 0% 46% 50% 100% Table 5.1.5. Candidate success rates across STEMM – split by gender at shortlisting, offer and acceptance stages of recruitment. Success rates are calculated as: Shortlisted = shortlisted / applied, Offered = offered / shortlisted, Accepted = accepted / offered

AHSSBL Schools



2014 Teaching only 34% 33% 45% 13% 80% 100% Research only 17% 11% 37% 47% 86% 100% Senior Lecturer 33% 26% 50% 17% 0% 100% Professor 25% 19% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2015 Teaching only 50% 0% 100% 100% Research only 29% 13% 39% 27% 100% 100% Lecturer 10% 7% 23% 35% 100% 89% Senior Lecturer 29% 24% 20% 20% 100% 100% Professor 20% 17% 75% 33% 100% 50%

2016 Teaching only 17% 12% 29% 36% 86% 100% Research only 24% 17% 32% 26% 92% 100% Lecturer 14% 9% 35% 24% 100% 71% Senior Lecturer 17% 12% 100% 33% 100% 100% Professor 24% 20% 17% 35% 100% 67% Table 5.1.6. Candidate success rates across AHSSBL – split by gender at shortlisting, offer and acceptance stages of recruitment. Success rates are calculated as: Shortlisted = shortlisted / applied, Offered = offered / shortlisted, Accepted = accepted / offered

58

Data Analysis

Overall, our data demonstrates increasing proportions of women applying to our academic vacancies (T5.1.1), in both STEMM (T5.1.2) and AHSSBL (T5.1.3) Schools. In particular, it is encouraging that greater numbers of women are applying to our STEMM lecturer posts – women now represent ~a quarter of applicants. However, the proportion of women, applying to our professorial vacancies, across the University, remains disappointingly low. In STEMM no female professorial candidates (from 17 applicants) made it to shortlisting.

Whilst we are seeing positive impact in places, our difficulties at professorial level demonstrate we must do more to encourage women. In 2017 to improve this we launched Excellence 100 (Ex100) which has a specific remit to increase applications and appointments from underrepresented groups. We also commit to the actions detailed in the box below.

Across the 3 years, in the majority of roles, success rates show that women are generally more successful at shortlisting and interview than men (T5.1.4/5/6). We believe this is an indicator of a fair recruitment process and successful positive actions that facilitate the progression of women into academic positions.

Actions:

3.1. We will analyse the outcomes of our Ex100 campaigns and develop a set of best practice guidelines to be applied to all recruitment campaigns.

3.2. Increase applications from women by targeting our vacancies using social media

3.3. Extend remit of Assistant Registrar, supporting Ex100, to other senior academic vacancies so that candidates can benefit from improved support

Encouraging women to apply:

As our data demonstrates, in particular in STEMM, women are underrepresented in all roles at application (T5.1.2). To tackle this we have been working to improve our recruitment process and, through our adverts, encourage women to apply. Our adverts encourage women to apply by highlighting our commitments to E&D and AS. They also include detail on family friendly policies, childcare and flexible working arrangements, as well as a statement to encourage applications from underrepresented groups. We routinely post details of vacancies in learned society and campaign group media platforms and we encourage our colleagues to circulate details to underrepresented groups

In 2013 we implemented a no single gender policy on our RTE interview panels. Gender composition is recorded and reports indicate that the policy is followed across the institution. Interview chairs across all vacancies must have undergone

59

the 1 day R&S workshop – where the afternoon focuses on E&D and includes a session on unconscious bias.

Following an offer, our recruitment processes, also ensure women are supported. Our webpages detailing staff benefits (including relocation support, childcare, family support) have been improved. We have recently put in place a fellowship scheme for partners of successful applicants. To support family relocation, the scheme enables any partner of an individual who has secured an RTE position to apply for a fellowship of up to 2 years. We have recently accepted our first fellowship, a husband of one of our Ex100 appointments, and are currently in negotiation with a second potential fellowship candidate. As part of Ex100 resource was put in place to work directly with successful senior academic appointments to support their relocation.

Excellence 100

We are currently in a period of ambitious recruitment known as Excellence 100. Over two years we will appoint 100 new RTE posts without increasing our student numbers. Posts are available across all our Schools.

Increasing the number of academic staff from underrepresented groups is central to Ex100. As well as too few senor women, we have too few academics from BAME backgrounds and even fewer BAME women. This aim is a direct result of analysis undertaken by the SAT in early 2016, especially the low and static number of women professors. To further support this aim, the SMT requested and attended a workshop, delivered by David Ruebain (ECU) to explore positive action, which fed into Ex100.

Ex100 uses high profile media campaigns featuring our academic women. On webpages, images and vignettes of staff are split 50/50 by gender. Currently, Dr Sarah Parker (SAED), Professor Rachel Thomson (PVCT & SAACME) & Professor Emily Keightley (SSPGS) feature in the 6 staff profiles.

We are piloting the use of social media to target Ex100 vacancies as a positive action to encourage applications from underrepresented groups. FaceBook is the 2nd highest driver of Ex100 applications which is encouraging as FaceBook advertisement only targets BAME & women. By taking advantage of the data collected on these platforms we are ensuring our vacancies are being seen by potential applicants from underrepresented groups. Following evaluation we will look to implement this action more widely (A3.2).

To support applicants and the coordination of Ex100 we have created a new post. The Assistant Registrar provides support to candidates and, if successful, with relocation to Loughborough. The role supports our aims by providing information on the local area, such as Schools, our benefits/policies and facilitating visits and tours of campus and the local area. The appointment of women and feedback from candidates demonstrates the success of this role and so the remit has been extended to support recruitment of Deans. Following the completion of Ex100 we will evaluate the role further (A3.3).

60

After each campaign, data on recruitment, split by protected characteristic, is reported to the project board. This enables the campaigns to constantly evaluate the success of positive actions and make further interventions, if necessary. Following the completion of Ex100, based on outcomes, guidelines to improve recruitment across all vacancies will be produced to continue best practice (A3.1).

Level Female Male Total F% Lecturer 5 3 8 63% Professor 5 4 9 56% Reader 2 2 0% Senior Lecturer 1 1 0% Total 10 10 20 50%

Table shows Ex100 recruitment so far.

As the table shows above our campaign is working. 50% of appointees are women – 60% of whom have been recruited to our STEMM Schools, including 2 Professors. Perhaps, most significantly we have recruited 3 BAME women Professors through Ex100.

Image shows Ex100 advertisement in the Times – Dr Sarah Parker (SAED)

61

(ii) Induction – words: 607

Describe the induction and support provided to new all staff at all levels. Comment on the uptake of this and how its effectiveness is reviewed.

Central Induction

All new academic staff attend Welcome to Loughborough – a full day induction attended by members of the SMT including the VC. As part of their probation, all academic staff attend Respecting Diversity – a half day course that details University E&D policy, ambitions and commitment to AS. The effectiveness of these events is routinely reviewed using surveys sent out to each participant following their attendance.

Local Induction

Much of induction and support provided to new academic staff is provided locally in their School. To support Schools and line managers, new induction guidance and a checklist were implemented at the beginning of the 2017/18 academic year. These direct line managers to facilitate meeting colleagues, touring the workplace and identifying support. After the first month line managers are required to have developed a personal development plan and objectives with the new staff member.

Effectiveness

We do not have a mechanism to review effectiveness of induction so we will put mechanisms in place to collect this information through AS School surveys and the next University all-staff survey (A4.1). Our previous work for the Concordat identified, through CROS, varying induction experiences across campus for Research-only academics so we commit to improving guidance to line managers (A4.2).

Probation

Early career academic (RTE) staff are appointed on a three year probation. This is a comprehensive and well regarded process which can also be flexed for appointments with appropriate prior experience. The probation process protects the workload of new staff so that they can build their academic profile at a manageable rate, while engaging in a comprehensive training programme and with the support of an experienced colleague as probation advisor. Progress is assessed against explicit agreed objectives.

62

Lecturer Academic Probation

New probation policies were put into place in 2014 built around attainment of an internal, HEA accredited qualification – the PGCAP. The qualification supports new academics to develop their teaching and network with other new colleagues. Following evaluation and consultation in 2017 changes will be made to the PGCAP to include more teaching observations and lightening the workload demands of the course (A4.3).

A probationer’s teaching workload is managed over the three years as follows:

• 1st year: 1/3 normal teaching load

• 2nd year: 1/2 normal teaching load

• 3rd year: 2/3 normal teaching load

Any exceptions to this must be referred to the Probation Monitoring Group, chaired by the PVCR. Through our self-assessment we have found no formal mechanism to assure this is taking place. Therefore we have committed to an audit during the award period, as part of our action to audit workload models across the institution (A10.1).

Each probationer is allocated a Probation Adviser to act as a mentor and support objectives. The adviser is a senior academic and should not be a probationer’s line manager. Advisers are trained and given a clear requirement to meet at least 4 times a year.

We feel our probationary arrangements are good practice, in particular, the adviser support and teaching workload reductions. Evaluation of probation is undertaken following each PGCAP cohort, the results of which have fed into our plans to include more teaching observations and lighten the workload demands.

Actions:

4.1. We will produce data to support improved self-assessment of induction through our AS surveys and University staff survey

4.2. Continue aligning the AS and Concordat action plans, we will supplement induction guidance with updated best practice specifically for research staff

4.3. Following our evaluation of PGCAP we will implement changes to lighten workload demands and increase the number of teaching observations

10.1. Our workload model audit will include an assessment of probationer teaching workloads to ensure policy is being carried out fairly across campus

63

(iii) Promotion – words: 976

Provide data on staff applying for promotion and comment on applications and success rates by gender, grade and full- and part-time status. Comment on any evidence of a gender pay gap in promotions at any grade.

Actions taken since our 2014 Bronze Award:

• In 2015/16 academic promotion criteria were reviewed and new criteria recognising contributions to collegiality and teaching have been implemented

• Demystifying promotion events are now routinely held across our Schools

• New PDR process implemented and linked to academic promotion criteria

• Ran focus groups with women to explore the lower rates of promotion through to professor

• The Institutional champion challenged and mandated Deans to be more proactive in identifying women for promotion at ALT in 2016

Impact of these actions:

• Proportion of women at Reader level ↑ to 38% from 28% in 2013/14

• Proportion and number of women promoted to Professor level year on year ↑ to 57% (4) of the total (7) in 2016/17 from 10% (1) in 2013/14

Senior Lecturer

Applied Female Male Female % STEMM Female % AHSSBL Female % 2014/15 8 22 27% 27% 27% 2015/16 6 25 19% 20% 38% 2016/17 4 21 16% 11% 33% Successful Female Male Female % STEMM Female % AHSSBL Female % 2014/15 7 16 30% 33% 25% 2015/16 4 16 20% 23% 20% 2016/17 4 11 27% 15% 100% Table 5.1.7. Candidates for promotion to Senior Lecturer – split by gender, application & success. Numbers are too small for meaningful analysis by discipline so only proportions of women in each discipline area have been provided. In the last 3 years only 2 candidates were part time (both 2014/15 and both were women).

