Institution Application Bronze

University of St Andrews

Awarded 7 May 2018

Redacted version

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.

WORD COUNT

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

2

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 Guide Actual

Word limit 10,500 10,380 Recommended word count 1.Letter of endorsement 500 655 2.Description of the institution 500 236 3. Self-assessment process 1,000 817 4. Picture of the institution 2,000 2,037 5. Supporting and advancing women’s careers 5,000 5,983 6. Supporting trans people 500 492 7. Further information 500 160

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

Submission Details 5

Vice-Chancellor’s Letter of Endorsement 6

List of Abbreviations 9

Description of the Institution 10

Self-Assessment Process 15

Picture of the Institution 23

Supporting and Advancing Women’s Careers 54

Supporting Trans People 129

Further Information 133

Action Plan 134

4

Name of institution University of St Andrews Date of application 30 November 2017 Award Level Bronze Date joined Athena SWAN 28 November 2011 Current award Date: 25 April 2013 Level: Bronze Contact for application Sukhi Bains Email [email protected] Telephone 01334 461649

5

1. LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE HEAD OF INSTITUTION Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words (Actual NNN) 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.

See also Actions 1 and 2, which directly relate to the Vice-Chancellor’s letter below.

6

7

8

List of Abbreviations: ACAS Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service AHSSBL Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Business and Law AS Athena SWAN BME Black and Minority Ethnic CAPOD Centre for Academic, Professional and Organisational Development DoR Director of Research DoT Director of Teaching dSAT Departmental/School Self-Assessment Team DWP Department of Work and Pensions E&D Equality & Diversity ECG Equality Compliance Group ECR Early Career Researcher ECU Equality Challenge Unit ED&I Equality, Diversity & Inclusion EHRC Equality & Human Rights Commission EIA Equality Impact Assessment FTC Fixed term contract FTE Full-time Equivalent HEA Higher Education Academy HoS Head of School (Academic) HR Human Resources HRBP Human Resources Business Partner iSAT Institutional Self-Assessment Team KiT Keep-in-Touch (days) KPI Key Performance Indicator LGBTIQ+ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer/Questioning PGR Research Postgraduate student PGT Taught Postgraduate student PO Principal’s Office (The Principal’s ‘cabinet’ of the most senior staff members) PSS Professional Support Services staff RemCom Remuneration & HR Committee (chaired by University Senior Governor) REF Research Excellence Framework RG Russell Group SET Science, Engineering, Technology and the Built Environment (UKRC usage) SMT University Senior Management Team (level immediately below PO) STEM Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics STEMM Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine and Mathematics TEF Teaching Excellence Framework TUCC Trades Union Consultative Committee UG Undergraduate student UKRC UK Resource Centre VP Vice-Principal

9

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTION Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words (Actual 272)

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

The University achieved AS Bronze in April 2013. A submission for continuation was submitted in April 2016; the submission was judged to be unsuccessful in November 2016, but an extension was granted to allow this submission (November 2017). We have: continued to implement action plan items; developed additional policies and processes to embed post-May 2015 Charter Principles; and actively promoted engagement right across the institution. Information on ED&I and iSAT management and assessment structures and our active, committed process is provided in section 3.

(ii) information on its teaching and its research focus

The University is equally committed to teaching and research, and seeks to achieve excellence in both areas. Figure 2-1 provides an illustration of our balanced, dual-intensive approach.

Figure 2-1 TEF/REF comparison

Source: http://wonkhe.com/blogs/tef-results-how-do-ref-and-tef-results-compare/

10

We are ranked in the top 100 of the QS World University Rankings (research-focused), rank third in the UK in the latest Times, Guardian and Complete University guides (balancing teaching and research) and have achieved TEF Gold in the recent UK assessment exercise. Our balanced approach is reflected in our recent attention to the status of Teaching and Learning, especially in our revised (January 2017) promotion criteria and our distinctive culture, guided by the Principal’s clear strategic focus on fairness and inclusivity.

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

The University currently employs 2626 staff in Academic and Professional Support roles.

Table 2-1 St Andrews University Staff numbers (December 2016)

% Employee Role Female Male Total Female Total Academic Staff 449 715 1164 39 Research-only 160 207 367 43

Grade 6 109 140 249 44 Grade 7 16 40 56 29

Teaching-only 87 63 150 58 Grade 5 17 5 22 77 Grade 6 46 33 79 58 Grade 7 19 19 38 50

Research & Teaching 202 445 647 31 Lecturer 90 145 235 38 Senior Lecturer 41 59 100 41 Reader 27 61 88 31 Professor 44 180 224 20 Professional and Support Staff 877 584 1461 60 Total 1326 1300 2626 50

11

The proportion of Professional and Support Staff within the university and the breakdown of Academic staff by job function are shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3.

Figure 2-2 St Andrews University Staff by Job Category

Research 367 Teaching

150 Lecturer

Senior Lecturer 235 1461 Reader 100 Professor 224 88 Professional and Support Staff

Figure 2-3 Academic Staff by Job Category

Research 224 367 Teaching

Lecturer 88 Senior Lecturer 100 Reader 150 Professor 235

12

(iv) the total number of departments and total number of students The University consists of four Faculties, comprised of 8 STEMM and 11 AHSSBL Schools. There are 8786 students; 7047 Undergraduate, 888 Postgraduate Taught and 851 Postgraduate Research Students (see Table 2-2 for students by School).

Current AS accreditations are shown below: Figure 2-4 Overview of Departmental Structure Including Athena SWAN Accreditations

13

(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

Table 2-2 Departments by size and STEMM/AHSSBL categories

Students Staff (Headcount) School (department) (FTE) Academic PSS Biology 470 146 70 Chemistry 480 112 33 Computer Science 429 53 14

Earth & Environmental Sciences 150 31 10 Mathematics & Statistics 502 66 8

STEMM Medicine 517 74 37 Physics & Astronomy 441 107 27 Psychology & Neuroscience 538 55 18

Art History 274 23 5 Classics 214 25 <5 Economics & Finance 505 35 8 English 476 38 5

Divinity 150 26 <5 History 717 66 8

AHSSBL International Relations 789 55 9 Management 630 45 10 Modern Languages 456 67 9 Philosophical, Anthropological & Film Studies 569 64 10 Geography & Sustainable Development 395 50 8

14

3. THE SELF-ASSESSMENT PROCESS Recommended word count: Bronze: 1000 words (Actual 817) Describe the self-assessment process. This should include:

(i) a description of the self-assessment team The University ED&I/AS Committee constitutes our Institutional Self-Assessment Team (iSAT). The committee is chaired by Professor Paul Hibbert, Dean of Arts, with the active sponsorship of the Principal; it meets at least twice per semester. As Figure 3-1 shows, iSAT has direct communication with key committee representatives and operational groups.

Figure 3-1 Institutional Leadership, Context and Support for iSAT and AS Processes

In 2016 four AS Working Groups were created as sub-groups of iSAT. They provide additional focus on specific areas, and meet on average three times per semester.

Table 3-1 AS Working Groups

AS Working Groups (A) Action Planning Group (B) Career Development & Work-life Balance Group (C) Organisation & Culture Group (D) Statistical Analysis Group

15

These groups focus on key issues and actions, providing detailed input to iSAT and leading on drafting this submission. This submission – and the substantive changes it describes – have thereby been a collaborative development involving staff from all sectors of the University. iSAT remains central for raising and discussing issues, generating ideas, sharing best practice, consulting widely through School, PSS and student committees, and sponsoring action. iSAT collectively reviewed and approved this submission.

Table 3-2 details iSAT membership and member characteristics. iSAT members are recruited based on fit with one or more of these principles: - gender balance (an ongoing target) and the inclusion of LGBTIQ+ representatives; - representation from all key stakeholder groups – academic schools, the PSS community and students; - specific skill sets and experience of value to the self-assessment process and the furtherance of the Charter Principles; - and engagement of senior staff in the process.

Table 3-2 iSAT Membership

School/Unit Name & Position Role & Athena SWAN related experience

Prof Paul Hibbert

Dean of Arts

Principal’s Office / SMT Alastair Merrill Vice-Principal for Governance Steven Watt

Chief Information Officer Prof Kathryn Rudy

Professor School of Art History Dr Ilse Sturkenboom

Lecturer Dr Sascha Hooker School of Biology Reader Dr Tanja van Mourik

Reader School of Chemistry Prof Sharon Ashbrook

Professor

Prof Tom Harrison School of Classics Professor School of Computer Prof Ian Gent

Science Professor

16

School of Economics & Dr Tugce Cuhadaroglu

Finance Lecturer

Dr Madhavi Nevader School of Divinity Lecturer School of Earth & Prof Adrian Finch

Environmental Sciences Professor Dr Katie Garner School of English Lecturer

Dr Sharon Leahy

School of Geography & Lecturer & Pro-Dean Sustainable Development Dr Richard Streeter

Lecturer

Prof Frances Andrews

Professor School of History

Prof Aileen Fyfe

Professor

School of International Dr Caron Gentry

Relations Senior Lecturer Prof Ruth Woodfield Professor Co-Head of School

Dr Boyka Bratanova School of Management Lecturer

Dr Anna Brown Associate Lecturer (Education Focused) Dr Michail Papathomas

Lecturer

Prof Ineke De Moortel School of Mathematics & Statistics Professor

Dr Monique MacKenzie

Senior Lecturer

17

Julie Struthers, Deputy School of Medicine Head of School School of Modern Dr Claire Whitehead

Languages Senior Lecturer Prof Mark Harris

Head of School School of Philosophical, Prof Katherine Hawley Anthropological and Film Professor Studies Katie Allan

Administrator School of Physics & Dr Vivienne Wild

Astronomy Reader School of Psychology & Dr Gillian Brown

Neuroscience Reader

Jos Finer Centre for Academic, Head of Staff O.D. Professional & Organisational Diane Munday Development Staff Development Officer Laura Knox

Director Jennifer Awang Planning Office Planning Officer Kathryn Browne

Information Analyst Adrian Wood Procurement Director Sports & Exercise (Saints Stephen Stewart

Sports) Director Students’ Association Claire Shirey (student Director of Wellbeing representatives) Mairi Stewart

Director

Cameron Little

HR Business Partner

Lynsey Rattray Human Resources HR Assistant (E&D)

Sukhi Bains

Head of E&D

18

The iSAT membership (Table 3-3) specifically includes:  Representation from staff at the highest levels of University administration, ensuring that authority for pro-active interventions is within the team.  ED&I Officers / dSAT Convenors from all AHSSBL and STEMM Schools, ensuring clear communication and encouraging the sharing of experiences and good practices.  Representation from PSS and the Students’ Association, reinforcing our identity as one community focussed on principles of fairness and inclusivity.

Table 3-3 iSAT Membership Summary (Nov 2017)

Committee Count % of Total membership summary Academic 30 67

PSS 13 30 Student 1 3 Female 30 68 Male 14 32

Membership is currently 68% female; we are addressing iSAT gender and workload balance as a key target (Action 3.1). We have already implemented a mandatory workload adjustment for iSAT duties for ex-officio representatives.

19

(ii) an account of the self-assessment process

Our self-assessment process, through the active sponsorship of the Principal, is now built on four pillars: an inclusive culture and informed engagement; collaboration and communication; proactive change; and improvements to data analysis support.

Inclusive culture and informed engagement Section (i) shows that iSAT involves all sections of our community. The committee is trained to support charter principles through providing: mandatory online classes on ‘Diversity in the Workplace (Equality Act)’ and ‘Unconscious Bias’ (which we will continue and develop (Action 3.2a-b)); a bespoke AS Workshop delivered by ECU (June 2017); and universally-accessible electronic resources. Four iSAT members also connect the ED&I and AS agendas to TUCC meetings. In addition, to maximise engagement, iSAT meets within core meeting hours, on average 4 times a year and empowers working groups (Table 3-1) to focus on key issues. The AS working groups meet, on average, three times per semester. Every team member – including students, academic and PSS – has been involved in preparing this submission and supporting change.