64

Success Rates University STEMM AHSSBL Year Female Male Female Male Female Male

2014/15 88% 73% 100% 73% 75% 82% 2015/16 67% 64% 100% 65% 33% 80% 2016/17 100% 52% 100% 65% 100% 0% Table 5.1.8. Candidate success rates for promotion to Senior Lecturer

PDR is used to identify candidates for Deans to recommend for promotion. It is also possible for individuals to self-submit.

In 2016, radical new criteria were implemented to clarify requirements and balance the weighting of research with teaching, collegiality and enterprise contributions. New guidance was given to Deans and the promotion committees to ensure fair consideration was given to extended leave and/or part time working. This was enabled by taking the emphasis away from volume metrics such as number of papers published, which disadvantage staff who have taken career breaks, and placing new emphasis on excellence, influence, leadership and international recognition. In particular, staff who have had career breaks are invited to make a statement explaining the specific consequences of those breaks e.g. preventing acceptance of an invitation to give a keynote lecture.

Although our proportion of part time lecturers is low (less than 10%), we commit to testing whether the criteria recognises contributions by our part time staff (A5.1).

The data (T5.1.7) shows fewer women applying than men. Applications from women peaked in 2012/13 at 38% following a number of interventions through our Bronze award in 2009. The subsequent decline in applications has been caused, in part, by a declining pool of eligible women lecturers over time. At the peak in 2012/13 52% of women lecturers were eligible for promotion and this has now declined to 31% in 2017 – a positive outcome. This pool is being replenished by increasing numbers of new women lecturers (S5.1.i) but there will be a lag before these recent appointments are in a position to be promoted to Senior Lecturer.

To ensure that women continue to be promoted we are committing to embed an annual review, with the Dean, of women not promoted in the last two years (A5.2). This will mean Deans are proactive in supporting women who have not been recommended for promotion through existing processes and/or prompt line managers to discuss support required during an individual’s PDR.

When split by discipline, it is encouraging that our data demonstrates 60% of the women promoted are from STEMM Schools: 9/15 women, over the last 3 years (T5.1.7). Further it is also encouraging that women have a higher success rate although in AHSSBL Schools this has not always happened (T5.1.8). Our actions outlined in this section should contribute to improving this in our AHSSBL Schools.

65

Reader

Successful Female Male Female % STEMM Female % AHSSBL Female % 2014/15 6 8 43% 27% 0% 2015/16 8 4 67% 42% 50% 2016/17 0 3 0% 0% 0% Table 5.1.9. Successful candidates for promotion to Reader – split by gender. Numbers are too small for meaningful analysis by discipline so only proportions of women in each discipline area have been provided. In the last 3 years 3 candidates were part time (all were women). We are unable to provide data on unsuccessful applications however, this is now in place for 2017/18.

Through our commitment to AS we have seen the proportion of women readers increase to 38% and this is demonstrated in our promotions data, which shows that 48% of promotions in the last 3 years have been female (T5.1.9). We note that in 2016/17 no women were promoted but, in total, there were only 3 successful applications. The difference between disciplines reflects the overall use of Readers in each discipline – Readers are more common in STEMM Schools (T4.1.10) - of all those promoted 81% were from a STEMM School.

Applications for promotion to reader (and professor) are considered throughout the year by the Personal Titles Sub-Committee and are submitted by the Dean or the individual themselves. Of the 9 members of the committee, 4 are women (44%). As for the SL criteria, the same radical change to criteria has been made in which focus is now on excellence, influence, leadership and international recognition, instead of volume metrics which disadvantage staff who have taken career breaks. Again, staff who have had career breaks are invited to make a statement explaining the specific consequences of those breaks.

Readership is a useful stepping stone to professorship and to improve our % of women professors we aim to maintain this positive rate of promotion. We commit to this through our annual review of eligible women not promoted within the last two years (A5.2).

Professor

Successful Female Male Female % STEMM Female % AHSSBL Female % 2014/15 2 8 20% 0% 50% 2015/16 3 5 38% 33% 50% 2016/17 4 3 57% 25% 100%

Table 5.1.10. Successful candidates for promotion to Professor – split by gender. Numbers are too small for meaningful analysis by discipline so only proportions of women in each discipline area have been provided. In the last 3 years only 1 candidate was part time (1 woman). We are unable to provide data on unsuccessful applications however, this is now in place for 2017/18.

Although the numbers are small, the data (T5.1.10) demonstrates that we are promoting more women to Professor each year. In line with our ambitions at recruitment we are making a sustained effort to increase the number of women professors, following analysis of professors in 2016 by the SAT. It is particularly

66

encouraging that in 2016/17, for the first time since our commitment to AS, more women were promoted to professor than men and half were from STEMM Schools. It is vitally important to our institution that we promote more women to Professor and over 3 years 36% of promotions have been female. This compares favourably with the current percentage (19%) of female professors

To continue this positive emerging trend, we will run professorial briefing sessions throughout the year, to be delivered by members of the Personal Titles Sub-Committee (A5.3). Our action to annually review women not promoted in the last 2 years also extends to professorial promotion (A5.2).

Actions

5.1. We will test the academic promotions criteria to ensure fair consideration is given to part time staff

5.2. A review of women not promoted in the last 2 years will be embedded with Deans to ensure candidates are identified and/or support to enable progression is in place through PDR

5.3. Professorial briefing sessions will be run throughout the year to encourage more women to apply and ensure their success when entering the process

67

(iv) Staff submitted to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) by gender – Words: 73

Provide data on staff, by gender, submitted to REF versus those that were eligible. Compare this to the data for the Research Assessment Exercise 2008. Comment on any gender imbalances identified.

Our data for REF2014 and comparisons to RAE2008 have not changed since our 2014 Bronze award. In RAE2008 we returned as many staff as possible and gender proportions of submitted staff reflected the eligible pool. REF2014 saw E&D issues receive significant attention, particularly with regard to the selection of staff to be returned. No significant differences were observed between the proportion of eligible females and males that were submitted – 85% F 89% M.

68

SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY

5.2. Key career transition points: professional and support staff – Words: 143

(i) Induction – Words: 119

Describe the induction and support provided to new all staff at all levels. Comment on the uptake of this and how its effectiveness is reviewed.

The same induction and support provided to all new academics is provided to new PSS staff. Welcome to Loughborough and Respecting Diversity are mandatory components for a new starter. The same checklist and guidance is followed by line managers (S5.1.ii). Probation periods for PSS differ by grade and contract length but the same principles for academic staff (aside from new lecturers) apply – following the induction period, a set of objectives and support are agreed, with the line manager, against which performance is measured during the probationary period, at regular meetings. As detailed in S5.1.ii our ability to evaluate induction is limited so we have committed to implement induction feedback via School AS surveys and the University staff survey (A4.1).

69

(ii) Promotion – Words: 24

Provide data on staff applying for promotion and comment on applications and success rates by gender, grade and full- and part-time status. Comment on any evidence of a gender pay gap in promotions at any grade.

There is no formal promotion route for PSS staff at Loughborough. Support given to PSS staff to enable career progression is detailed in S5.4.

70

5.3. Career development: academic staff – Words: 1192 (i) Training – Words: 421

Describe the training available to staff at all levels. Provide details of uptake by gender and how existing staff are kept up to date with training. How is its effectiveness monitored and developed in response to levels of uptake and evaluation?

Research & Enterprise

Training to support research & enterprise activities is provided primarily by CAP and the Research Office. Workshops cover ethics, communication, impact, and practical sessions on project management, grant proposals, data management and publication. Workshops are open to all academics.

Teaching

For RTE staff, as well as the PGCAP, CAP run a series of workshops throughout the year covering supervision/personal tutor, assessment, communication, pedagogy and several workshops on inclusive curriculum and assessment.

For Researchers, through the DC and CAP, we run the Recognition of Teaching for Researchers (ROTOR) scheme which supports PGRs and Research-only staff to develop their teaching practice.

Year Female Male Female %

2016/17 24 11 69%

2017/18 21 19 53% Table 5.3.1. ROTOR uptake split by gender. The course was introduced in 2016/17

For fractional teaching-only staff we run the Associate Teaching Programme. A 70 hour programme open to staff who are responsible for at least 20 hours of teaching/learning support per year. Since launch in 2016/17 30 staff have completed the course and 20 are currently on the course.

Leadership & Management

Leadership and management training is primarily provided through Staff Development (SD) who offer a range of practical line management and

71

leadership courses. SD offer ILM courses at levels 2 – 5 in leadership and management (T5.3.2). For academic staff at G8/9, SD offers the Future Leaders programme – a 5 day course designed to develop senior leadership skills and support career progression into senior roles. It is encouraging that 38% of academic attendees are women (T5.3.3) – greater than our current proportions of G9 academic women (T4.1.1).

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total

Female 3 4 2 9 Male 4 9 9 22 Total 7 13 11 31

Table 5.3.2. Academic staff attending ILM courses & modules – split by academic year & gender.

2014/15 2015/16 Total

Female 3 2 5 Male 5 4 9 Total 8 6 14

Table 5.3.3. Academic staff attending Future Leaders – split by academic year & gender. Due to demands of implementing new PDR SD did not run Future Leaders in 2016/17.

Equality & Diversity

All staff during their induction must complete Respecting Diversity our half day workshop outlining our E&D ambitions, policies and AS commitments. We also provide a separate Unconscious Bias training workshop which was introduced as an action in our 2014 award plan. E&D sessions form components of R&S training and our ILM courses. In 2017 we made an online unconscious bias resource available alongside our other online E&D materials.

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total


Table 5.3.4. Academic staff attending Unconscious Bias training – split by academic year & gender.

Following our analysis of the BAME attainment gap, the EDWG identified unconscious bias training as one way to tackle the disparity. As T5.3.4 shows, uptake has been low so, to encourage higher attendance, School/divisional SMTs who will all lead by example and attend the workshop (A6.4).