Collaboration and communication iSAT discussions are central to the development and evaluation and actions and policies. We will continue to use discussion-based approaches to consult on initiatives covering gender, other protected characteristics and intersectionality. We have encouraged widespread, open engagement through monthly updates in semester to all staff. Suggestions and comments have been received from across the University. In addition, the Principal operates an ‘electronic open- door policy’, and has facilitated responsive focus group meetings (for example, on mentoring for mid-career women). It is clearly understood that, to quote the Principal: ‘…Everyone at St Andrews can, and should, contribute to this endeavour.’

Proactive change iSAT meetings focus on cultural and organizational change, action items, emerging issues and support for AS submission processes. When iSAT agrees actions, recommendations are made to THE PO for action and typically implemented through SMT. The iSAT Chair and Head of E&D meet with the Principal every month, to monitor iSAT progress and expedite new actions. Wider consultation and engagement in strategic-level changes is supported through discussion at Academic Council, the University’s operational Senate. For example, in December 2014, Academic Council approved a motion that all AHSSBL Schools should join iSAT, and all STEMM schools apply for AS accreditation by December 2015. These aims were achieved in the target timeframe.

Better data analysis support During 2016/17 support for iSAT and dSATs AS resource was increased through recruiting an E&D Assistant and an Information Analyst (E&D). The enlarged team works with the University’s statistics/planning group, providing data for assessments and action planning. We are committed to providing dSATs, in particular, with more support for their assessment processes and action plan development, while maintaining collaborative process models with broad staff involvement.

Conceptual overview A conceptual overview of the institutional self-assessment process is provided as Figure 3-2

20

Figure 3-2 Core Institutional Self-Assessment Processes

21

(iii) Plans for the future of the self-assessment team iSAT will meet on the same schedule and orient towards a Silver focus, and continue to advise PO, SMT and University governance committees (for example, updates for University Court meetings and the General Council, the representative body for all St Andrews alumni).

The strategic importance of iSAT means that it will remain a key collaborative group for furthering equality and inclusion, both directly through the identification of issues and monitoring actions, and indirectly through support for dSATs and distributed processes. We will also investigate the provision of additional resources to support these processes (Action 3.2c). All of this affirms our commitment to AS and sustainable structural and cultural changes to advance equality.

22

4. A PICTURE OF THE INSTITUTION Recommended word count: Bronze: 2000 words (Actual 2037)

4.1 Academic and research staff data (i) Academic and research staff by grade and gender

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.

Table 4.1-1 University of St Andrews Academic roles and translation to HESA national benchmarking

HESA 2012/13 University Role University Grade onwards Research 4-9 Researcher Lecturer/ Senior Teaching 5-8 Lecturer Lecturer 7 Lecturer Senior Lecturer 8 Senior Lecturer Reader 8 Professor 9 Professor

The current picture Academic staff have one of three types of contract/role: Research-only; Teaching-only; or Research and Teaching. From the 2017-18 Academic year all Teaching-only staff were given job titles on the mainstream academic scale (Lecturer to Professor), reflecting our commitment to equal opportunities and reward in the teaching track (in 2017 our first promotion to Professor based on contribution to teaching was awarded, to a woman). However, to illustrate trends in the data we retain the University’s previous classification throughout this submission.

Of 1165 academic staff employed at the University in 2016/17 (Table 4.1-2) 449 (39%) are female and 715 (61%) are male. Female staff are equally distributed between STEMM and AHSSBL, but represent 35% of the total STEMM staff and 43% of total AHSSBL staff. At University level, the percentage of female staff is lowest at Professorial level, as shown in Table 4.1-2.

Nationally, 24% of Professorial posts are held by women (20% of Professors in STEMM and 30% in AHSSBL). Given the specific subject areas (HESA Cost Centres) in which St Andrews employs staff, our STEMM professoriate is 14% female, and AHSSBL is 25% female. We have been implementing actions to address the deficit (focussing on recruitment, mentoring and promotion – see section 5). We are committed to addressing this issue. Building on previous and continuing interventions, we have developed further comprehensive actions to continue to address recruitment (Actions 4.1a-f), mentoring (Actions 4.2a-c) and promotion (Actions 4.3a-c).

23

Table 4.1-2 Academic staff by post and gender (2016)

Academic University STEMM AHSSBL University Tot Tot % F M Total %F F M %F F M Role al al F Research-only 160 207 367 44 131 187 318 41 29 20 49 59

Teaching-only 87 63 150 58 29 27 56 52 58 36 94 62

Grade 6 46 33 79 58 12 12 24 50 34 21 55 62 Grade 7 19 19 38 50 12 9 21 57 7 10 17 41

Research & 202 445 647 31 65 205 270 24 137 240 377 36 Teaching Lecturer 90 145 235 38 22 52 74 30 68 93 161 42 Senior 41 59 100 41 11 21 32 34 30 38 68 44 Lecturer Reader 27 61 88 31 17 41 58 29 10 20 30 33 Professor 44 180 224 20 15 91 106 14 29 89 118 25 Total 449 715 1164 39 225 419 644 35 224 296 520 43 UK* % Female - - - 45 - - - 41 - - - 50 *UK reflects the HESA national average for academic staff in 2015/16.

Figure 4.1-1 shows that the largest proportion of female staff (45%) and male staff (62%) are employed on Research and Teaching contracts. Both exceed national averages, which show 44% of female academic staff, and 53% of male academic staff are on Research and Teaching contracts. St Andrews also employs a lower proportion of staff on Teaching-only contracts (19% of women, 9% of men) compared with the national figures (30% of women and 23% of men).

The picture differs between AHSSBL where most women (61%) have Research and Teaching contracts, and STEMM subjects where most women (58%) have Research-only contracts (see Figures 4.1-2 and 4.1-3). The percentage of women employed on Teaching-only contracts is twice that of male staff in all faculties. However: teaching is not seen as a role of diminished status at St Andrews and new promotion criteria to recognise this have been implemented (see also Action 4.3a); we have also implemented flexibility in promotions processes, allowing staff to move between tracks.

24

Figure 4.1-1 Percentage of University current staff employed on Research-only, Teaching-only and Research and Teaching contracts by gender

Research Teaching Research and Teaching Neither Research nor Teaching

UK % Female 25 30 44

Female 36 19 45

UK % Male 24 23 53

Male 29 9 62

0 20 40 60 80 100 % University Staff

Figure 4.1-2 Percentage of current staff employed on Research-only, Teaching-only and Research and Teaching contracts in STEMM by gender

Research Teaching Research and Teaching Neither Research nor Teaching

UK % Female 42 21 37 Female 58 13 29 UK % Male 36 15 48 Male 45 6 49

0 20 40 60 80 100 % STEMM Staff

Figure 4.1-3 Percentage of current staff employed on Research-only, Teaching-only and Research and Teaching contracts in AHSSBL by gender

Research Teaching Research and Teaching Neither Research nor Teaching

UK % Female 8 40 51

Female 13 26 61

UK % Male 6 33 60

Male 7 12 81

0 20 40 60 80 100 % AHSSBL Staff

25

Intersectionality Table 4.1-3 show the current academic BME population at St Andrews is 9%. Gender differences are generally small but there are 5% BME women in AHSSBL, compared to 8% men. However, Figure 4.1-4 demonstrates that all BME proportions in the University exceed the proportions within Scotland.

Table 4.1-3 Academic staff by Ethnic Group

Staff Ethnic Female Male Total Group Group University White 374 586 960 BME 38 67 105 Unknown 37 62 99 % BME 8 9 9 STEMM White 185 336 521 BME 27 44 71 Unknown 13 39 52 % BME 12 11 11 AHSSBL White 189 250 439 BME 11 23 34 Unknown 24 23 47 % BME 5 8 7

Figure 4.1-4- BME Populations against benchmarking

12 11.0

10 9.0

8 6.5 6 4.0 4 2.4

2 % BME % withinpopulation 0 St Andrews St Andrews St Andrews Scotland Local (Fife) University STEMM AHSSBL Population Population Academics Academics Academics (2011 Census) (2011 Census)

The ‘leaky pipeline’ For all female staff with Research-only, and Research and Teaching contracts, the ‘leaky pipeline’ is evident (Figure 4.1-5/Table 4.1-4). The highest proportion of female staff (45%) is found for the lowest Research grades and there is also a significant drop from Senior Lecturer (41%) and Reader (31%) to Professor (20%). The picture is similar for STEMM and AHSSBL schools, although there is both a lower proportion of total female staff in STEMM subjects and fewer female Professors (14% STEMM compared to 25% AHSBBL). Nationally, we see a similar trend with a lower percentage of women in STEMM (41%) than in AHSSBL (50%). However, on a positive note, there is little drop off between Research grades below 7, Lecturer and Senior Lecturer. It should be noted that

26

this is a significant improvement on previous years (see later sections) and provides us with a platform for further focussed improvements (see Actions 4.3b-c).

Figure 4.1-5 Percentage of current female staff in the University, STEMM and AHSSBL

100 University 90 STEMM AHSSBL 80 70 60 50 40

30 % Female Female % (2016) 20 10 0 Research-only Research-only Lecturer S Lecturer Reader Professor Grades<7 Grades ≥7

27

The last five years

Table 4.1-4 Academic staff by post and gender 2012-2016

Redacted

28

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

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.

Previous Bronze actions completed:  Bridging Fund launched (Jul 2016) and promoted by: - Awareness explanation to iSAT and dSAT leads by Director of HR - Publicised on HR Policies webpage - Explained/signposted within the ‘Fixed Term Contracts Guidance – Briefing Paper for Principal Investigators and Line Managers’ (Oct 2016), publicised on HR Policies webpage

As seen in Table 4.1-5 and Figure 4.1-6, the percentages of female staff on either Standard (open-ended) or Fixed-Term contracts (FTC) have improved from 2012, by 2% and 4%. However, the percentage of female staff on standard contracts remains below that of FTC staff and Table 4.1-6 shows that a lower percentage of women are on Standard contracts than men. In all cases the percentage of female staff is lower in STEMM subjects than AHSSBL; in 2016 there was a 16% gap between men and women on Standard contracts in STEMM, in contrast with a 5% gap in AHSSBL.

The clearest area for attention is the low percentage (28%) of standard contracts held by female staff in STEMM subjects, which is below the national average. Additionally, there is a larger difference from the benchmark for standard contracts (–13%) than the overall difference (–6%) for female STEMM staff.

All of these points suggest that we must maintain our focus on recruitment practices through a continuing intensive and extensive set of actions (see Actions 4.1a-e).

Table 4.1-5 Academic staff on each type of contract by gender

University STEMM AHSSBL Year National National National 29 F M % F F M % F F M % F %F %F %F Standard Contract 2016 268 494 35 * 103 260 28 * 165 234 41 * 2015 251 473 35 47 95 252 27 40 156 221 41 48 2014 247 470 34 43 101 253 29 39 146 217 40 48 2013 237 481 33 43 101 262 28 39 136 219 38 47 2012 228 465 33 43 98 256 28 38 130 209 38 47 Fixed-Term Contract 2016 181 222 45 * 122 159 43 * 59 63 48 * 2015 191 243 44 48 128 181 41 44 63 62 50 54 2014 196 246 44 48 133 179 43 44 63 67 48 54 2013 200 255 44 48 137 188 42 45 63 67 48 53 2012 157 230 41 48 100 174 36 45 57 56 50 53 * National data for 2016 not yet available.