Evaluation

Our training workshops and courses are run through a system that captures information on gender and allows short follow up surveys to be sent out to participants to capture their feedback. This feedback is then used to review and make changes to our training workshops and courses.

72

In addition, in the University all-staff survey we found a mixed response from academic staff to our training:

I am able to access the training and development opportunities (even if I don’t take them up) that further improve my personal development

Male% Agree Female% Agree Research-only 81 72 RTE 78 84 Teaching-only 63 71

In the past 12 months, have you taken part in any type of training, learning or development paid for or provided by the University?


I am satisfied with my current level of training and development


Table 5.3.5. Staff survey question responses split by gender & academic function A lack of adequate training and development was also highlighted in our PDR evaluation. Therefore we are committing to a review of our training and development courses (A.6.1). We will also continue to develop research leadership through our Research Leaders strand in our research strategy, launched in 2016 (5.3.iii).

73

(ii) Appraisal/development review – Words: 357

Describe current appraisal/development review for academic staff at all levels across the whole institution. Provide details of any appraisal/development review training offered and the uptake of this, as well as staff feedback about the process.

Low uptake (43% of Research staff and 63% of RTE staff) of PDR was identified in our 2014 submission, driving the implementation of a whole new PDR process. New PDR has been transformative, impact exemplified by 100% uptake (1 individual was PDR’d late) of eligible staff across all areas of the University.

As part of its meticulous development, EIAs and extensive consultation with staff groups and campus unions were undertaken. Before full roll out in 2016/17, a pilot was run in 2 Schools and a PSS division. 619 reviewers were identified (201 Academic & 113 PSS) across the University and each one attended 3 x 2hr mandatory training sessions. An online system was developed, initially for academic staff, to collect reference data and evidence to form the basis of PDR discussions. The system is also used to record the PDR outcome and resulting objectives, and will be rolled out to other staff groups this year (A7.3).

Staff review their job description, metrics and previous objectives, and input key achievements and their development record. Reviewees are encouraged to pass on feedback from colleagues to their reviewer. This forms the basis of the PDR discussion and results in objectives and identification of development support.

To prepare reviewees, a comprehensive communication plan was implemented including VC’s newsletter, posters, flyers and all-staff meetings delivered by the VC and COO. A new website was created to support reviewees through the new process, with videos, top tips and an FAQ section.

PDR was evaluated through a follow-up survey, focus groups and the outcomes underwent an EIA. Our survey found:

• 75% of staff agreed they were clearly briefed on the process

• 70% of staff felt the PDR conversation was valuable to them

We will continue to evaluate each round of PDR and will evaluate impact through the next all-staff survey.

The EIA found that outcomes were fair although a disparity was identified between PT and FT staff. To tackle this for the incoming PDR period, we have committed to improve our guidance and training for reviewers around PT staff (A7.2). We will continue to carry out an EIA of PDR as best practice (A2.2b).

74

(iii) Support given to academic staff for career progression – Words: 414

Comment and reflect on support given to academic staff including postdoctoral researchers to assist in their career progression.

For RTE staff, the majority of early career support is provided through our 3 year probationary arrangements and further career support is delivered through CAP workshops.

All Schools are encouraged to fund Aurora places for academic staff and since 2016 we have steadily increased our number of attendees from 1 or 2 in each cohort to almost 1 individual from all Schools in the latest cohort. As further encouragement, we will hold an annual networking event for previous and prospective attendees (A6.3).

Development to support the transition to senior management positions is delivered through our Future Leaders programme, for mid-career staff looking to take the next step.

As noted previously, the all-staff survey demonstrated concerns with our development courses and so we are committing to a broad review of our training and development courses (A6.1). To support the development of women’s academic careers in particular, we are committing to establish a Women’s Development Network for all our women staff, following best practice shared by a recently appointed Ex100 colleague, Professor Sara Lombardo (A6.2).

Researcher support

Research-only staff (including postdoctoral researchers) are able to access workshops delivered by DC, CAP. Responsibility for the career development and welfare of our research staff sits with the Research Office, Centre for Academic Practice and Careers Network, and these professional services offer specific mentoring, courses (including ROTOR) and career guidance, to support the transition from researcher to lecturer. In our 2017 CROS survey we found 81% of women and 80% of men agreed that they were encouraged to engage in personal and career development.

Career development of researchers is embedded in our research strategy through our Research Leaders strand. We aim to be recognised as a destination of choice for early career talent and through the concordat we are working to improve our support and career development opportunities.

75

The Research Office co-ordinates activity around the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, a tool (similar to AS), the University uses, to develop our researcher support. We are aligning both action plans to focus our efforts to support researchers (A8.2). To help support our researcher development we are committing to the following: 8.3. By improving CROS response rates we will improve our ability to assess the impact of actions and identify areas of strength and weakness 8.4. We will develop our Research staff community by reinvigorating LURSA, an important consultative forum and network and hold Research Fellow “inaugural “lectures. 8.7. We will routinely include researcher CPD in grant costings

76

SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY

5.4. Career development: professional and support staff – Words: 476

(i) Training – Words: 167

Describe the training available to staff at all levels. Provide details of uptake and how existing staff are kept up to date with training. How is its effectiveness monitored and developed in response to levels of uptake and evaluation?

Training for PSS staff is delivered through SD. Training courses cover a range of topics related to job roles and staff are, with agreement from their line manager, able to access training beyond their job role to support career development.

Leadership and Management

Our ILM courses are the main route for leadership and management training for PSS staff. Staff looking to develop senior management skills are able to participate in our Future Leaders course.

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total


Table 5.4.1. PSS staff attending ILM courses & modules – split by academic year & gender.

2014/15 2015/16 Total


Table 5.4.2. PSS staff attending Future Leaders – split by academic year & gender. Due to demands of implementing new PDR SD did not run Future Leaders in 2016/17.

It is encouraging that the proportions of women on the ILM courses – 65% (T5.4.1) is in line with the total PSS population gender proportions – 62% (T4.2.1). It is also encouraging that more women PSS staff than men have taken part in Future Leaders (T5.4.2), a key training programme for transition to senior management roles – where women are underrepresented (S4.2.i).

Equality & Diversity

All PSS staff during their induction must complete ‘Respecting Diversity’ our half day workshop outlining our E&D ambitions, policies and AS commitments. Our

77

Unconscious Bias course is open to PSS staff and we have found a better uptake amongst this group of staff – although the number of men attending is low. A6.2 will address this imbalance as well driving an increase in overall attendance amongst academics.

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total


Table 5.4.3. PSS staff attending Unconscious Bias training – split by academic year & gender.

Evaluation

Details on evaluation can be found in S5.3.i.

The all-staff survey found a more positive response toward our training amongst PSS staff (T5.4.4).

I am able to access the training and development opportunities (even if I don’t take them up) that further improve my personal development

Male% Agree Female% Agree PSS Staff 84 85

In the past 12 months, have you taken part in any type of training, learning or development paid for or provided by the University?


I am satisfied with my current level of training and development


Table 5.4.4. PSS staff survey question responses split by gender

78

(vi) Appraisal/development review – Words: 101

Describe current professional development review for professional and support staff at all levels across the whole institution. Provide details of any appraisal/development review training offered and the uptake of this, as well as staff feedback about the process.

All PSS staff undergo the same PDR process as our academic staff (S5.3.ii). However, academic staff have benefited from an online system that records PDR outcomes and objectives. In the next round of PDR we will extend this system to our PSS staff (A7.3.). As mentioned in S5.3.ii the EIA found that outcomes were fair although a disparity was identified between PT and FT staff. A7.2 will improve guidance and training for PT PDRs and, as the majority of PT are PSS staff, we have also begun to retrain reviewers in PSS divisions, where there are higher concentrations of PT staff.

79

(ii) Support given to professional and support staff for career progression – Words: 208

Comment and reflect on support given to professional and support staff to assist in their career progression.

To support career development of our PSS staff we have put in place a formal shadowing scheme, facilitated by HR. This enables an individual to shadow any job role across the University to develop insight of the role and the skills and experience required.

Female Male Total

2014/15 14 3 17 G2 1 1 G3 1 1 2 G4 2 2 G5 1 1 G6 6 6 G7 2 2 4 G9 1 1 2015/16 16 7 23 G2 1 1 G3 3 3 G4 2 1 3 G5 3 1 4 G6 6 1 7 G7 1 3 4 G9 1 1 2016/17 12 5 17 G4 2 2 G5 5 2 7 G6 1 2 3 G7 3 1 4 G8 1 2 3 Total 42 15 57

Table 5.4.5. PSS staff on secondment – split by secondment grade & gender. Note: Year represents a snapshot.

We encourage all our Schools and PSS divisions to use secondments (often to cover maternity leave) as useful tool for career development. T5.4.5 shows more women than men go on secondment and reflects the gender distribution in the Management & Specialist and Administrative job families – the main users of secondment.

For our administrative and technical PSS staff we hold annual conferences: AdNet (T5.4.6) and TechNet (T5.4.7). These day conferences are used to develop skills and support career development through workshops and speakers.

80

2014/15 2016/17 Total


Table 5.4.6. Administrative staff attending AdNet – split by academic year (two conferences were held in 2016/17 – in 2016 & 2017) and gender

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total


Table 5.4.7. Technical staff attending TechNet – split by academic year and gender

We also use our internal ILM courses and Future Leaders to support career progression for PSS staff (S5.4.i).

Our central PSS divisions are yet to submit staff to Aurora. Through A6.3 we hope to raise awareness of the scheme and will encourage these divisions to consider this scheme as tool for career development. Our planned Women’s Development Network will be a tool for PSS career development (A6.2). The impact of these actions should support more PSS women transition to senior careers.

81

5.5. Flexible working and managing career breaks – Words: 965 Note: Present professional and support staff and academic staff data separately

(i) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: before leave – Words: 136

Explain what support the institution offers to staff before they go on maternity and adoption leave.

Before maternity and adoption leave, staff support is provided by their line manager and a HR officer. Maternity and adoption leave policies are available online.

In our 2014 award Action Plan, we implemented new maternity leave guidance and a checklist for line managers. The checklist includes providing advice, signposting to the HR officer, the appointment of a maternity mentor, if necessary as well as meetings to discuss support and arrangements. The guidance details entitlements at the stages of maternity leave and provides advice on how to approach discussions tactfully and sensitively.

In our 2017 survey of maternity returners, 96.2% of participants felt they had been supported before, during or on return. 73.1% of respondents also felt that the checklist and policy was followed by their line manager. This powerfully demonstrates the impact of our previous actions.

(ii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: during leave – Words: 110

Explain what support the institution offers to staff during maternity and adoption leave.

Line managers are encouraged to maintain reasonable contact during leave – set at the leaver’s discretion. In our 2017 survey, 81% responded that regular contact was maintained. Comment analysis and focus groups identified that better communication is needed in the lead up to returning to work (A9.1).

The returners survey identified several examples of individuals being rewarded and promoted whilst still on maternity leave.

Staff taking maternity and adoption leave are entitled to 10 KiT days. These enable an individual to undertake training, attend team meetings, line manager catch-ups and appraisals. There is good impact from this policy: 94% of respondents in our 2017 survey indicated that these days were useful.

82

(iii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: returning to work – Words: 195

Explain what support the institution offers to staff on return from maternity or adoption leave. Comment on any funding provided to support returning staff.

Line managers discuss concerns and issues in advance of return including provision of breastfeeding facilities. A work plan is created to include a period of handover, development and time to rebuild internal and external networks. For RTE returners, Deans are expected to have an action plan to enable an individual to re-establish their academic activity. This includes workload re-allocation and identification of support or beneficial development. This policy was reconfirmed at the June 2017 meeting of ALT to maintain awareness.

Our survey found that, whilst 96% of responders felt they were supported before, during and on return from leave, 35% of the responders felt the support was only partial. Consequently, we followed up with focus groups and found some evidence of inadequate support and communication on return from maternity leave. To improve this we are enhancing our guidance given to line managers around returning to work (A9.1).

Of particular concern, 64% of staff who required breastfeeding facilities felt they were not supported. Focus groups and comments found a combination of poor communication and line manger awareness contributed to this response. To tackle this we will enhance our guidance with a specific section on breastfeeding (A9.1).

83

(iv) Maternity return rate – Words: 68

Provide data and comment on the maternity return rate in the institution. Data and commentary on staff whose contracts are not renewed while on maternity leave should be included in this section.

Academic Staff Year Leave began

Maternity Starters

Maternity Returners

Contract End Resigned

Return Rate

2014 20 19 1 95% 2015 17 16 1 94% 2016 21 21 100% 2017 11 4

Table 5.5.1. Academic staff taking maternity leave. Years represent full calendar years. 7 staff (2017 maternity starters) are still on leave.

PSS Staff Year Leave began

Maternity Starters

Maternity Returners

Contract End Resigned

Return Rate

2014 31 27 4 87% 2015 40 34 6 85% 2016 34 32 2 94% 2017 34 3

Table 5.5.2. PSS staff taking maternity leave. Years represent full calendar years. 31 staff (2017 maternity starters) are still on leave

Of all 208 staff who have taken maternity leave since 2014 only 2 academics and 12 PSS staff did not return – a 91% return rate (2014-2016). Both academics did not return as their fixed-term contracts ended.

84

SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY Provide data and comment on the proportion of staff remaining in post six, 12 and 18 months after return from maternity leave.

Academic Staff

Remaining in Post

Return Year Number of returners 6 + months 12 + months 18 + months 2014 6 83% 83% 83% 2015 18 89% 84% 84% 2016 15 87% 87% 20% 2017 17 29%

Table 5.5.3. Academic staff remaining in post after return from maternity leave. Grey represents time periods that had not ended at the reporting date. Year represents returning year of academics who took leave in table 5.5.1

PSS Staff

Remaining in Post

Return Year Number of returners 6 + months 12 + months 18 + months 2014 8 100% 100% 100% 2015 27 81% 74% 74% 2016 38 86% 63% 21% 2017 21 52%

Table 5.5.4. PSS staff remaining in post after return from maternity leave. Grey represents time periods that had not ended at the reporting date. Year represents returning year of PSS staff who took leave in table 5.5.2

We find that the proportion of staff remaining at the University in the longer term is good and demonstrates that our working environment is one where maternity returners feel valued and supported.

85

(v) Paternity, shared parental, adoption, and parental leave uptake – words: 122

Provide data and comment on the uptake of these types of leave by gender and grade for the whole institution. Provide details on the institution’s paternity package and arrangements.

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 Total

2014 1 1 2 6 8 10 7 13 0 48 Adoption 2 2 Male 2 2 Parental Leave 2 3 2 2 1 10 Female 2 3 2 2 1 10 Paternity 1 1 3 6 8 5 12 36 Male 1 1 3 6 8 5 12 36

2015 0 0 2 2 5 7 9 5 1 31 Adoption 1 1 Female 1 1 Parental Leave 2 1 1 4 Female 2 1 1 4 Paternity 1 4 6 9 5 1 26 Female 1 1 Male 1 4 6 8 5 1 25

2016 2 2 8 10 7 5 13 8 1 56 Adoption 1 1 2 Female 1 1 2 Parental Leave 2 5 2 3 12 Female 2 5 1 1 9 Male 1 2 3 Paternity 2 1 5 4 4 5 9 7 1 38 Male 2 1 5 4 4 5 9 7 1 38 Shared Parental 1 1 1 1 4 Male 1 1 1 1 4

2017 1 0 3 9 6 12 14 12 0 57 Adoption 1 1 2 Female 1 1 2 Parental Leave 3 3 1 4 1 1 13 Female 3 3 1 2 9 Male 2 1 1 4 Paternity 1 6 5 8 12 9 41 Male 1 6 5 8 12 9 41 Shared Parental 1 1 Male 1 1 Table 5.5.5. Leave – split by type, gender & grade. Years represent full calendar years.

Paternity leave is 1 week full pay and 1 week 90% full pay available for staff who have been employed by the University for 26 weeks.

Our adoption leave entitlement is 52 weeks in total – 18 weeks at full pay as well as paid leave to attend adoption appointments and includes KiT days. Adoption

86

leave is available to staff who have been employed by the University for 26 weeks and ‘matched’ with a child up to the age of 18.

Our instances of SPL are few and in an effort to promote this leave entitlement, alongside our other benefits, we have redesigned and implemented new HR webpages.

Instances of parental leave are few but more men have begun using this entitlement.

(vi) Flexible working – Words: 63

Provide information on the flexible working arrangements available.

All staff that have worked 26 weeks at the University can request permanent changes in their contracted hours and in most cases we are able to facilitate these requests. Following responses to the all-staff survey (S5.6.viii) we have encouraged line managers to facilitate, where possible, staff requests for flexitime (where staff choose when to begin and end work) and routine working from home.

(vii) Transition from part-time back to full-time work after career breaks – Words: 56

Outline what policy and practice exists to support and enable staff who work part-time to transition back to full-time roles when childcare/dependent or caring responsibilities reduce.

There is no automatic right to return to FT hours following career breaks however, all requests are considered by line managers and where possible we are aim to facilitate a transition. We are currently assessing how we could implement a policy to support maternity returners transition to PT work and then back to FT hours (A9.4).

(viii) Childcare – Words: 143

Describe the institution’s childcare provision and how the support available is communicated to staff. Comment on uptake and how any shortfalls in provision will be addressed.

Run by LSU, the campus nursery provides 102 full day places (including flexible sessions) from 08.00 – 18.00 on campus to staff, students and the public. 60% of places are taken by staff and this proportion is increasing each year. The nursery is a valuable asset and is an important facility, highlighted on our webpages and in our recruitment materials, used to encourage applications to vacancies.

This summer, following action from the SAT, we worked with the nursery to accommodate children of conference delegates visiting our campus, and will continue to do so.

87

The nursery regularly reaches capacity mid academic year and the expansion of our campus means, for STEMM staff in particular, the distance from the workplace may not be practical. We are committed to look at this in more detail and will review our childcare provision in partnership with the nursery (A9.2).

(ix) Caring responsibilities – Words: 73

Describe the policies and practice in place to support staff with caring responsibilities and how the support available is proactively communicated to all staff.

Our parental leave policy, accessible on online, entitles a child care giver to unpaid leave. We would like to extend this to staff with any formal caring responsibility, to be considered on a case by case basis (A9.5). Following good practice in LDS, we have implemented a policy to reimburse additional costs of care, incurred when staff with caring responsibilities work a Saturday weekend open day, considered on a case by case basis.

88

5.6. Organisation and culture – Words: 1631 (i) Culture – Words: 142

Demonstrate how the institution actively considers gender equality and inclusivity. Provide details of how the charter principles have been, and will continue to be, embedded into the culture and workings of the institution and how good practice is identified and shared across the institution.

To support active consideration of inclusivity and gender equality, we routinely undertake equality analysis to support decision making. For example, PDR and reward outcomes are audited annually to evaluate whether action is required to ensure inclusivity and equality. We also involve and consult our staff groups in our decision making and benefit from close working with our campus unions.

Group Members BAME 13 Disability 8 Working Parents 34 Flexible & PT Working 22 LGBT+ 37

Table 5.6.1. Active staff group membership 2017/18. The SAT covers staff consultation around gender.

University Council receive specific KPIs on student and staff diversity annually. Both KPIs comprise various diversity measures that are strategically important to the University – including AS principles. The KPIs are determined by HRC and act to embed AS principles into the wider workings of Loughborough. Principles have been further embedded in School KPIs where the proportion of women student entrants is a strategic measure.

We are proud of our inclusive culture, demonstrating success of actions and this was recognised in our staff survey:

The University is a good place to work Male% Agree Female% Agree Total Agree Sector Benchmark All Staff 88 94 90 Above median

I feel proud to work for the University Male% Agree Female% Agree Total Agree Sector Benchmark All Staff 88 94 90 Above median

I believe the University is committed to equality of opportunity for all of its staff Male% Agree Female% Agree Total Agree Sector Benchmark All Staff 88 90 88 Above median

The University respects people equally regardless of their gender Male% Agree Female% Agree Total Agree Sector Benchmark All Staff 93 92 91 Above median Table 5.6.2. Total staff survey all-staff survey responses with sector benchmark – split by gender

89

(ii) HR policies – Words: 133

Describe how the institution monitors the consistency in application of its HR policies for equality, dignity at work, bullying, harassment, grievance and disciplinary processes. Describe actions taken to address any identified differences between policy and practice. Include a description of the steps taken to ensure staff with management responsibilities are up to date with their HR knowledge.