29

Table 4.1-6 Percentage of academic staff of each gender by type of contract

University STEMM AHSSBL Year Female Male Female Male Female Male FTC Std FTC Std FTC Std FTC Std FTC Std FTC Std 2016 40 60 31 69 54 46 38 62 26 74 21 79 2015 43 57 34 66 57 43 42 58 29 71 22 78 2014 44 56 34 66 57 43 41 59 30 70 23 77 2013 46 54 35 65 58 42 42 58 31 69 23 77 2012 41 59 33 67 51 49 41 59 30 70 21 79

Figure 4.1-6 Percentage of academic staff on each type of contract who are female (University as a whole) 60 2012 50 2013 40 2014

30 2015

% Female % 2016 20

10

0 Standard UK Standard FTC UK FTC

Figure 4.1-7 Percentage of academic staff on each type of contract who are female (STEMM)

60 2012 50 2013 40 2014 30 2015

20 2016

% Female Female % (STEMM) 10 30 0 Standard UK Standard FTC UK FTC

Figure 4.1-8 Percentage of academic staff on each type of contract who are female (AHSSBL)

60 2012 50 2013 40 2014

30 2014

20 2016

% Female Female % (AHSSBL) 10

0 Standard UK Standard FTC UK FTC

30

For the University as a whole, data on contract type is shown in more detail (including Teaching-only, Research-only and Teaching and Research) in Figure 4.1-9 (FTC) and Figure 4.1-10 (standard) together STEMM/AHSSBL split data. Figure 4.1-11 shows this data on a percentage basis. Fewer staff in standard-contract higher research grades are female (28% in 2016), compared with FTC staff in equivalent grades (47% in 2016). The differences are illustrated in Figure 4.1-12. In lower Teaching-only grades, the percentage of female staff with standard contracts is higher than male staff, whilst in higher grades the percentages of male and female staff on standard contracts are almost equal. This may be related to the fact that across the sector we see a higher percentage of women in Teaching-only roles (compared with Research-only or Research and Teaching roles). This requires further investigation, but suggests that our action to provide equivalent promotion prospects in Teaching-only roles (implemented in 2017) is important and should be reinforced (see Action 4.3a).

We continue to take action on FTC issues. In July 2016, the University introduced a ‘Bridging Fund’ (Table 4.1-7), helping FTC staff to cover gaps in funding, for up to 6 months for research staff (who are between research contracts or awaiting grant outcomes), and up to 4 months for teaching staff (whose contracts expire in summer but may be needed in the next academic year). Long-term effectiveness of the fund will be evaluated by gender data analysis and survey questions (Actions 4.4a-b). The University also employs staff on ‘bank worker contracts’, which involve an amount of work agreed for a period (unlike zero-hour contracts), predominantly to help PhD students supplement their income and gain teaching experience. Data will be captured on the gender profile (Action 4.5).

Table 4.1-7 Employees benefited from Bridging fund to date (Oct 2017)

Initiative Uptake Female Male Total Bridging Fund 7 17 24

31

31

Figure 4.1-9 Number of academic staff by role on fixed term contracts

Redacted

32

32

Figure 4.1-10 Number of academic staff by role on standard contracts

Female Male Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2016 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2015 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2014 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2013 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor Research Grades ≤6 33 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2012 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 University Staff Headcount

33

Figure 4.1-11 Percentage of staff who are female in each contract type/role

FTC Standard Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2016 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2015 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2014 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2013 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor 34 Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2012 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% University Female Staff

34

Figure 4.1-12 % of staff for a given gender/role, who are on standard contracts

Female Male Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2016 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2015 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2014 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2013 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader 35 Professor Research Grades ≤6 Research Grades 7-9 Teaching Grades ≤6 Teaching Grades 7-9

2012 Lecturer Snr Lecturer Reader Professor

% Academic Staff

35

Table 4.1-8 University Staff holding fixed-term contracts by gender and role

Redacted

36

Table 4.1-9 STEMM Staff holding fixed-term contracts by gender and role

Redacted

37

Table 4.1-10 AHSSBL Staff holding fixed-term contracts by gender and role

Redacted

38

Table 4.1-11 University Staff holding standard contracts by gender and role

Redacted

39

Table 4.1-12 STEMM Staff holding standard contracts by gender and role

Redacted

40

Table 4.1-13 AHSSBL Staff holding standard contracts by gender and role

Redacted

41

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

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

The current picture Table 4.1-14 shows that currently 44% of those on Research-only contracts are female, with differences in STEMM (41%) and AHSSBL (59%), although AHSSBL accounts for only 14% of Research-only staff in the University. The proportion of female Teaching-only staff is higher in AHSSBL (62%) than in STEMM (52%). The statistics are detailed by grade in Tables 4.1-15 and 4.1-16.

Table 4.1-14 Academic staff by contract function and gender 2016

Russell Group Contract Function F M Total % F UK % F (RG) % F University Research-only 160 207 367 44 47 46 Teaching-only 87 63 150 58 53 54 Research and Teaching 202 445 647 31 41 32 Total 449 715 1163 39 45 42 STEMM Research-only 131 187 318 41 45 45 Teaching-only 29 27 56 52 49 50 Research and Teaching 65 205 270 24 35 27 Total 225 419 644 35 41 40 AHSSBL Research-only 29 20 49 59 57 56 Teaching-only 58 36 94 62 55 57 Research and Teaching 137 240 377 36 46 40 Total 224 296 520 43 50 48

Table 4.1-15 Number of Research-only staff by grade and gender 2016 42 University STEMM AHSSBL Grade F M Total %F F M Total %F F M Total %F 5 6 109 140 249 44 90 126 216 42 19 14 33 58 7 8 9 Bespoke Total 160 207 367 44 131 187 318 41 29 20 49 59

42

Table 4.1-16 Number of Teaching-only staff by grade and gender 2016

University STEMM AHSSBL Grade F M Total %F F M Total %F F M Total %F 5 6 46 33 79 58 12 12 24 50 34 21 55 62 7 19 19 38 50 12 9 21 57 7 10 17 41 8 Bespoke Total 87 63 150 58 29 27 56 52 58 36 94 62

Figures 4.1-13 to 4.1-15 show how the number of current female and male staff on Research-only and Teaching-only contracts varies as a function of grade (absolute headcount is plotted rather than %, because of the very small numbers at some grades). Figure 4.1-13 Number of University male and female staff on Research-only (left) and Teaching-only (right) contracts by grade Redacted

The last five years

Figure 4.1-14 Number of STEMM male and female staff on Research-only (left) and Teaching-only (right) contracts by grade

Redacted

Figures 4.1-16 to 4.1-21 show how the % female staff on different contract functions has varied over the period 2012-2016, for the University overall, by faculty and in comparison with benchmark data.

Figure 4.1-16 Percentage of female staff in the University as a function of contract function for 2012-2016 43

Figure 4.1-15 Number of AHSSBL male and female staff on Research-only (left) and Teaching-only (right) contracts by grade

43

Figure 4.1-17 Percentage of female staff in STEMM Schools as a function of contract function for 2012-2016 70 2012 60 2013 2014 50 2015 40 2016 30

20 % Female Female % (STEMM) 10 0 Research Teaching Research and Teaching

Figure 4.1-18 Percentage of female staff in AHSSBL Schools as a function of contract function for 2012-2016 70 2012 60 2013 2014 50 2015 44 40 2016 30

20 % Female Female % (AHSSBL) 10 0 Research Teaching Research and Teaching

44

Figure 4.1-19 University female staff by contract function (with benchmarking (2016, 2015/16)

70 %F UK %F RG %F 60 50 40 30 20

% Female Female % (University) 10 0 Research Teaching Research and Teaching Total

Figure 4.1-20 STEMM female staff by contract function (with benchmarking (2016, 2015/16))

70 %F UK %F RG %F 60 50 40 30 20

% Female Female % (STEMM) 10 0 Research Teaching Research and Total Teaching

Figure 4.1-21 AHSSBL female staff by contract function (with benchmarking (2016, 2015/16))

70 %F UK %F RG %F 60 45 50 40 30 20

% Female Female % (AHSSBL) 10 0 Research Teaching Research and Teaching Total

Overall all contract functions are roughly in line with the Russell Group (RG), but lower than the national figures except in Teaching, where a higher percentage of Teaching- only staff are female. The same pattern is seen in both STEMM and AHSSBL, except for AHSSBL Research-only staff, where the % of female staff exceeds Russell Group and the UK sector averages.

45

At University level, the proportion of women on lower grades has been higher for both Research-only and Teaching-only contracts (see Figure 4.1-22) in all years except 2012. In STEMM (Figure 4.1-23), the percentage of female staff on the lower grades for Research-only contracts is typically higher, but for Teaching this varies. In contrast, in AHSSBL (Figure 4.1-24), in most years the proportion of women on higher grade Research-only contracts is greater, (although the number of staff in this group is small), as is (since 2013) the proportion of women on lower grade Teaching-only contracts.

In general, the gap in proportions of female staff on lower and higher Research grades has decreased since 2012.

Figure 4.1-22 Percentage of University male and female staff on Research-only (left) and Teaching-only (right) contracts as a function of grade from 2012-2016

University Research Staff University Teaching Staff 70 Grades ≤ 6 Grades 7-9 70 Grades ≤ 6 Grades 7-9 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30

% Female Staff Female % 20 20 % Female Staff Female % 10 10 0 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 4.1-23 Percentage of STEMM male and female staff on Research-only (left) and Teaching-only (right) contracts as a function of grade from 2012-2016

STEMM Research Staff STEMM Teaching Staff Grades ≤ 6 Grades 7-9 Grades ≤ 6 Grades 7-9 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30

20 20 % Female Staff Female % 10 Staff Female % 10 0 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 46

Figure 4.1-24 Percentage of AHSSBL male and female staff on Research-only (left) and Teaching-only (right) contracts as a function of grade from 2012-2016:

AHSSBL Research Staff AHSSBL Teaching Staff Grades ≤ 6 Grades 7-9 Grades ≤ 6 Grades 7-9 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30

20 20

% Female Staff Female % % Female Staff Female % 10 10 0 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

46

The patterns in the data show that: there is a trend towards more equal employment in senior Teaching-only and Research-only contracts in STEMM, while the gap remains significant; absolute numbers are smaller in AHSSBL, but until recently the imbalance has been in the opposite direction. However, there are still within-band variations across the data at the highest grades (8, 9 and bespoke) especially in Research and Teaching contracts. Our conclusion is that these patterns require attention through existing and reinforced actions addressing recruitment, mentoring for career progression and promotion (see Actions 4.1a-e, 4.2a-c, 4.3a-c).

(iv) Academic leavers by grade and gender

Previous Bronze actions completed:  Online Exit Questionnaire launched as part of an E&D monitoring initiative and reviewed ‘Leaving the University’ webpage: www.st- andrews.ac.uk/staff/policy/hr/leavingtheuniversity (Mar 2014).

An Online Exit Questionnaire to capture reasons why staff leave is promoted via email. 29 AHSSBL academics and 79 STEMM academics provided online responses from March 2014 to February 2017. 2 STEMM academics reported an equality-related reason for leaving (age-related: retirement). The opportunity to discuss issues with E&D is provided. Exit data will be forwarded to AHSSBL/STEMM HoSs and dSATs annually. Full response details are shown in Figures 4.1-25 to 4.1-28. Because of FTC issues, Research- only roles and Teaching-only roles are subject to relatively high turnover. Thus Figure 4.1-25 shows that the majority of staff leaving were on terminating FTCs. The gender ratios for leavers are consistent with staff ratios; we do not detect any patterns of either gender being more likely to leave than the other. Figure 4.1-26 Male STEMM academic staff responses to ‘Reasons for leaving?’ Figure 4.1-25 Female STEMM academic staff responses to ‘Reasons for leaving?’

Redacted

47

Figure 4.1-27 Female AHSSBL academic staff responses to ‘Reasons for leaving?’

47

Redacted

Figure 4.1-28 Male AHSSBL academic staff responses to ‘Reasons for leaving?’

Redacted

48

48

Table 4.1-17 Leavers by gender/role year, whole University, all contract types

49

(v) Equal pay audits/reviews Previous Bronze Actions completed:  Monitor outcome of the Equal Pay Audit to ensure any issues regarding gender imbalance and pay are identified in appropriate action plans in line with the Scottish Public Sector Equality Duty requirements for an Equal Pay Audits.  Meeting with ‘Close the Gap’ and advice gained from the EHRC as part of a review.  Gender Pay Gap and Occupational Segregation published online in Apr 2013, 2015, 2017 with sign-off from THE PO and TUs.

In compliance with the Equality Act (2010) and Scottish Specific Duties (2012), the University undertook Gender Pay Gap reviews in 2013, 2015 and Jan 2017, which were published in April 2013, 2015 and 2017. The gender pay gap is the difference between female and male earnings, excluding overtime, expressed as a percentage of male earnings. Calculations follow processes recommended by EHRC. In compliance with the Data Protection Act (1998), pay details have not been disclosed to prevent identifiability for data where there are less than 5 female or male staff.

Through policy and practice, the University supports and promotes equality for all staff. The principle that staff should receive equal pay for the same or broadly similar work (regardless of their protected characteristic, personal circumstances, political affiliation, or union activity) is intrinsic to this. Accordingly, the University operates a transparent, objective pay system utilising the HERA (Higher Education Role Analysis) system to assist with determining appropriate and equal pay.

Tables 4.1-18 to 4.1-24 provide comparative pay gap data, including focal treatments by grade and disciplinary group.

Table 4.1-18 Average Basic Pay by Grade and Gender for University All Staff

Average Basic Pay (£) Salary Grade Female Male Average % Gap Grade 1 16,030 15,954 16,014 -0.50% 50 Grade 2 16,991 17,230 17,113 1.40% Grade 3 20,235 19,839 20,113 -2.00% Grade 4 24,118 23,899 24,036 -0.90% Grade 5 28,699 28,735 28,714 0.10% Grade 6 35,042 35,660 35,352 1.70% Grade 7 45,316 45,778 45,593 1.00% Grade 8 54,457 55,229 54,918 1.40% Grade 9 (PSS: Service Unit 68,006 74,390 71,198 8.60% Directors) Grade 9 (Professorial) 79,598 82,578 81,940 3.60%

The largest pay gap is associated with the Grade 9 PSS group – Service Unit Directors; through mentoring and regrading support (Actions 4.2a-b, 4.3b) and a specific pay review (Action 4.6d), this will be addressed.

50

Table 4.1-19 University Pay Gap by Academic Grouping (January 2017)

No. of Employees Salary Grade % Gap Female Male Academic Grade 7 90 145 0.62% Grade 8 67 119 1.74% Grade 9 41 155 3.61% Academic Research Grade 5 16 9 1.80% Grade 6 109 140 1.50% Grade 7 16 40 0.98% Academic Teaching Grade 5 17 5 5.45% Grade 6 46 33 -0.77% Grade 7 19 19 0.02%

The table above shows the percentage pay gap for 2017 against employee headcount to provide context on the staff numbers concerned.

Table 4.1-20 University Pay Gap Comparator over Three Years

% Pay Gap Salary Grade 2017 2016 2015 Academic Grade 7 0.62% 0.64% 0.88% Grade 8 1.74% 1.69% 1.51% Grade 9 3.61% 3.94% 3.80% 51 Academic Research Grade 5 1.80% -0.04% -0.60% Grade 6 1.50% -0.07% 0.75% Grade 7 0.98% 1.88% 2.03% Academic Teaching Grade 5 5.45% 5.51% 3.90% Grade 6 -0.77% 0.86% -2.59% Grade 7 0.02% -0.04% 3.52%

The table above shows that the gender pay gap across all Grade 7 roles has tended to improve across the period, but some other changes are not positive. The greatest variance against 2016 is within Academic Research grade 5, showing a retrograde 2.4% shift. However, with only 25 employees in this grouping, each individual will have a greater impact on the percentage.

51

Table 4.1-21 and 4.1-22, on STEMM schools, show greater pay gaps in all groupings, but with improvements in three areas. Academic Grade 8 had an increase in pay gap between 2015 and 2016, but this narrowed again in 2017. Academic Grade 9 pay gap has narrowed by over 2% in the last three years. The largest improvement is seen in Teaching-only Grade 6, where the gap has narrowed by over 4 percentage points. In comparison, AHSSBL Schools (Tables 4.1-23 and 4.1-24) show very small pay gaps – below 1% – in four groupings: Academic grades eight and nine, Research-only grade 6 and Teaching-only grade 6. The gap remains over 4% for Teaching-only grade 5, with just 21 staff. Overall, the gap in AHSSBL Schools is narrower than in STEMM Schools. Nevertheless, we will continue our established and firm commitment to address the pay gap in all areas (Actions 4.6a-h, of which our top three priorities are 4.6c-e).

Table 4.1-21 STEMM Pay Gap by Academic Grouping (January 2017)

No. of Employees Grade % Gap Female Male Academic Grade 7 22 52 -1.26% Grade 8 27 60 2.69% Grade 9 14 79 8.15% Academic Research Grade 5 10 8 2.17% Grade 6 90 126 1.57% Grade 7 14 39 1.19% Academic Teaching Grade 6 12 12 -1.19% Grade 7 12 9 -0.81%

Table 4.1-22 STEMM Pay Gap Comparator over Three Years

% Pay Gap 52 Salary Grade 2017 2016 2015 Academic Grade 7 -1.26% -0.65% 0.11% Grade 8 2.69% 2.71% 0.28% Grade 9 8.15% 10.29% 10.95% Academic Research Grade 5 2.17% 0.26% -0.45% Grade 6 1.57% 0.06% 0.98% Grade 7 1.19% 1.19% 1.66% Academic Teaching Grade 6 -1.19% 2.86% -5.92% Grade 7 -0.81% -0.59% 4.69%

52

Table 4.1-23 AHSSBL Pay Gap by Academic Grouping (January 2017)

No. of Employees Salary Grade % Gap Female Male Academic Grade 7 68 93 1.16% Grade 8 40 58 0.69% Grade 9 27 76 -0.61% Academic Research Grade 6 19 14 -0.34% Academic Teaching

Grade 6 34 21 -0.90%

Table 4.1-24 AHSSBL Pay Gap Comparator over Three Years

% Pay Gap Salary Grade 2017 2016 2015 Academic Grade 7 1.16% 0.96% 1.24% Grade 8 0.69% 0.61% 1.86% Grade 9 -0.61% -1.53% -1.86% 53 Academic Research Grade 6 -0.34% -1.68% -2.27% Academic Teaching Grade 5 4.82% - 4.73% Grade 6 -0.90% 0.32% -2.32% Grade 7 1.14% - 1.49%

53

5. SUPPORTING AND ADVANCING WOMEN’S CAREERS Recommended word count: Bronze: 5000 words (Actual 5983)

5.1 Key career transition points: academic staff

(i) Recruitment

Break down data by gender and grade for applications, long and shortlisted candidates, offers and acceptance rates. Comment on how recruitment processes ensure that women (and men in underrepresented disciplines) are encouraged to apply. Previous Bronze actions completed:  Awareness of AS was reassessed at iSAT meeting (Sep 2015) resulting in greater use of logo on STEMM School webpage and through recruitment adverts, including the adverts for new University Court external members.  Online Good Gender Equality Practice guidance mainstreamed for each STEMM School AS+E&D Committee and HoS plus as part of Recruitment & Selection Training (Feb 2013).  Recruitment data checked by THE PO as part of AS update annually (Jan 2014).  Investment made for Online Diversity Training; Recruitment Training (Dec 2014) made mandatory for all staff involved in the short-listing process.  New HR ED&I Online Inclusive Recruitment Guide embeds EHRC + ECU good practice plus Unconscious Bias from ECU training (Nov 2013).  Hosted talk on implicit bias by York University Chemistry (Oct 2013).  Hosted awareness sessions on unconscious bias in the recruitment context by Equate Scotland (Nov 2014).  Each STEMM School has an Action Plan commitment to undertake Recruitment training and utilise the guide with issues fed back to School HRBP (Apr 2017) also progressing to AHSSBL schools through AS work.  HR Recruitment put in place a system (Jan 2016) to record information on why academic and 54 research staff turn down job offers to determine whether these are gender-related.

Our principal vehicle for ensuring equality in recruitment/selection is the institutional HR E,D&I Inclusive Recruitment Guide. It provides guidelines for non-discrimination in job designs, advertising and short-listing, and is aligned with ACAS, ECU, EHRC and UKRC Women in SET guidance. This forms the basis for mandatory Online Recruitment Training for recruitment/selection panels. Both will be annually reviewed taking into account best practice (Action 5.1a-b, 4.1a-e); please also refer to section 5.6(ii).

Table 5.1-1 shows the number of applications, shortlisted candidates and offer holders by gender (2012-2016) institutionally and in STEMM/AHSSBL (shortlist data not available for 2012; HR system updated in 2013 to record this). Some applicants did not disclose their gender (and are omitted from tables). The % women at each stage for University level is plotted in Figure 5.1- 1. There has been a general rise in the proportion of female applicants (2012-2016), and an increase in the proportion of women receiving job offers.

54

As candidates progress through application and shortlisting to job offers, there is a rise in the proportion of women at each stage, suggesting that despite the lower numbers of women applying, those that apply are more likely to be shortlisted and offered a job than men. This pattern is echoed throughout the detailed employment data.

Table 5.1-1 All applicants, shortlisted candidates and offer holders for academic posts by gender

Applications Shortlisted Offers Year F M Total %F F M Total %F F M Total %F University 2016 1570 2197 3767 42 209 231 440 48 68 54 122 56 2015 1682 2442 4124 41 196 235 431 45 61 85 146 42 2014 2001 3350 5351 37 206 303 509 40 72 85 157 46 2013 1517 2828 4345 35 218 329 547 40 82 105 187 44 2012 2066 3731 5797 36 - - - - 65 93 158 41 STEMM 2016 722 1157 1879 38 111 156 267 42 35 39 74 47 2015 491 909 1400 35 102 144 246 41 32 55 87 37 2014 443 1068 1511 29 90 149 239 38 33 44 77 43 2013 756 1694 2450 31 119 226 345 34 49 74 123 40 2012 760 1629 2389 32 - - - - 36 57 93 39 AHSSBL 2016 848 1040 1888 45 98 75 173 57 33 15 48 69 2015 1191 1533 2724 44 94 91 185 51 29 30 59 49 2014 1558 2282 3840 41 116 154 270 43 39 41 80 49 2013 761 1134 1895 40 99 103 202 49 33 31 64 52 2012 1306 2102 3408 38 - - - - 29 36 65 45

Figure 5.1-1 Percentage of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offer holders to the University 55

70 Applications Shortlisted 60 Offers 50 40 30 20

% Female Female % (University) 10 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Similar plots are shown in Figures 5.1-2 and 5.1-3 for STEMM and AHSSBL. The picture in STEMM

55

is similar to the University, although the proportion of female candidates at each stage is lower. In AHSSBL the overall % women at each stage is higher (approaching 50% offers in most years and reaching 69% job offers in 2016).