We use the staff survey to monitor the consistency of HR policies about equality, dignity at work, bullying, harassment, grievance and disciplinary processes. Our survey found:

Do you feel you are currently being harassed or bullied at work? Male% Agree Female% Agree Total Agree Sector Benchmark All Staff 6 5 6 Above median*

Are you aware of the University’s Harassment Support Service ‘Confide’? Male% Agree Female% Agree Total Agree Sector Benchmark All Staff 75 82 78 Above median

I am aware of the University’s Diversity Policy Male% Agree Female% Agree Total Agree Sector Benchmark All Staff 95 96 95 Above median

Have you felt discriminated against at work in the last 12 months? Male% Agree Female% Agree Total Agree Sector Benchmark All Staff 7 9 9 Best in sector* Table 5.6.3. Total staff survey all-staff survey responses with sector benchmark – split by gender. *Above median / Best = fewer staff agreed with statements compared to sector

Whilst these responses are positive, locally we found variation and so we highlighted Confide and our policies in these areas. Staff responses to E&D questions here and in S5.6.i highlight our success at embedding AS, training and communicating our policies. We have also recently launched a new employee assistance programme providing telephone access to counsellors 24/7.

Line managers are updated with HR knowledge via email, good practice newsletters and particularly by the direct support from their division’s dedicated HR partner. All staff are encouraged to undertake our ILM and, when appropriate, Future Leaders courses to develop their HR knowledge and ensure policy knowledge is up to date.

90

(iii) Proportion of heads of school/faculty/department by gender – Words: 140

Comment on the main concerns and achievements across the whole institution and any differences between STEMM and AHSSBL departments.

School Discipline Dean / Head of Department

Gender

School of the Arts, English & Drama AHSSBL Professor Alison Yarrington Female

School of Social, Political and Geographical Sciences

AHSSBL Professor Nick Clifford Male

- Geography Mixed Professor Stephen Rice Male

- Politics, History & International Relations AHSSBL Professor Moya Lloyd Female

- Social Sciences AHSSBL Professor James Stanyer Male

School of Science STEMM Professor Mark Biggs Male

- Chemistry STEMM Dr David Worrall Male

- Computer Science STEMM Dr Iain Phillips Male

- Mathematical Sciences STEMM Dr Andrew Archer Male

- Mathematical Education Centre STEMM Dr Lara Alcock Female

- Physics STEMM Dr Alexandre Zagoskin Male

School of Aeronautical, Automotive, Chemical and Materials Engineering

STEMM Professor Chris Rielly Male

- Aeronautical & Automotive Engineering STEMM Professor Martin Passmore Male

- Chemical Engineering STEMM Dr Valerie Pinfield Female

- Materials STEMM Professor Gary Critchlow Male

School of Civil & Building Engineering STEMM Professor Tony Thorpe

(Term ends 2018)

Male

Loughborough Design School STEMM Professor George Havenith (Term ends 2018)

Male

School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences

STEMM Professor Mark Lewis Male

School Business & Economics AHSSBL Professor Stewart Robinson Male

Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical & Manufacturing Engineering

STEMM Professor Paul Conway Male

Loughborough University London Mixed Professor Mike Caine

(Term ends 2018)

Male

91

Table 5.6.4. Deans (and Heads of Departments) – split by discipline and gender. Loughborough operates a structure of 10 schools, each managed by a dean. 3 schools have retained federal departments but these are limited in their management responsibility, as strategy, budgets and the majority of policy is held at School level. A Dean’s term is 5 years and renewable.

There is currently one woman Dean, Professor Alison Yarrington (SAED), following the recent promotions of two female Deans, Professor Rachel Thompson (SAACME) and Professor Tracy Bhamra (LDS), to become PVCT and PVCE respectively. Whilst their appointment to SMT demonstrates that women are thriving at Loughborough in senior positions, it has the consequence that we only now have 1/10 female Deans when our proportion of female professorial staff suggest that there ought to be 2/10.

2 Dean posts are currently at recruitment and a further post will be recruited shortly following this submission. The recruitment materials for each post contain gender balanced imagery, AS logos and commitments, childcare details, family friendly policies and a statement to encourage underrepresented groups to apply. Candidates in each recruitment campaign have the support of the Ex100 assistant registrar and access to our spousal fellowship scheme.

92

(iv) Representation of men and women on senior management committees – Words: 140

Provide data by gender, staff type and grade and comment on what the institution is doing to address any gender imbalance.

Data Note:

Data represents the most recent 3 academic years, including the current year. We have presented the most relevant senior management committees to the content of this submission, therefore Estates, Finance & Sports committees have not been included.

Professor includes Deans, PVCs, DVC & VC

LSU = Student representative from Loughborough Student’s Union

LM = Lay member (also includes other external senior appointments e.g. Chancellor)

SSA# = Specialist & Supporting Academic (Teaching-only & Research-only academics)

Senior Committees

Council

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Professor 1 20% 4 80% 0% 4 100% 2 29% 5 71% Reader 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% SL 1 50% 1 50% 1 33% 2 67% PSS 9 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% PSS 8 2 67% 1 33% 2 67% 1 33% 2 67% 1 33% LSU 1 50% 1 50% 0% 2 100% 0% 2 100% LM 5 31% 11 69% 4 24% 13 76% 5 31% 11 69% Total 10 34% 19 66% 8 26% 23 74% 10 33% 20 67% Table. 5.6.5. University Council members – split by staff type, grade & gender. Council is the senior governing body of the University and oversees all strategic matters. Membership is 23% ex-officio, 10% appointed (LSU & Alumni representatives), 27% elected from staff, 40% lay member

Senate

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Professor 9 36% 16 64% 7 30% 16 70% 7 26% 20 74% Reader 2 29% 5 71% 3 50% 3 50% 3 27% 8 73% SL 2 13% 14 88% 3 19% 13 81% 4 57% 3 43% L 1 25% 3 75% 1 20% 4 80% 1 25% 3 75% SSA 7 1 100% 0% SSA 6 1 100% 0% PSS 9 2 100% 0% 2 100% 0% 2 100% 0% PSS 7 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% LSU 3 60% 2 40% 1 20% 4 80% 3 50% 2 50% Total 19 32% 41 68% 17 29% 41 71% 22 38% 36 62% Table 5.6.6. University Senate members – split by staff type, grade & gender. Senate has responsibility for all academic and related matters. Membership is 31% ex-officio, 24% appointed

93

(LSU &School representatives), 45% elected from staff (also includes 3 students elected from subject representatives of LSU – not available for 2017/18) Operations Committee

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Professor 2 40% 3 60% 2 40% 3 60% 2 40% 3 60% PSS 9 1 33% 2 67% 1 33% 2 67% 1 33% 2 67% Total 3 38% 5 63% 3 38% 5 63% 3 38% 5 63% Table 5.6.7. Operations Committee members – split by staff type, grade & gender. Operations advises Senate on future academic developments with particular regard to financial and physical implications. Membership is 100% ex-officio Academic Committees Learning & Teaching Committee

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Professor 6 86% 1 14% 5 71% 2 29% 7 64% 4 36% Reader 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% 0% 1 100% SL 1 20% 4 80% 2 40% 3 60% PSS 9 2 50% 2 50% 2 50% 2 50% 2 50% 2 50% PSS 8 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% LSU 0% 2 100% 0% 2 100% 1 33% 2 67% Total 10 50% 10 50% 10 50% 10 50% 10 50% 10 50% Table 5.6.8. Learning & Teaching Committee members – split by staff type, grade & gender. Learning & Teaching advises Senate on learning & teaching strategy and policy matters. It also oversees arrangements for taught academic standards and quality. Membership is 85% ex-officio and 15% appointed (representation from LSU) Research Committee

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Professor 1 9% 10 91% 1 9% 10 91% 2 17% 10 83% Reader 1 100% 0% SL 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% PSS 9 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% PSS 8 2 100% 0% 2 100% 0% 2 100% 0% PGR 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% LSU 0% 1 100% Total 3 19% 13 81% 3 19% 13 81% 5 28% 13 72% Table 5.6.9. Research Committee members – split by staff type, grade & gender. Research committee acts in an executive and advisory capacity in the initiation, promotion and development of research in the University. Membership is 87% ex-officio and 13% appointed (PGR student and LSU representatives)

94

Enterprise Committee

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Professor 2 22% 7 78% 2 22% 7 78% 2 20% 8 80% SL 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% 1 PSS 9 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% PSS 8 2 100% 0% 2 100% 0% 1 50% 1 50% SSA 8 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% LSU 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% Total 6 38% 10 63% 6 38% 10 63% 4 25% 12 75%

Table 5.6.10. Enterprise Committee members – split by staff type, grade & gender. Enterprise committee develops University enterprise strategy and supports implementation across the institution. Membership is 94% ex-officio and6% appointed (LSU representation) Human Resources Committee

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Professor 4 44% 5 56% 4 44% 5 56% 1 50% 1 50% SL 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% SSA 7 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% PSS 9 0% 3 100% 0% 3 100% 0% 2 100% PSS 6 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% 1 100% 0% PSS 5 1 50% 1 50% 1 0% 1 100% PSS 3 1 100% 0% LM 1 33% 2 67% 1 33% 2 67% 1 25% 3 75% Total 9 43% 12 57% 7 37% 12 63% 4 33% 8 67% Table 5.6.11. HRC members – split by staff type, grade & gender. HRC develops and approves HR strategy & policy. It also provides assurance to Senate & Council on E&D issues including AS awards and monitoring of action plans. Membership is 38% ex-officio, 31% appointed (from Council lay members), 31% elected from staff University Total

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

University Total 60 35% 110 65% 54 32% 114 68% 58 36% 104 64% Table. 5.6.12. Total of all committee members outlined in section 5.6.iv – split by gender 54% of our committee membership is ex-officio and so the gender proportions are influenced by the gender balance in our SMT (29% F 2017/18), Deans (10% F 2017/18) and ADs (33% F 2017/18) which are in turn influenced by our proportion of women Professors. In total, Professors contribute 46% of committee membership. Despite these challenges, it is encouraging that the proportions of women professors, in each committee, are representative of the professorial population and in Senate, the representative of women is representative of the academic population. It is positive, that current representation of women at AD (33% F

95

2017/18) and PVC (66% F 2017/18) level is higher than the proportion of female professors at Loughborough. We have maintained our gender balance in Learning & Teaching committee and Research committee has the highest proportion of senior women it has ever had.

96

(v) Representation of men and women on influential institution committees – Words: 89

Provide data by committee, gender, staff type and grade and comment on how committee members are identified, whether any consideration is given to gender equality in the selection of representatives and what the institution is doing to address any gender imbalances.

Academic Leadership Team (ALT)

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

F % M % F % M % F % M % Professor 4 27% 11 73% 3 20% 12 80% 3 20% 12 80% PSS9 1 2 1 33% 2 67% 1 33% 2 67% Total 5 28% 13 72% 4 22% 14 78% 4 22% 14 78% Table 5.6.13. Total members of Academic Leadership Team. ALT comprises SMT & Deans.

ALT is a discussion forum for strategic decision making before items are progressed through formal governance. Participation is 100% ex-officio and so the gender balance reflects proportions in our Deans and SMT.

Professional Services Management Team (PSMT)

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

F % M % F % M % F % M %

PSS9 9 36% 16 64% 9 38% 15 63% 8 33% 16 67% Table 5.6.14. Total members of Professional Services Management Team. PSMT comprises PSS members of the SMT & Directors.

Similar to ALT, PSMT is also a discussion forum for strategic decision making but with a focus on non-academic items. Participation is 100% ex-officio and so the gender balance reflects proportions in SMT and PSS G9 roles.

97

(vi) Committee workload – Words: 56

Comment on how the issue of ‘committee overload’ is addressed where there are small numbers of men or women and how role rotation is considered.

Aside from a number of senior ex-offico roles, committee membership rotates every 3 or 4 years depending on the membership type. To address ‘committee overload’, we require ADs to be established Professors to minimise the burden of administration and committee membership at critical career points. Deans rotate their membership of central committees to minimise committee overload.

(vii) Institutional policies, practices and procedures – Words: 72

Describe how gender equality is considered in development, implementation and review. How is positive and/or negative impact of existing and future policies determined and acted upon?

EIAs are routinely carried out as part of policy development. Recent examples include PDR (S.5.3.ii), reward (S4.1.iv), car parking and studentship allocations. PDR and car parking included extensive staff consultation through our staff support groups and partnership with campus unions. EIAs are carried out before and after policy development to determine impact and identify areas for action. Our active staff consultations and EIAs have contributed to the successful implementation of PDR (S5.3.ii).

(viii) Workload model – Words: 378

Describe any workload allocation model in place and what it includes. Comment on whether the model is monitored for gender bias and whether it is taken into account at appraisal/development review and in promotion criteria. Comment on the rotation of responsibilities and if staff consider the model to be transparent and fair.

Following our 2014 award, Schools were pushed harder to adopt formal workload models for academic staff, in line with our workload agreement policy. By 2015/16, all Schools had a model in place. We are now in a position to audit the use of workload models across the University and we commit to audit the allocation of research hours by gender and the consistency of the application of probationary teaching load reduction (A10.1).

Workload & Work-life balance

Our staff survey highlighted that workload and work-life balance were of concern to many staff and, in particular, RTE academics:

98

The University provides good support to help me balance work and personal commitments

Male% Agree Female% Agree Total Agree Sector Benchmark RTE Staff 51 56 49 All Staff 70 79 73 Above median I feel I have a good work-life balance Male% Agree Female% Agree Total Agree Sector Benchmark RTE Staff 51 49 47 All Staff 69 79 72 Above median I find my current workload too much and am finding it difficult to cope Male% Agree Female% Agree Total Agree Sector Benchmark RTE Staff 66 58 65 All Staff 42 33 39 At median I feel I have had to put in a lot of extra time in the last 12 months to meet the demands

of my workload Male% Agree Female% Agree Total Agree Sector Benchmark RTE Staff 90 93 90 All Staff 70 62 66 At median Table 5.6.2. Total staff survey all-staff survey responses with sector benchmark – split by gender.

Note: benchmarking for RTE staff is not possible.

Whilst the findings were in line with the sector, led by Senate, these responses have prompted a culture change across the University. We have implemented the following:

• Embedded divisional actions plans into annual planning process. PDRs for Deans and Directors include follow-up on progress against action plans

• ‘Take your lunch days’ – consultation and comment analysis found staff often sacrificed breaks to meet workload demands. In response, to change culture, we have designated several days where staff are encouraged by concerted communication campaigns to take their break, across campus, through street style catering options, cake stalls and games

• The staff survey chair, Professor Jacqui Glass, led workshops at ALT & PSMT to identify practical solutions. Deans and services heads will set manageable deadlines and proactively support staff achieve work-life balance through PDR

• Established a working group to develop a strategic approach to stress and mental wellbeing

As part of this award submission we will embed more actions to continue this process of culture change. Aligning these actions with our AS action plan and structure will add further weight to our commitment here and help support necessary change. Challenging this culture requires tackling our structurally embedded attitude to work. The perceived attribution of success to high workload (often, at the expense of family life) can act as a barrier to staff with caring responsibilities, in particular women with childcare responsibilities, and contributes to both men and women leaving academia.

99

Actions

10.2. Through PDR, the VC will encourage the SMT to use their annual leave entitlement and ensure they themselves are encouraging their staff in the same fashion.

10.3. Implement an email strategy to manage and reduce stress on staff caused by volumes of email

(ix) Timing of institution meetings and social gatherings – Words: 88

Describe the consideration given to those with caring responsibilities and part-time staff around the timing of meetings and social gatherings.

Schools and PSS divisions are encouraged to give consideration to staff with caring responsibilities around the timing of meetings and social gatherings. The University leads on this by ensuring central committee meetings are held between 10.00 and 16.00, where possible (the availability of Council lay members has required some exceptions). Following the findings of the staff survey (S5.6.viii), directors of service and Deans were encouraged, to time meetings and social gatherings, at ALT & PSMT in 2017, as part of a wider approach to improving our work-life balance.

(x) Visibility of role models – Words: 98

Describe how the institution builds gender equality into organisation of events. Comment on the gender balance of speakers and chairpersons in seminars, workshops and other relevant activities. Comment on publicity materials, including the institution’s website and images used.

To ensure gender equality is built into campus all Schools have a marketing officer, mandated to ensure representation encourages underrepresented groups, who provides oversight into materials and webpages. During our self-assessment we were unable to comment on the gender balance of speakers and chairpersons and so as part of A1.3 champions will collect this information.

Through the Ex100 campaign materials we have raised the visibility of women in our institution and we will continue this good practice in our recruitment practices beyond Ex100 (A3.1). As demonstrated in S5.1.i we feel this has had an impact on our success.

100

Image shows Ex100 advertisement in the Times – Professor Rachel Thompson (PVCT)

101

(xi) Outreach activities – Words: 193

Provide data on the staff involved in outreach and engagement activities by gender and grade. How is staff contribution to outreach and engagement activities formally recognised? Comment on the participant uptake of these activities by school type and gender.

Each School undertakes extensive outreach and engagement activities however, the nature of these activities and our structures mean accurate reporting is not possible. In all of School award submissions our outreach activities, in particular those to encourage women into STEMM have been commended by panellists. We have recently run outreach, with some moderate success to encourage men to study English. We also recently benefited from an alumni donation to a fund a two-day residential engineering course for 50 girls, aged 14 to 15-years-old.

Image shows participants on our Girls into STEM programme – 4 four day residential programme for year 10 girls in 2017

In 2017, to improve our engagement with local Schools we combined our annual prestige Athena SWAN lecture – the Claudia Parsons lecture (Claudia, a former student 1919 -22 was the first women to circumnavigate the world by car) with an on campus outreach day to encourage women into STEMM. Previously we struggled to encourage local pupils to attend (22 – 50% F in 2016) however, by combining the lecture with outreach, attendance by local pupils increased (64 – 75% F). We are continuing this action for our lecture in 2018 and are looking to increase attendance by our staff and students by holding the lecture over lunch the day before Internal Women’s Day (A1.3.b).

102

(xii) Leadership – Words: 106

Describe the steps that will be taken by the institution to encourage departments to apply for the Athena SWAN awards.

To support Schools to apply for AS awards we have, since May 2015, put a FT project officer in place. The project officer is responsible for advising Schools, data provision and coordinating the University award.

In 2017, following two unsuccessful submissions, we put in place improved milestones and guidelines that include a formal route to submission, involving the University SAT. Before a draft submission can be submitted to the SAT a summary report, outlining self-assessment findings and resulting actions must be presented to the SAT by the School champion. Following SAT approval, draft submissions will be reviewed by the SAT and submitted to HRC for approval.

103

6. SUPPORTING TRANS PEOPLE – WORDS: 243 Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words | Silver: 500 words

(i) Current policy and practice – Words: 97

Provide details of the policies and practices in place to ensure that staff are not discriminated against on the basis of being trans, including tackling inappropriate and/or negative attitudes.

Our unified Equality Code of Practice includes specific provision and definitions to protect trans staff and students from discrimination. Our Harassment and Bullying Policy includes a standalone definition of gender identity harassment.

We proactively tackle inappropriate and negative attitudes by specifically highlighting discrimination that trans people may face in the mandatory Respecting Diversity course. This is further reinforced and repeated during R&S Training for recruitment chairs and panellists. Managers have been provided with specific trans guidelines to create a more inclusive culture for all staff, as part of our recent development of a specific transgender information webpage.

(ii) Monitoring – Words: 75

Provide details of how the institution monitors the positive and/or negative impact of these policies and procedures, and acts on any findings.

Our all-staff survey includes a specific E&D report that tests for significant responses by protected characteristics.

Numbers of our trans staff and students are very low so we primarily rely on our LGBT+ staff and LSU groups to monitor the impact and consistency of our policies and procedures – both are very active on campus and regularly consulted.

Where inconsistencies are found we use training and work with our staff and student groups to implement solutions.

(iii) Further work – Words: 71

Provide details of further initiatives that have been identified as necessary to ensure trans people do not experience unfair treatment at the institution.

With encouragement from the COO, to reflect expanded AS principles, the LGBT+ staff group Chair has initiated a sub-group to work on trans inclusion at the University. So far, the group have collaborated with the University on policy and toilet signs have been changed to be more inclusive of transgender. We are still at the early stages of our work here and hope to demonstrate more work in our next award.

104

7. FURTHER INFORMATION Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words | Silver: 500 words

Please comment here on any other elements that are relevant to the application; for example, other gender-specific initiatives that may not have been covered in the previous sections.

N/A

105

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

Please present the action plan in the form of a table. For each action define an appropriate success/outcome measure, identify the person/position(s) responsible for the action, and timescales for completion.