Figure 5.1-2 Percentage of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offer holders in STEMM

70 Applications 60 Shortlisted Offers 50 40 30 20

% Female Female % (STEMM) 10 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 5.1-3 Percentage of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offer holders to AHSSBL

70 Applications 60 Shortlisted Offers 50 40 30 20

% Female Female % (AHSSBL) 10 0 56 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Recruitment of staff on Research and Teaching contracts Table 5.1-2 shows the number of applications, shortlisted candidates and offer holders by post and by gender for Research and Teaching posts (2012-2016). AHSSBL/STEMM data is in Tables 5.1-3 and 5.1-4.

56

Table 5.1-2 All applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for Research and Teaching posts 2012-2016 at University level

Applications Shortlisted Offers Year F M Total %F F M Total %F F M Total %F Lecturer (Grade 7) 2016 420 760 1180 36 32 52 84 38 45 2015 714 1197 1911 37 46 55 101 46 16 21 37 43 2014 838 1522 2360 36 43 77 120 36 13 22 35 37 2013 486 796 1282 38 45 65 110 41 15 19 34 44 2012 870 1774 2644 33 - - - - 19 28 47 40 SL/Reader (Grade 8) 2016 17 67 84 20 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 2015 74 123 197 38 17 - 2014 38 100 138 28 27 50 2013 21 81 102 21 25 0 2012 99 198 297 33 - 75 Professor (Grade 9) 2016 56 115 171 33 11 11 22 50 57 2015 37 82 119 31 8 13 21 38 33 2014 80 131 211 38 8 16 24 33 17 2013 57 159 216 26 9 23 32 28 38 2012 33 121 154 21 - - - - 17

Table 5.1-3 All applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for Research and Teaching posts 2012-2016 in STEMM 57 Applications Shortlisted Offers Year F M Total %F F M Total %F F M Total %F Lecturer (Grade 7) 2016 132 350 482 27 6 20 26 23 2015 40 145 185 22 2014 56 111 167 34 2013 86 167 253 34 9 15 24 38 2012 150 465 615 24 - - - - SL/Reader (Grade 8) 2016 2015 19 64 83 23 2014 36 82 118 31 2013

57

2012 15 39 54 28 Professor (Grade 9) 2016 2015 2014 8 35 43 19 2013 15 96 111 14 2012 12 31 43 28

Table 5.1-4 All applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for Research and Teaching posts 2012-2016 in AHSSBL

Applications Shortlisted Offers Year F M Total %F F M Total %F F M Total %F Lecturer (Grade 7) 2016 288 410 698 41 26 32 58 45 2015 674 1052 1726 39 44 45 89 49 14 17 31 45 2014 782 1411 2193 36 36 69 105 34 11 19 30 37 2013 400 629 1029 39 36 50 86 42 13 15 28 46 2012 720 1309 2029 35 - - - - 14 17 31 45 SL/Reader (Grade 8) 2016 17 67 84 20 2015 55 59 114 48 2014 2013 19 67 86 22 2012 84 159 243 35 Professor (Grade 9) 2016 51 89 140 36 2015 35 76 111 32 2014 72 96 168 43 2013 42 63 105 40 58 2012 21 90 111 19

Applications at Lecturer (Grade 7) level Figure 5.1-4 shows the % female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offer-holders for Lecturer positions at University level. There are less than 50% women at each stage, but they are more likely to be shortlisted and receive offers. In STEMM (Figure 5.1-5), the percentages are lower (and more variable, because of small number variations – see Table 5.1-3). With larger numbers, the AHSSBL picture (Figure 5.1-6) reflects the University as a whole.

58

Figure 5.1-4 Percentage of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for Lecturer positions at University level 2012-2016 Figure 5.1-5 Percentage of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offer Applications holders60 for Lecturer positions in STEMM 2012-2016 Shortlisted 5060 ApplicationsOffers Shortlisted 50 40 Offers 3040

2030

1020 % Female Female % (University)

% Female Female % (STEMM) 010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 5.1-6 Percentage of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offer holders for Lecturer positions in AHSSBL 2012-2016 60 Applications Shortlisted 50 Offers 40

30

20

% Female Female % (AHSSBL) 10

0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

59 Applications at SL/Reader (Grade 8) level At SL/Reader (Grade 8) level the number of 2012-2016 positions is only 10, as shown in Tables 5.1-2 to 5.1-4, so detailed plots are not provided. Institutionally, Figure 5.1-7 shows the proportion of female applicants is slightly lower than for Lecturer positions, and Table 5.1-2 shows this remains similar during shortlisting. The number of women receiving offers over the five-year period is, however, in proportion with the number of applicants.

59

Figure 5.1-7 Percentage of female applicants by post at University level 2012-2016

60 2012 2013 50 2014 2015 40 2016

30

20

% Female Female % (University) 10

0 Lecturer SL/Reader Professor

Applications at Professor (Grade 9) level Of 35 appointments (2012-2016), 6 were in STEMM and 29 in AHSSBL. 2 of the 6 STEMM positions and 10 of the 29 AHSSBL positions were offered to women, which is broadly in proportion with applications over the period. As shown in Figure 5.1-8 the proportion of female applicants has tended to improve since 2012 and offer-holders reached 57% in 2016 (4/7 positions).

Figure 5.1-8 Percentage of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for University Professorial positions 2012-2016

60 Applications 50

40

30 20 60

10 % Female (University) 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Recruitment of Research-only staff Table 5.1-5 shows the number of applications, shortlisted candidates and offer holders by post and by gender for Research-only posts (2012-2016). AHSSBL/STEMM data is in Tables 5.1-6 and 5.1-7.

60

Table 5.1-5 All applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for Research-only posts 2012-2016 at University level

Applications Shortlisted Offers Year F M Total %F F M Total %F F M Total %F All Research-only 2016 565 784 1349 42 93 122 215 43 29 31 60 48 2015 537 780 1317 41 99 136 235 42 28 48 76 37 2014 448 924 1372 33 90 132 222 41 33 38 71 46 2013 766 1517 2283 34 127 203 330 38 51 70 121 42 2012 767 1272 2039 38 - - - - 34 48 82 41 Research-only (Grade 5) 2016 187 122 309 61 11 10 21 52 2015 252 157 409 62 28 15 43 65 2014 95 87 182 52 15 15 30 50 2013 98 83 181 54 13 11 24 54 2012 300 248 548 55 - - - - Research-only (Grade 6) 2016 369 634 1003 37 80 109 189 42 26 29 55 47 2015 268 597 865 31 65 118 183 36 17 41 58 29 2014 343 805 1148 30 75 114 189 40 26 33 59 44 2013 661 1418 2079 32 113 187 300 38 46 64 110 42 2012 461 997 1458 32 - - - - 23 42 65 35 Research-only (Grade 7) 2016 2015 2014 61 2013 7 16 23 30 2012 5 23 28 18 Research-only (Bespoke) 2016 7 19 26 27 2015 17 26 43 40 2014 9 30 39 23 2013 2012

61

Table 5.1-6 All applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for Research-only posts 2012-2016 in STEMM

Applications Shortlisted Offers Year F M Total %F F M Total %F F M Total %F All Research-only 2016 499 677 1176 42 81 111 192 42 24 29 53 45 2015 397 643 1040 38 81 117 198 41 21 43 64 33 2014 319 783 1102 29 71 115 186 38 24 34 58 41 2013 572 1269 1841 31 91 170 261 35 39 61 100 39 2012 540 1016 1556 35 - - - - 26 39 65 40 Research-only (Grade 5) 2016 187 122 309 61 11 10 21 52 2015 166 95 261 64 22 11 33 67 2014 45 50 95 47 2013 88 57 145 61 2012 180 153 333 54 - - - - Research-only (Grade 6) 2016 305 536 841 36 68 98 166 41 21 27 48 44 2015 229 540 769 30 58 104 162 36 16 37 53 30 2014 264 701 965 27 62 103 165 38 20 31 51 39 2013 477 1196 1673 29 80 161 241 33 35 58 93 38 2012 354 836 1190 30 - - - - 16 36 52 31 Research-only (Grade 7) 2016 2015 2014 2013 7 16 23 30 2012 Research-only (Bespoke) 62 2016 7 19 26 27 2015 2014 9 30 39 23 2013 2012

62

Table 5.1-7 All applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for Research-only posts 2012-2016 in AHSSBL

Applications Shortlisted Offers Year F M Total %F F M Total %F F M Total %F All Research-only 2016 66 107 173 38 12 11 23 52 2015 140 137 277 51 18 19 37 49 2014 129 141 270 48 19 17 36 50 2013 194 248 442 44 36 33 69 52 2012 227 256 483 47 - - - - Research-only (Grade 5) 2016 0 0 0 - 2015 86 62 148 58 2014 50 37 87 57 2013 10 26 36 28 2012 120 95 215 56 Research-only (Grade 6) 2012 107 161 268 40 - - - - 2016 64 98 162 40 12 11 23 52 2015 39 57 96 41 2014 79 104 183 43 13 11 24 54 2013 184 222 406 45 33 26 59 56 Research-only (Grade 7) 2016 2015 63 2014 2013 2012 Research-only (Bespoke) 2016 2015 15 18 33 45 2014 2013 2012

Figure 5.1-9 shows the % female applications, shortlisted candidates and offer holders for Research-only posts at University level. Female applicants increase across the period (2012- 2016), gradually approaching 50%.

63

The STEMM picture (Figure 5.1-10) – covering the majority of university Research-only appointments – is similar. AHSSBL Research-only appointments are much rarer (and so subject to larger variation), but as shown in Figure 5.1-11, the proportion of women is generally higher at all stages. Figure 5.1-9 Percentage of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for University Research-only positions 2012-2016 Applications 60 Shortlisting 50 Offers

40

30

20

10 % Female Female % (University) 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 5.1-10 Percentage of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for STEMM Research-only positions 2012-2016 Applications 60 Shortlisting 50 Offers

40

30

20

% Female Female % (STEMM) 10

0 64 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 5.1-11 Percentage of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for AHSSBL80 Research-only positions 2012-2016 Applications Shortlisting 70 Offers 60 50 40 30

20 % Female Female % (AHSSBL) 10 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

64

Recruitment of Teaching-only staff Table 5.1-8 shows the number of applications, shortlisted candidates and offer holders by post and by gender for Teaching-only posts (2012-2016). AHSSBL/STEMM data is in Tables 5.1-9 and 5.1-10.