The plan should cover current initiatives and your aspirations for the next four years. Actions, and their measures of success, should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound (SMART).

See the awards handbook for an example template for an action plan.

This guide was published in May 2015. ©Equality Challenge Unit May 2015. Athena SWAN is a community trademark registered to Equality Challenge Unit: 011132057.

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. Alternative formats are available: [email protected]

Reference Planned action / objective

Rationale (i.e. what evidence is there that prompted this action/objective?)

Key outputs and milestones

Timeframe (start/end date)

Person responsible (include job title)

Success criteria and outcome

1. Self-Assessment Team

1.1. Priority: 2

a. Membership to respond to changing requirements externally and internally b. Inclusive and diverse membership on all School SATs

Views from all Schools and the professional services must feed into SAT Views from all groups at the University must feed into AS activity

Review Terms of Reference (including membership) at beginning of academic year Annual audit of SATs at beginning of academic year

Ongoing Ongoing

Ongoing Ongoing

SAT Chair – PVCR Athena SWAN Project Officer

SAT has membership from all Schools and representation from professional services School SAT membership representative and inclusive of their School community

1.2. Priority: 3

Annual action plan progress update to HRC

During the previous award period this was a useful way to maintain progress and accountability

Annual report on the October HRC meeting agenda

Ongoing Ongoing Athena SWAN Project Officer

Progress delivered and accounted against each action. Impact identified in time for 2022 self-assessment

1.3.

a. Continue to increase audience for Claudia Parsons Lecture

Annual prestige lecture is a high profile event to engage the University community and wider community with AS

Lecture & outreach held annually to coincide with International Women’s Week

Ongoing Ongoing SAT Chair - PVCR

Increase attendance of staff and University students to at least 100 by end of award period

b. Challenge Schools to hold more AS events & monitor gender balance of

Events are currently sporadic across Schools and student engagement is low. We were unable to comment on gender

Champions will report on events annually as part of SAT agenda item

July 2018

Ongoing Athena SWAN Project Officer

Every School to hold at least 1 AS event per academic year

Priority: 2

speakers and chairpersons generally.

balance of speakers and chairpersons across campus.

1.4. Priority: 3

Ensure SAT is represented on Staff Survey 2020 project group

Representation is useful to ensure survey can be used as a measure for actions, future self-assessment and to share best practice

SAT representative present at constituting of project group

2020 2020 SAT Chair - PVCR

Use of staff survey for 2022 self-assessment and identification of action progress impact

2. A Picture of the Institution







2.1. Priority: 1

Review use of fractional contracts for Teaching-only academic staff

Data limitations mean we are not able to self-assess our use of these contracts across the University and subsequently cannot identify our challenges in this area.

i. Improved data system for recording fractional contracts in use ii. Review presented to HRC for discussion to identify further action

Ongoing August 2018

August 2018 February 2018

Deputy HR Director HRC Chair - COO

Accurate reporting of staff working fractional contracts enabled Identification of actions to progress findings

2.2. Priority: 1

a. Continue annual equal pay audits for HRC and Council

Annual reports enable University to measure impact of interventions at recruitment and promotion/reward – in particular at professorial level

Annual report to HRC and Council in June

Ongoing Ongoing HRC Chair - COO

Following EHRC guidelines we are aiming to reduce and maintain the professorial pay gap to less than 5%

b. Continue Equality Impact Assessments of PDR, promotion and reward outcomes to HRC and Remuneration Committee

Assessment of outcomes enable University to measure impact of interventions at PDR, promotion and reward

Annual reports to HRC and Remuneration Committee

Ongoing Ongoing HRC Chair – COO HR Director

Following ACAS guidelines we will continue to aim for all genders to be within 4/5ths of the rate of the gender with the highest success rate

2.3. Priority: 2

SAT to further explore low proportions of PSS women at grade 9, following review of SAT membership

Self-assessment identified a drop in F% at G9 to 29% and we are below the benchmark – 42%.

i. Following appointment of PSS members of SAT data will be collected (survey, focus group, staff data) to identify trends and areas for action ii. Present findings and recommendations to HRC for discussion and action iii. Interventions evaluated by SAT

September 2018 October 2019 September 2021

September 2019 October 2019 September 2021

SAT PSS Member & Athena SWAN Project Officer SAT Chair – PVCR Athena SWAN Project Officer

Proportions of women at G9 to have risen to sector benchmark – 42% by 2022.

3. Recruitment of Academic Women







3.1. Priority: 1

Analysis of Excellence 100 outcomes & development of best practice recommendations

Excellence 100 is a high profile campaign with a high number of appointments. One aim of campaign has been to increase applications from minority groups and so a number of positive actions have been undertaken.

i. Routine equality analysis of data at end each campaign to monitor where improvements are needed ii. Equality analysis of all Ex100 campaigns to evaluate interventions and positive actions iii. Development of a set of best practice based on evaluations to apply to all academic recruitment campaigns

Ongoing 2019 Ongoing

2019 2019 2019

Assistant Registrar Excellence 100 project chair – DVC Deputy HR Director

% of women applying and appointed at each level to be greater than 2016/17 % of women. 30% of STEMM professorial appointments to be women Development of a set best practice recommendations to apply to all academic recruitment campaigns 25% of STEMM & 30% of total professorial applicants are women and increase overall proportion of women STEMM Professors to 20% by 2022 30% of STEMM Research only & Lecturer applicants are women

3.2. Priority: 1

Continue to explore platforms to target advertising and continue FaceBook adverts

Taking advantage of Facebook has been an innovative way to engage minority groups for Excellence 100

i. Analysis of current use to evaluate impact in Excellence 100 campaigns ii. Following successful outcome of evaluation use of social media platforms will be encouraged as a positive action tool by HR

Ongoing 2018

2019 2022

Assistant Registrar Deputy HR Director

Overall 35% of applications from women, 40% of Lecturer applications from women, 30% of Professor applications from women at end of Ex100 25% of STEMM & 30% of total professorial applicants are women 30% of STEMM Research only & Lecturer applicants are women

3.3. Priority: 2

Extend remit of Assistant Registrar to support recruitment of all senior academic posts

Newly created position of Assistant Registrar enables greater support for interviewees and offer holders in Excellence 100 campaigns – in particular supporting individuals from minority groups

i. Extend Assistant Registrar support to senior academic posts ii. Evaluate Assistant Registrar role following completion of Excellence 100

2018 2019

2019 2019

Excellence 100 project chair – DVC Excellence 100 project chair – DVC

90% of senior academic women to accept offer

4. Induction & Academic Probation







4.1. Priority: 3

Implement induction evaluation mechanism through AS surveys and next university staff survey

Ability to self-assess our induction and support is limited without a formal mechanism to evaluate it

i. Ensure all School AS surveys include questions on induction ii. Include question on induction in next University staff survey

Ongoing 2020

Ongoing 2020

Athena SWAN Project Officer Staff Survey Chair & SAT Chair - PVCR

Evaluative data created and made available to SAT

4.2. (Concordat) Priority: 3

Supplement induction guidance with updated best practice for Research staff

This action has come from our Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers action plan. By aligning this with our AS plan we will be able to focus our efforts and support both schemes. It was found that Research-only staff were less likely to receive a formal induction

Make recommendations of best practice in guidance to Schools

January 2018

July 2018

Research Staff and Student Development Adviser

40% increase in induction participation – measured by CROS 2019

4.3. Priority: 2

Implement identified improvements to academic probation

Following evaluation & consultation we found a greater demand for teaching observations and a need to decrease PGCAP workload

Changes are to be initiated for the 2017/18 cohort of probationary lecturers & and will be evaluated upon completion

Ongoing August 2018

Assistant Director (Academic Practice)

Improvements implemented & evaluative findings are positive

5. Promotion of Academic Women







5.1. Priority: 3

HR to rigorously test academic promotions criteria to ensure they give fair consideration to part time staff

Few part time staff have been promoted despite considerations in new criteria.

i. Carry out test and report findings to SAT ii. Following the outcome, if necessary, take action to ensure criteria are fair via HRC

March 2018 November 2018

September 2018 November 2018

Deputy HR Director SAT Chair - PVCR

SMART actions identified & implemented

5.2.

Embed review of women RTE staff not promoted in last 2 years with Deans

As more women Lecturers become eligible we must ensure they are being considered for promotion to drive the increase in the overall populations at Senior Lecturer. Our proportions of women professors are low and we must ensure the higher proportions of women at Reader follow through to Professor.

Before PDR period, HR partners will identify eligible individuals with Deans to inform an individual’s PDR

October 2018

November 2022

Deputy HR Director - to implement review School HR partners - to identify individuals with their Dean All School Deans – to ensure discussions around support and promotion take place in PDR with identified individual’s

Applications from women in line with the eligible population F% at each level Increase overall proportion of women STEMM Senior Lecturers to 30% by 2022 Increase overall proportion of women STEMM Professors to 20% by 2022

Priority: 1 5.3. Priority: 1

Run professorial briefing sessions

% of women professors is low so we need to encourage more women to apply for promotion

Sessions will be run throughout the academic year, timed with the PDR period and meetings of Personal Titles Sub-Committee

November 2017

Ongoing PVCR & DVC F% Attendance in line with 2016/17 eligible population at RTE G8 – 30% Applications from women above the 2016/17 eligible population % at G8 – 30%

6. Training & Career Development







6.1. Priority: 1

Review development opportunities available to all staff

Following responses to the staff survey & evaluation of PDR a review of development is required to meet demand and broaden offering

i. Mapping exercise of all development provided by Staff Development completed ii. Recommendations made to COO for action

Ongoing March 2018

March 2018 March 2018

Deputy HR Director (Staff Development)

75% of all academic groups of staff (men & women) agree that they are satisfied with current level of training and development 70% of all academic groups of staff (men & women) have taken part in training & development provided by the University in the last 12 months

6.2.

Establish a Women’s Development Network for all staff

Several Universities have run successful schemes that have positively impact on women’s development.

i. Review other schemes ii. Identify a chair and outline remit and scope of network – present to HRC iii. Hold first meeting iv. Evaluate Network after 1 year

July 2018 October 2018 Term 2 2019

September 2018 October 2018 Term 2 2019

Deputy HR Director Deputy HR Director Network Chair

Network in place and evaluation demonstrates positive outcomes and impact on attendee’s careers, in particular at senior academic and PSS levels.