Table 5.1-8 All applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for Teaching-only posts 2012-2016 at University level

Applications Shortlisted Offers Year F M Total %F F M Total %F F M Total %F All Teaching-only only 2016 512 472 984 52 74 47 121 61 26 10 36 72 2015 320 260 580 55 41 22 63 65 2014 597 673 1270 47 64 71 135 47 25 19 44 57 2013 187 274 461 41 35 32 67 52 2012 297 366 663 45 - - - - Teaching-only only (Grade 5) 2016 28 28 56 50 2015 49 43 92 53 2014 169 108 277 61 2013 2012 - - - - Teaching-only only (Grade 6) 2016 458 382 840 55 65 34 99 66 23 6 29 79 2015 271 217 488 56 33 19 52 63 2014 413 538 951 43 53 60 113 47 22 17 39 56 2013 174 252 426 41 32 30 62 52 2012 297 366 663 45 - - - - Teaching-only only (Grade 7) 65 2016 26 61 87 30 2015 2014 15 27 42 36 2013 13 22 35 37 2012 - - - - Teaching-only only (Clinical) 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 - - - -

65

Table 5.1-9 All applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for Teaching-only posts 2012-2016 in STEMM

Applications Shortlisted Offers Year F M Total %F F M Total %F F M Total %F All Teaching-only 2016 86 105 191 45 25 24 49 51 2015 33 51 84 39 15 13 28 54 2014 24 57 81 30 9 15 24 38 2013 81 147 228 36 15 21 36 42 2012 43 78 121 36 - - - - Teaching-only (Grade 5) 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 - - - - Teaching-only (Grade 6) 2016 64 87 151 42 19 17 36 53 2015 33 51 84 39 15 13 28 54 2014 24 57 81 30 9 15 24 38 2013 68 125 193 35 12 19 31 39 66 2012 43 78 121 36 13 18 31 42 Teaching-only (Grade 7) 2016 18 17 35 51 2015 2014 2013 13 22 35 37 2012 - - - - Teaching-only (Clinical) 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 - - - -

66

Table 5.1-10 All applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for Teaching-only posts 2012-2016 in AHSSBL

Applications Shortlisted Offers Year F M Total %F F M Total %F F M Total %F All Teaching-only 2016 426 367 793 54 49 23 72 68 2015 287 209 496 58 26 9 35 74 2014 573 616 1189 48 55 56 111 50 18 14 32 56 2013 106 127 233 45 20 11 31 65 2012 254 288 542 47 - - - - Teaching-only (Grade 5) 2016 24 28 52 46 2015 49 43 92 53 2014 169 108 277 61 2013 2012 - - - - Teaching-only (Grade 6) 2016 394 295 689 57 46 17 63 73 2015 238 166 404 59 18 6 24 75 67 2014 389 481 870 45 44 45 89 49 15 12 27 56 2013 106 127 233 45 20 11 31 65 2012 254 288 542 47 - - - - Teaching-only (Grade 7) 2016 8 44 52 15 2015 2014 15 27 42 36 2013 2012 - - - -

Figure 5.1-12 shows the proportion of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offer holders for University Teaching-only posts. There has been a general increase (2012-2016), with above 50% offers to female candidates in the last 4 years. The trend is similar in STEMM (Figure 5.1-13)

67

and AHSSBL (Figure 5.1-14), although the precise percentages are typically lower in STEMM and higher in AHSSBL (e.g., 56% as compared to 85% female offer holders 2016).

68

68

Figure 5.1-12 Percentage of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for University Teaching-only positions 2012-2016 Applications 100 Shortlisting 90 Offers 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

% Female Female % (University) 10 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 5.1-13 Percentage of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for STEMM Teaching-only positions 2012-2016

Applications 100 Shortlisting 90 Offers 80 70 60 50 40 30

% Female Female % (SETMM) 20 10 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 69 Figure 5.1-14 Percentage of female applicants, shortlisted candidates and offers for AHSSBL Teaching-only positions 2012-2016 Applications 100 Shortlisting 90 Offers 80 70 60 50 40 30

% Female Female % (AHSSBL) 20 10 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

69

We began this section highlighting earlier actions, our inclusive recruitment guide and ongoing/future actions towards more robust inclusive recruitment. This is a substantial and meaningful commitment to equality, and it is demonstrated to internal/external applicants through our vacancies webpage.

Figure 5.1-15 Image of the University HR Vacancies landing webpage

While we have made significant progress we remain committed to sustained, substantial and 70 positive action, such as (for example) barring single-sex shortlists for all vacancies (Action 4.1b) and developing targeted advertising strategies (Action 4.1f).

We will also develop additional diversity-enhancing recruitment actions. For example, through participating in the ECU Attracting Student Diversity and Race Charter, outreach was conducted (2015-17) to attract more BME staff/students by:  Advertising on the UK Black History Month website  Networking with BME communities locally (Fife) and regionally (Dundee)  Promotion at the largest Scottish multi-cultural events (Edinburgh and Glasgow) and networking with Race Equality advocacies and support groups

70

Figure 5.1-16 image of one of the 92 flyers distributed at Glasgow Mela

Figure 5.1-17 WISE logo used in recruitment advertising 71

71

Figure 5.1-18 Image of Black History Month website editorial advert

We will continue to engage in targeted outreach activities (Action 4.1g) and in preparation for AS Silver focus, we will collect and analyse further intersectional recruitment data (Action 5.1a).

(ii) Induction

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. 72

72

The induction process illustrated below applies to all new staff, with some particular materials and events targeted towards specific roles.

Figure 5.1-19 Induction Process

Table 5.1-11 CAPOD Induction - Attendees for Academic Year 2015-16 by Staff Headcount

Course/Module Type Female Male Induction and Staff Essentials 158 148

From 2013-14 to 2015-16, 974 staff across all schools attended induction events, which are evaluated by participants and pro-actively updated. Evidence from the national Careers in Research Online Survey (CROS) identifies research staff as being generally positive about induction processes in comparison with the national average, and becoming more positive over the last two years (Table 5.1-12).

Table 5.1-12 2016 Careers in Research Online Survey (percentage who found it useful)

Question Year Institutional Female Male National 73

When you started with your current employer how useful did you find the following:

2017 58 62 50 38 Institutional-wide induction programmes 2015 51 50 52 34

2017 44 48 39 46 Departmental/faculty/unit induction programme 2015 36 37 36 43

2017 63 58 67 63 Local induction to your current role 2015 64 63 64 63

73

The University's HR Excellence in Research Working Group will continue to implement planned developments of our well-received induction programme (Action 5.2a).

(iii) Promotion

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.

Previous Bronze actions completed:  Promotions data for female academics by School is analysed in an annual meeting with the Director of HR and the Deputy Principal after each Promotions round (Jul 2013 onwards)  HoSs receive data of success rates for female promotions from feedback mechanisms led by the Deputy Principal with the Director of HR.  Application rates are examined by iSAT and each dSAT for actioning as part of the AS process.  Annual Review of Academic Promotions is undertaken with consultation with iSAT and dSATs (Sep 2015 onwards).  The University’s webpage on Academic Promotions was updated to provide clearer information about the application process and timeline (Feb 2017).

Preparation and support HoSs receive guidance on conducting annual reviews from HRBPs, and review promotion applications and success rates (see section 5.3(ii)). A mechanism to enable and require HoSs proactively to help staff prepare for promotion will be informed by this (Actions 5.3a, 4.3b-c). Following updates to take better account of teaching contributions (March 2017), two Academic Promotions workshops were organised by the HR Director to explain the process and encourage applications. Future sessions will be mainstreamed and evaluated (Action 5.3b).

74

74

Figure 5.1-20 Image of Academic Promotions procedure and the open session (7 Mar 2017) promoted in all staff newsletter ‘In the Loop’ (17 Feb 2017)

Academic promotions data are reviewed by HR, iSAT/dSATs, the Deputy Principal and the Principal. If female application rates are disproportionately low, HoSs are required to address the imbalance through an action plan involving (for example) review processes and institutional provision on coaching and mentoring, as outlined in section 5.3(iii).

Unconscious Bias and Diversity in the Workplace training has been provided since 2012 and is mandatory for promotion Committee members (Action 5.3c). Table 5.1-13 shows that: the number and percentage of female applicants is on an increasing trend, with the highest number (29) in 2017; and the female success rate is higher than the male rate.

75

75

Table 5.1-13 Number of University Staff applying for promotion and success rates

Number of Applicants Successful applicants Female Male Year % Female Male Total Female Male Total Success Success Female Rate (%) Rate (%) 2017 29 49 78 37 24 34 58 83 69 2016 22 38 60 37 18 30 48 82 79 2015 16 29 45 36 6 16 22 38 55 2014 17 41 58 29 12 20 32 71 49 2013 13 43 56 23 10 20 30 77 47 Total 97 200 297 33 70 120 190 72 60

Table 5.1-14 Number of University staff in the University applying for promotion in main academic grades (2013-2017)

Female Male Role Total % % Applied For Applications Applicants Successful Success Applicants Successful Success rate Rate Teaching

Grade 8 Research

Grade 8 Senior 51 36 71 72 40 56 123 Lecturer Reader 27 20 74 66 41 62 93 Professor 16 11 69 53 34 64 69 Total 97 70 72 200 120 60 297

Looking in more detail, Table 5.1-15 shows: a) A large number of both genders applied for SL in 2016 and 2017 and success rates were higher for women. 76 b) Success rates were high for both women and men applying for Reader in 2016 and although there were fewer female applicants (4) in 2017, 100% were successful. c) Although the number of women applying for Professorship has historically been low, there was a large increase in female applicants in 2017 with a high success rate (86%).

76

Table 5.1-15 Academic staff across the University applying for promotion at each grade, with success rates

Female Male Role Applied % % For & Year Applicants Successful Success Applicants Successful Success Rate Rate Teaching-only Grade 8 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Research-only Grade 8 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Senior Lecturer 2017 18 14 78 20 13 65 2016 16 12 75 2015 2014 2013 Reader 2017 16 10 63 2016 2015 2014 77 2013 Professor 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013

Table 5.1-16 shows that over a five-year period, women have higher average success rates than men at all levels. We believe this partly reflects investments in mentoring, that will continue and be expanded.

77

Table 5.1-16 Academic staff applying for promotion from STEMM or AHSSBL schools across all years (2012- 16), with success rates

Female Male Applied % % Total Role Applicants Successful Success Applicants Successful Success Applicants Rate Rate STEMM Schools Teaching

Grade 8 Research

Grade 8 Senior 17 8 47 33 16 48 50 Lecturer Reader 16 12 75 39 23 59 55 Professor 32 20 63 38 AHSSBL Schools Teaching

Grade 8 Research

Grade 8 Senior 34 28 82 39 24 62 73 Lecturer Reader 27 18 67 38 Professor 21 14 67 31

Tables 5.1-17 and 5.1-18 shows higher numbers of SL applicants in 2017 in all schools, but the success rate was higher in STEMM. The number of female applicants for Professor was lower in STEMM schools but increased in 2017.

78

78

Table 5.1-17 Academic staff applying for promotion from STEMM schools by grade and success rates

Female Male Applied Role & % % Year Applicants Successful Success Applicants Successful Success Rate Rate Teaching-only Grade 8 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Research-only Grade 8 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Senior Lecturer 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Reader 2017 2016 2015 2014 79 2013 Professor 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013

79

Table 5.1-18 Academic staff applying for promotion from AHSSBL schools for each grade

Female Male Applied Role & Year % % Applicants Successful Success Applicants Successful Success Rate Rate Teaching-only Grade 8 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Research-only Grade 8 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Senior Lecturer 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Reader 2013 2017 2016 2015 80 2014 Professor 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013

Table 5.1-19 shows the proportion of women applying for SL/Reader has increased since 2013. Generally, the percentage of eligible staff applying for promotion to Professor was lower for women than men but was equal in 2017. We are committed to sustained, positive trends (Actions 5.3a-c). Applications and outcomes for part-time staff compare well with full-time staff (Table 5.1-20).

80

Table 5.1-19 Academic staff applying for promotion across the University for SL/Reader and Professor shown for each year

Female Male Applied Role & Year % % Applicants Eligible* Applicants Eligible* Applied Applied SL/Reader 2017 22 102 22 36 161 22 2016 18 90 20 28 145 19 2015 15 100 15 21 150 14 2014 15 100 15 26 144 18 2013 8 100 8 27 153 18 Professor 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 * Assumes all Lecturers eligible to apply for SL/Reader, and all SL/Reader eligible to apply for Professor. However staff must have served at least 2 years in their current role, and staff may also choose to apply for different roles (e.g., SL -> Reader).