Priority: 2

Feb 2020 Feb 2020 Network Chair

6.3. Priority: 3

Encourage take up of Aurora places

Aurora scheme has been a useful development scheme for women at Loughborough

Hold annual networking event for past attendees and prospective staff

September 2019

Ongoing Deputy HR Director (Staff Development)

At least 1 staff member per School & 2 staff members from central PSS services each academic year

6.4. Priority: 2

Unconscious Bias Training for all School SMTs

Ensuring all School SMTs undergo training targets key decision makers and will progress wider discussions around embedding of UB training

i. All current School SMTs trained ii. Mechanism in place to monitor training coverage as SMTs change

September 2018

August 2019

Equality & Diversity Advisor

All School SMTs trained and number of academic staff attending increased

7. Performance & Development Review







7.1. Priority: 2

Continue Equality Impact Assessment and participation analysis

Previous analysis and participation analysis identified areas for improvement and allows evaluation of previous interventions

Annual report to HRC

Ongoing Ongoing HRC Chair - COO

Assessments take place after every cycle and positive action taken when necessary

7.2. Priority: 2

Implement improved training & guidelines to support line managers with PT staff

Analysis of 2016/17 round found disparity between PT & FT staff

i. Implement changes in advance of 2017/18 round ii. Evaluate success of changes through analysis in action 7.1.

Ongoing March 2018

March 2018 June 2018

Deputy HR Director (Staff Development) HRC Chair - COO

% of PT staff in line with % FT staff rated ‘excellent’ following ACAS guidelines

7.3. Priority: 3

Extend online PDR tool to all staff

Online tool was successful for academic PDRs and should be extended to improve recording of outcomes, objectives etc.

Implementation of system for next PDR round

Ongoing March 2018

COO 100% update of PDR using online tool

8. Research Staff Development







8.1. Priority: 2

Run focus groups with open contract researchers to establish motivations and any obstacles

We are unsure whether this a positive finding and focus groups should support further analysis

Undertake focus groups and present findings for discussion at SAT to identify any further action

Jan 2018 Feb 2018 Athena SWAN Project Officer in collaboration with Research Office

Clearer understanding of the issue and actions in place to progress any findings

8.2. Priority: 2

Align Athena SWAN with Concordat action plan and vice versa

There is considerable overlap with both charter mark schemes – aligning actions with enable greater focus in these areas

i. AS action plan to include relevant current concordat actions ii. Concordat action plan to include relevant AS actions

November 2017 November 2018

Ongoing Ongoing

Athena SWAN project officer / Research Staff and Student Development Advisor

Maintaining both charter marks and achieving success measures in both action plans, relevant to Research-only staff


Continue to improve CROS response rates

CROS is a useful tool to explore views of staff at an important career transition point

Taking inspiration from the NSS, we will raise the profile of CROS by using media (videos, newsletters, email) to drive the response and we will produce regular response rate updates by School.

September 2018

Term 3 2018/19

Research Staff and Student Development Advisor

50% response rate (from 40% in 2017)

8.4.

Develop Research staff

LU Research Staff Association, an important

i. Reinvigorate LU Research Staff

September 2018

Ongoing Head of Researcher

Improve membership of the

(Concordat) Priority: 3

community

consultative group and network, membership has dropped. 60% of researchers agreed they were integrated into the University’s research community (CROS2017).

Association to explore issues ii. Develop fellowship lecture series

Development

association. Increase % agree to 70% around integration in University research community in CROS2019


Review and increase awareness of Research Staff Code of Practice through Recruitment & selection training and other routes

CROS2017 found awareness was low at 34% amongst Researchers. It is important that both line manager and researcher understand the Code of Practice as it sets out a number of relevant expectations related to Athena SWAN.

i. Initiate monthly welcome email to new research staff to inform of the code and to indicate avenues for support and development ii. Add Code of Practice section into “introduction to Research” and “Welcome to Loughborough” events for new staff

November 2017

Ongoing Research Staff and Student Development Advisor Deputy HR Director (Staff Development)

Increase in awareness measured through CROS2019 – “I have some understanding of this” % agree to 44% amongst Research-only academics


Encourage fellowship applications through Research Leaders strand of CALIBRE

Proportions of women researchers declines at G7 due to lower proportions of women on fellowships.

Calls will be sent via AS champions to circulate amongst Researchers alongside statements to encourage underrepresented groups.

Ongoing Ongoing Research Development Manager

Overall 10% increase in applications from LU research staff for internal Fellowship


Continuing Professional Development of RAs to be included in grants, and as one of their outcomes

Inclusion of Researchers CPD cost in funding means there is an allocated fund to support individual career development

Work with Research Projects Team (Research Office) to improve engagement with this, and to monitor effectiveness

Ongoing May 2018 Research Development Manager

10% increase in submitted grants that include CPD costs


Review of recruitment and retention of researchers

Reviewing retention and recruitment, in greater detail, will support our evaluation of concordat interventions and provide

i. Working with Planning & Research Office data sets on staff contract length, turnover, grant applications & personnel details will be brought together and analysed. ii. The findings will be discussed at Research Committee and actions identified

Ongoing June 2018

June 2018 November 2018

Athena SWAN Project Officer & Research Staff and Student Development Advisor PVCR

Increase retention rate of researchers by 5%

9. Maternity Leave & Childcare







9.1. Priority: 2

Enhance maternity guidance – transition back to work

Maternity returner survey highlighted less satisfaction with the support given when returning to work including communication in the run up to return, re-induction to their role and our ability to facilitate breastfeeding

i. Enhanced guidance presented to SAT for discussion ii. Guidance disseminated to Deans, Operation Managers & Directors

Ongoing April 2018 Equality & Diversity Advisor

Increase % agree that supported was provided before, during and on return from leave to 70% Increase % agree that they were provided with facilities to breastfeed/express milk to 64%

9.2. Priority: 2

Review childcare provision on campus

The LSU nursery is an important resource but reaches capacity and is not ideally located

i. Working with the nursery manager the SAT will devise a method to review provision. ii. The review will be discussed by HRC and any necessary action will be explored

Ongoing February 2019

Oct 2018 February 2018

SAT Chair – PVCR HRC Chair - COO

Review undertaken in partnership with the nursery and presented to HRC Actions identified for progression

9.3.

Biennial maternity returners survey

The survey is a valuable tool to identify and monitor areas of concern for maternity returners

i. Undertake reviewed survey and follow up with focus groups ii. present findings

Ongoing Ongoing Equality & Diversity Advisor

60% participation rate

Priority: 2

to SAT for discussion action

9.4. Priority: 2

Implement maternity returner working hours transition policy

A policy is needed to support those who want to reduce their hours when they return and transition back to FT when appropriate. This could help reduce ‘leaks’ in our pipeline.

i. Assess demand and impact on staffing. ii. Discussion and review of policy iii. Launch & communication of policy iv. Review of policy

Ongoing Term 2 2017/18 Term 1 2018/19 2021/22

December 2017 Term 2 2017/18 Term 1 2018/19 2021/22

Deputy HR Director Chair of HR Working Group – DVC Deputy HR Director Athena SWAN Project Officer

Paper outlining policy & cover arrangements sent to HR working group Policy ready for implementation Policy is being used and academic/PSS in post after 6 months >90%

9.5. Priority: 3

Extend parental leave policy to all staff with a formal care responsibility

Staff with formal care responsibility other than child care are excluded from this leave. We feel this is unfair.

i. Policy in place and communicated to staff

Ongoing November 2018

Equality & Diversity Advisor

Increase in use of ‘Parental leave’

10. Workload & Work-life Balance







10.1. Priority: 1

Undertake a workload audit to ensure workload models are in place, that research load is allocated fairly & that probationer teaching reduction is happening across campus

Workload models are now in place and evaluation needs to take place to ensure allocations are fair. Workload received poor responses from academic staff in the all staff survey. This will be a substantial undertaken so we have chosen to focus on Research allocations as this will offer the most insight into any unfairness.

i. Collation of School workload models ii. Analysis of available data iii. Presentation of findings to Research Committee

July 2018 September 2018 Term 2 2019

September 2018 January 2019 Term 2 2019

Athena SWAN Project Officer Athena SWAN Project Officer PVCR

Audit undertaken and findings show Research allocation is fair and probationary teaching reduction is happening in 2019 OR suitable actions have been implemented and evaluated by 2022

10.2.

VC to encourage all staff to use annual leave entitlement through SMT PDR

Comments from all-staff survey and feedback indicates that staff sacrifice annual leave to meet workload demands.

VC will ask each SMT member in their PDR how they have used their annual leave entitlement and whether the staff they are responsible for are using their annual leave

December 2018

Ongoing VC % of all staff agree decrease to 50% and % of total RTE staff decrease to 75% that they have had to put a lot of extra time in the last 12 months to meet demands of workload in next all-staff survey. % total RTE staff agree “I feel I have a good work-life balance” to 60%

Priority: 2 10.3. Priority: 2

Implement an email strategy to manage workload demands

Comments from all-staff survey and feedback indicates volume of email id increasing workload and stress.

Following consultation with IT, PSMT, ALT, and campus unions, a policy will be presented to HRC for implementation across the University.

Ongoing Ongoing Director of Change Projects

% of all staff agree decrease to 50% and % of total RTE staff decrease to 75% that they have had to put a lot of extra time in the last 12 months to meet demands of workload in next all-staff survey. % total RTE staff agree “I feel I have a good work-life balance” to 60%

11. Athena SWAN School Submissions







11.1 Priority: 1

All Schools will submit for awards by end of this award period - 2022

Unsuccessful Schools will be encouraged to maintain momentum and re-submit. ASSHBL Schools will be encouraged to submit for awards to help progress gender equality in their areas.

i. SSPGS – Bronze ii. SAACME – Bronze iii. WSMEM – Bronze iv. Science – Bronze v. SAED – Bronze vi. SBE – Bronze vii. London - Bronze viii. SSEHS – Gold ix. SABCE – Silver x. LDS - Silver

Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing 2018 2018 2018 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing

November 2018 November 2018 November 2018 April 2019 2019/20 2019/20 2019/20 2020 2021 2021

SSPGS Champion SAACME Champion WSMEM Champion Science Champion SAED Champion SBE Champion London Champion SSEHS Champion SABCE Champion LDS Champion

10/10 awards by 2022

126

Documents

Institution Application Bronze and Silver Award€¦ · Award Level Silver Date joined Athena SWAN . 2005 – Founder member . Current award Date: 24. th. Sept 2014 Level: Bronze