Table 5.1-20 Academic staff applying for promotion by full-time/part-time status across all years (2015- 2017), plus success rates

Women Men Promoted Occupancy % % Post Applicants Successful Success Applicants Successful Success Rate Rate Teaching- Full-time 81 only Grade

8 Part-time Research- Full-time only Grade

8 Part-time Senior Full-time 33 25 76 44 30 68 Lecturer Part-time Full-time Reader Part-time Full-time Professor Part-time Note: Data on full-time/part-time status is only available from 2015 onwards. We see that there are low numbers of part-time staff applying for promotion, but they have high success rates.

81

Overall, one of the main areas to continue to address is (perceived) readiness for application amongst women, which our continuing actions will address (Actions 4.2a-c, 4.3a-c), while maintaining our commitment to equitable processes (Actions 5.3a-c). (iv) Staff submitted to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) by gender

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.

Previous Bronze actions completed:  Established a REF E&D Group reporting to the THE PO via the chair to conduct an EIA on creating a new REF 2014 Code of Practice with membership consisting of: - V-P Governance, Research & Policy Office (Director and officers), Director of HR, HRBP, Head of E&D, Dean of Arts & Divinity and Dean of Science, University Statistician

The University REF2014 Code of Practice was created after conducting an EIA, supported by ECU training (‘E&D in the REF’). For REF2021, the University code will be informed by the REF E&D Advisory Panel and HEFCE guidance, ensuring processes are transparent, consistent, accountable and inclusive (Action 5.4a). Operation of the code (and all REF2021 processes) will be managed by the Research Excellence Board. The board will continue to support multi-disciplinary best practice (Action 5.4b).

As shown in Table 5.1-21, a higher percentage of women (97%) were submitted than men (92%) for RAE2008. This difference was higher in STEMM than AHSSBL. In REF2014 (Table 5.1-22) the percentage of women submitted was higher than men; however, STEMM men were more likely to be submitted than women (in contrast with RAE2008), with the reverse picture for AHSSBL.

Table 5.1-21 RAE 2008 Submission by Gender and STEMM/AHSSBL

Female Male Total 82 RAE 2008 No. % No. % No. % University Submitted 128 97 438 92 566 93 Not submitted STEMM Submitted 52 98 212 90 264 91 Not submitted AHSSBL Submitted 76 96 226 94 302 94 Not submitted

82

83

83

Table 5.1-22 REF 2014 Submission by Gender and STEMM/AHSSBL

Female Male Total REF 2014 No. % No. % No. % University Submitted 167 83 385 82 552 83 Not submitted 34 17 82 18 116 17 STEMM Submitted 65 78 188 83 253 82 Not submitted AHSSBL Submitted 102 86 197 82 299 83 Not submitted

Figure 5.1-21 Percentage of Eligible Staff Submitted to RAE/REF by STEMM and AHSSBL

AHSSBL Total STEMM University

Male REF2014 Female

Total

Male RAE2008 Female 84 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The disproportionate decline in the percentage of STEMM women submitted in REF2014 requires investigation through focus group work (Action 5.4c).

84

5.3 Career development: academic staff

(i) Training

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?

CAPOD offers widely publicised, targeted training and development programmes for particular cohorts, summarised in Figure 5.3-1.

Figure 5.3-1 CAPOD Development Training Provisions for Staff

85

The CoRe Skills stream, specifically developed for PostDocs and Early Career Researchers, is summarised in Figure 5.3-2.

85

Figure 5.3-2 CoRe skills development stream Summary

86

86

Figure 5.3-3 illustrates details of one of the CoRe programme components: ‘Lunchtime Legends’ (2016-17).

Figure 5.3-3 Lunchtime Legends Flyer

87

CAPOD’s other schemes offer flexible opportunities for PSS and Academic staff further along in their careers, including focussed support for technical and IT skills, academic progression and management development.

Table 5.3-1 shows women participate more in training programmes, both in absolute numbers and as a proportion of eligible staff (c.f. data in Table 4.1-2).

87

Table 5.3-1 CAPOD Courses - Gender Split for Academic Year 2015/16 by Staff Headcount

Female Male Course/Module Type Participants Participants

ASDP 161 165 CoRe Skills 153 169 GRAD Skills 733 658 IT Training 493 207 Passports to ME and AE 698 221 Total 2238 1420

Monitoring and development in response to levels of uptake and evaluation All development events are evaluated, with feedback reviewed and analysed monthly and annually against benchmarked satisfaction standards.

Table 5.3-2 Satisfaction Ratings for Development Events

Average satisfaction rating (%) by Academic Event Year 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 ASDP 86 84 86 GRADskills 87 87 90 IT Training 90 92 91 Passports to Excellence 89 89 89 CoRe skills 85 87 88

In addition, formal training is evaluated using a before/after self-assessment of confidence and competence in relation to learning objectives. This data is analysed monthly and annually (summary data: Table 5.3-3).

Table 5.3-3 Participant's Self-assessment Feedback from Development Events 2015/16 88

Average rating of confidence/ competence on a 100 point scale Event Before After

IT Training Confidence 37 70 Competence 40 72 GRADskills Confidence 42 69 Competence 43 69 ASDP Confidence 45 68 Competence 48 68 Passport to Research-only Futures

88

Confidence 38 73 Competence 38 68

The University Staff Survey demonstrates positive attitudes towards training provision (Table 5.3- 4).

Table 5.3-4 2015 and 2017 Staff Survey Responses (% agreed)

2017 2015 Question All Female Male All Female Male My line manager ensures that I have the skills to do my job well 76.8 76.7 78.6 69.8 73.1 69.0 and supports my professional development I believe that training and development are a valuable part 90.4 94.5 86.7 87.1 94.6 81.7 of my work and career

I know where to find information about relevant 91.5 93.1 90.7 88.1 90.2 86.0 training/development activities

The development opportunities offered by the University are well- 64.6 68.5 61.5 51.5 56.9 48.9 targeted to my work needs

In the past twelve months, I have found training and development 56.0 64.6 48.5 45.3 56.1 36.9 opportunities offered by the University to be helpful

Data from CROS (Table 5.3-5) also confirms equal access to training.

Table 5.3-5 2017 CROS Survey Data (% agreed) 89

Question Year University Female Male National To what extent do you agree that your institution treats you (as a 2017 97.4 100.0 93.1 83.2 member of research staff) equally with other types of staff in relation to access to training and 2015 85.7 87.8 87.1 83.3 development opportunities? I think that staff at my institution are treated fairly, regardless of 2017 92.3 93.2 89.7 82.8 personal characteristics such as age, ethnicity, disability, gender or gender identify, in relation to 2015 88.9 93.9 84.2 84.4 access to training and development.

89

(ii) Appraisal/development review

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.

Previous Bronze actions completed:  A major review of the University-wide appraisal and personal development process occurred in Aug 2013 and 2015 by the PO, TU, CAPOD, and HR, resulting in a more consistent approach to career developing academics that has been rolled out across all AHSSBL and STEMM Schools and the institution, led by the Deputy Principal.  New Academic Review & Development initiative superseding Q6 guidance promoted by HR to each HoS (Mar 2014, 2015): - Guidance signposted and explained in person by HRBPs to each HoS. - HRBPs track usage of the scheme with each HoS, and discuss usability.

The University operates two annual review processes:  Academic Review and Development Scheme (ARDS) – addressing workload balance, career aspirations, research leave, promotion and training requirements.  Review and Development Scheme for Support Staff (RDS) – addressing progress, objective setting, and a review of training and development requirements.

Both schemes are supported by guidance notes and training, delivered by CAPOD and HR. 2017 CROS survey results (Table 5.3-6) shows increased perceptions of the usefulness of the review schemes by women (and overall), and staff survey data shows improved uptake. 90

90

Table 5.3-6 CROS Survey Responses on Appraisal Schemes (% of those who found this useful)

2017 2015 Question University Female Male University Female Male UK How would you rate the usefulness of your institution's staff review/appraisal scheme?

Overall? 64.2 62.5 60.0 56.3 42.3 76.2 61.2 For you to highlight 81.4 79.2 80.0 60.5 61.5 61.9 66.2 issues? In helping you focus on your career aspirations and how 69.8 70.9 66.7 56.2 53.9 61.9 57.8 these are met by your current role? In identifying your strengths and 60.4 75.0 40.0 48.0 38.4 61.9 63.3 achievements? In leading to training or other continuing professional 53.5 58.3 33.4 39.6 38.4 42.9 52.1 development opportunities? In reviewing your 76.8 75.0 73.3 60.4 53.8 71.4 69.1 personal progress? Note: 2017 survey - 78 respondents; 44 female, 29 male and 5 not stated.

Table 5.3-7 University Staff Survey Data on Review Schemes (% agreed)

2017 2015 Question All Female Male All Female Male I have had a formal review of my performance and development 67.6 67.1 67.7 42.9 46.5 39.6 needs (e.g. ARDS/RDS) in the last 12 months 91

While improvements are welcome, scheme uptake (affected by new staff too early in post for review) and gender differences will be given further attention (Actions 5.5a-c).

(iii) Support given to academic staff for career progression

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

As described in Section 5.3(i), professional and career development support is provided by the Careers Centre and CAPOD. The University also provides formal mentoring and coaching programmes.

91

Working with Glasgow School of Art, Abertay and Dundee universities, CAPOD coordinates a collaborative inter-institutional mentoring scheme, cited by Vitae and ECU as good practice. It has been the model for other HEI schemes. Table 5.3-8 Participants of Teaching, Research and Academic Mentoring Scheme

No. participants 2013/14 – 2016/17 Participant Type Female Male Total % Female Mentees 66 28 94 70 Mentors 27 33 60 45

Since 2015, 25 academics/PSS were supported in the AURORA development programme for women (with access to the University's AURORA Mentoring Scheme, coordinated by CAPOD, on the same principles as the institutional scheme).

We are committed to AURORA (Action 4.2a), with 22 female staff taking up places and 5 women participating as new role models for the 2017-18 programme, and 12 women (PSS and academic) on our waiting list for next year. This is supplemented by an in-house mentoring programme for senior women, led by the Principal (Action 4.2b).

A Workplace Coaching Programme is also available (in partnership with Aberdeen University) supporting trained and qualified coaches, each working with a maximum of 2 coachees at one time. Since 2014-15, 22 St Andrews staff have been coached (21 female), with a 91.3% average satisfaction rate and positive qualitative feedback.

The University Staff survey and CROS data show positive attitudes towards support provided for postdoctoral researchers and academics, with strong improvement from 2015 to 2017 (Table 5.3- 9 and 5.3-10).

92

92

Table 5.3-9 CROS Survey Results (postdoctoral researchers, % agree)

2017 2015 Question Univ. Female Male UK Univ. Female Male UK To what extent do you agree that your institution treats you (as a member of Research-only staff) equally with other types of staff in relation to: Access to training and 97.4 100 93.1 83.2 85.7 87.8 87.1 83.3 development opportunities? Opportunities for promotion 34.6 27.5 44.8 34.2 29.7 26.5 35.9 34.1 and progression? Requests for flexible 71.8 81.9 58.6 70.1 72.6 71.4 74.3 66.8 working? How would you rate the usefulness of your institution's staff review/appraisal scheme: In helping you focus on your career aspirations and how 69.8 70.9 66.7 48.9 56.2 53.9 61.9 57.8 these are met by your current role? In leading to training or other continuing 53.5 58.3 33.4 38.2 39.6 38.4 42.9 52.1 professional development opportunities? In reviewing your personal 76.8 75 73.3 63.8 60.4 53.8 71.4 69.1 progress? To what extent do you agree that: You are encouraged to engage in personal and 85.9 88.6 79.3 76.3 68.5 67.3 70 74.9 career development? You take ownership of your 97.4 95.4 100 88 84.8 87.8 80 87.6 career development? You have a clear career 64.1 78.2 55.1 53.7 57.6 57.2 57.5 61.6 development plan? 93

I am aware of funding opportunities for Research- 58.4 61.4 46.4 - 63.3 57.1 71.1 - only staff offered by CAPOD I am aware of the Early Career Academic Mentoring 75.6 79.5 65.5 - 76.7 85.4 64.1 - Scheme, co-ordinated by CAPOD I am satisfied with my work- 76.9 75 79.3 67.4 81.3 83.7 79.5 69.3 life balance My institution promotes better health and well-being 66.7 70.5 65.5 50.5 57.2 55.1 64.1 51.2 at work I think that staff at my institution are treated fairly, regardless of personal characteristics such as age, ethnicity, disability, gender or gender identify, in relation to: Career progression / 70.5 68.1 78.3 57.1 67.7 63.2 76.3 61.2 promotion

93

Table 5.3-10 Staff Survey Results (Academic Staff, % agree)

2017 2015 Question Female Male All Female Male All My line manager ensures that I have the skills to do my job well 76.7 78.6 76.8 73.1 69.0 69.8 and supports my professional development I believe it is possible for me to maintain a satisfactory work-life 65.8 74.3 69.6 66.0 73.5 69.6 balance in this employment I believe that training and development are a valuable part 94.5 86.7 90.4 94.6 81.7 87.1 of my work and career I know where to find information about relevant 93.1 90.7 91.5 90.2 86.0 88.1 training/development activities The development opportunities offered by the University are well- 68.5 61.5 64.6 56.9 48.9 51.5 targeted to my work needs In the past twelve months, I have found training and development 64.6 48.5 56.0 56.1 36.9 45.3 opportunities offered by the University to be helpful

94

94

5.5 Flexible working and managing career breaks

Note: Present professional and support staff and academic staff data separately

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

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

Previous Bronze actions completed:  Report completed on maternity provisions across the UK HE sector (10 Scottish and 24 RUK HEIs included in analysis) (Oct 2014 and refreshed Jun 2017).  Held focus group interviews with STEMM Academic and Research staff returners from Maternity Leave asking if considered part time working.  Presentation given to each STEMM School AS lead on the changes to Family Friendly Polices, especially the introduction of Shared Parental Leave.  Maternity Leave Policy content, format and process was checked by ‘Working Families’ with no changes required (Feb 2016).

The number of staff taking maternity leave over the last five years has remained fairly consistent (Table 5.5-1).

Table 5.5-1 Maternity leave taken over the last five years

Year Maternity Leave was Started Employee Role 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 Total

95

Total 37 44 36 41 34 192

95

Length of leave taken is shown in Table 5.5-2.

Table 5.5-2 Length of Maternity leave taken by Employee Role (2016)

Length of Maternity Leave Taken (Months)

Employee Role Median 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 Leave Taken (months)

Research-only

Grade 6

Grade 7

Bespoke

Teaching-only

Grade6

Grade 8

Research & Teaching

Lecturer

Senior Lecturer Professional & Support

Total 96

Figure 5.5-1 Length of Maternity leave taken by Academic/PSS (2016) Redacted

96

Table 5.5-2 and Figure 5.5-1 show Academic staff taking shorter maternity leave than PSS. Of the 12 PSS who took 11 months leave, 75% were Grade 4 or lower. The University will conduct a feasibility study to examine whether maternity pay could be enhanced (Action 5.6a), recognizing the role that pay differentials may have in maternity leave decisions.

Figure 5.5-2 and Table 5.5-3 summarise 2017 Staff Survey findings on maternity support (using percentages to facilitate comparison with the 2015 survey). We also provide the total number of respondents for clarity. University-level data includes all PSS, while STEMM/AHSSBL includes only staff in Schools.

Figure 5.5-2 Summary of positive response rates from staff survey (2017) regarding maternity support

Positive response rates from staff regarding Maternity Support at St Andrews

University STEMM AHSSBL PSS

91% 83% 89% 97%

Agreement with the statement: ‘The University has sound procedures to assist staff who need 97 reasonable adjustments in the workplace for Maternity support’

Table 5.5-3 Staff Survey Results in relation to maternity support (Question: ‘The University has sound procedures to assist staff who need reasonable adjustments in the workplace for Maternity support’)

Percentage of Responses 2017 Institutional Gender Strongly Strongly Total Grouping Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Responses University Female 65 27 493 Male 60 31 395 Total 63 28 962 STEMM Female 56 25 120 Male 61 24 156 Total 59 24 292 AHSSBL Female 65 28 72

97

Male 61 23 56 Total 64 25 136 PSS Female 65 31 259 Male 59 40 163 Total 63 34 446 *Areas highlighted in orange indicate increase in positive responses compared with the 2015 survey.

Positive improvements are reported by almost all groups, with high percentages agreeing that the University has sound procedures for maternity support. The University will repeat the staff survey in 2019; following survey analysis by the AS Career Development Group, a focus group will be conducted based on the 2019 results to explore differences in PSS/Academic experiences (Action 5.6b).

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

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

Previous Bronze actions completed:  Keep-in-Touch (KiT) Days data was first provided to STEMM dSATs in 2015, this has been mainstreamed to be provided from HR annually. This has also been mainstreamed to AHSSBL dSATs since Jun 2017, for AS submissions/monitoring.  Maternity Leave Focus Group feedback covered discussion whilst on maternity leave.  Presentation given (Dec 2015) to each STEMM School AS lead/School E&D Officer explaining the KiT Days by HRBP (this needs to be expanded to include AHSSBL schools and PSS units – Action 5.7a).

Schools and Units receive support for staff maternity and adoption leave (as detailed in policy), through:  acting-up allowances for other staff  secondments  recruiting cover staff 98

For staff on leave, our major focus has been on KiT Day uptake. Feedback showed that additional one-to-one explanations, and more guidance for line-managers, would help to ensure that opportunities to take KiT Days are more visibly supported (Action 5.7b). The reduction in total KiT days taken by staff (Table 5.5-4) simply reflects proportional shifts in maternity rates. Percentage uptake remains 30-36% (Table 5.5-5) and the number of KiT Days taken by STEMM academics has increased since 2012/13.

Table 5.5-4 Uptake of Keeping in Touch (KiT) Days

Institutional Grouping 2016/17 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13 Total number of KiT days taken 50 94 62 71 55 Total number of employees using KiT 11 16 13 13 12 days Employee by School/Unit

98

All School Staff 6 10 9 9 7

Professional and Support Staff 5 6 4 4 5 (outwith Schools) Days Taken by School/Unit All School Staff 30 62 46 50 35

Professional and Support Staff 20 32 16 21 20 (outwith Schools) Table 5.5-5 Maternity/Adoption Leave against KiT Days Taken

Year Maternity/Adoption Leave Started Employee Grouping 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 No. of employees on 37 44 36 41 34 maternity/adoption leave Total number of employees 11 16 13 13 12 using KiT days % of KiT day uptake 30 36 36 32 35

Engagement with KiT is good compared to the national average (16%, DWP data), but a focus group identified opportunities to improve one-day childcare and baby-changing-facilities. The University is commissioning Estates to increase provision, together with an online guide to the baby-changing locations (Action 5.7c) available in every School.

(iii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: returning to work 99 Explain what support the institution offers to staff on return from maternity or adoption leave. Comment on any funding provided to support returning staff

Previous Bronze actions completed:  Reasons why staff have left after maternity leave are investigated by HR via online exit questionnaires or interviews (from Mar 2014).  Issues relating to Maternity Leave returners’ and caring responsibilities identified from STEMM School/Dept E&D/AS Surveys.  Supported Equate Scotland career coaching service is offered to academic women in St Andrews. Sessions promoted to STEMM female academics through CAPOD, Head of E&D, HR and dSATs. Academics returning from maternity leave took up sessions in 2013, 2014 and 2015.

99

Recent Focus Groups with returning STEMM female academics identified issues related to maternity pay periods, the accessibility of information about entitlements and support. The University’s enhanced maternity package of 16 weeks of full pay (before 23 weeks of statutory maternity pay and 13 weeks of unpaid leave) is above the Scottish Universities average, but the UK HEI average enhanced maternity package offered is 18 weeks. The University will conduct a feasibility study to examine whether maternity pay provision could be enhanced (See Action 5.6a) and provide further online information about leave, pay entitlements and other supportive university provision (Action 5.8a).

(iv) Maternity return rate

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.

Table 5.5-6 Return Rates Following Maternity Leave (2012-2016)

Left within Uptake of 3 months Maternity Return Employee Grouping Returned of / Adoption Rate scheduled leave return Research-only 40 33 7 83 100

100

Professional & Support 99 86 39 87 Total 257 228 55 89

Table 5.5-6 shows a favourable return rate of 87%, following maternity leave over the last five years, compared to national data (DWP, 77%). Lower-grade research staff data includes all contract types (including FTC) which may account for lower rates in these grades. We will confirm whether some staff left due to the ending of a FTC, to give a more accurate picture of return rates (Action 5.8a).

Feedback from dSATs found little call for improved actions, other than a form of buddy process for staff returners (Action 5.8b) and a need to support better awareness of expressing milk facilities across the University. Provision made within locations across the University will be more clearly identified and publicised (Action 5.8c).

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

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.

The University offers an enhanced paternity package of 2 weeks at full pay; uptake is shown in Table 5.5-7.

Table 5.5-7 Paternity leave taken over the last five years

Year Paternity Leave was Started 101 Employee Role 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 Total

Research-only Grade 6 Grade 7 Teaching-only Grade 6 Grade 7 Research & Teaching Lecturer Senior Lecturer Reader

101

Professor Professional & Support

Staff Total 24 23 14 26 20 107

Across the period, 100% of all 107 staff who declared paternity chose to take the full two weeks available.

To date, shared parental leave has been taken up by very few staff (Table 5.5-8). This has influenced the University’s production of a more effective guide to entitlements and policies, and plans for focus group explorations of other types of support (Action 5.9a-b).

Table 5.5-8 Shared parental leave requests to date (by leave date scheduled)

Year* Staff Grouping 2018 2017 2016 Academic PSS *Shared Parental leave available from December 2014

(vi) Flexible working Provide information on the flexible working arrangements available.

Previous Bronze actions completed:  Policy reviewed to accommodate changes in extending the right to request flexible working, so that staff with 26 weeks continuous service are able to make an application to work flexibly for any reason (June 2014).

All staff with at least 26 weeks continuous service can request flexible working, which may include: working part-time; compressed hours; varied hours; working from home; or term-time 102 working.

Table 5.5-9 Flexible Working Policy: Process Table

Formal Flexible Working Process Table  Employee discusses their working requests informally with the appropriate manager  Employee submits formal application  The Head of School/Unit has the option to approve the application  If no approval is given then meeting between manager, HR and employee to discuss the application in more detail  If required, notification of the outcome of the meeting will be sent by Human Resources within 14 days of the meeting taking place  If approved, Human Resources will detail, in writing, the appropriate changes to the terms and conditions of employment and the date they will become effective

102

 If the application is unsuccessful, the employee will be notified in writing by Human Resources detailing the reasons for the rejection including a clear explanation and the details of the appeals procedure  Manager may approve the application subject to a trial period of 3 months. If, at the end of this period, the new pattern is deemed not suitable by either party, the employee will revert to their original working pattern

Some informal flexible arrangements are also in-place and we will continue to underline a supportive, consistent approach (Actions 5.10a-e)

Table 5.5-10 Number of staff by gender to have taken Flexible working in academic schools

Academic / Professional and STEMM/ Year Female Male Support Staff AHSSBL 2016 Academic AHSSBL STEMM Professional and Support Staff 2015 Academic AHSSBL STEMM Professional and Support Staff 2014 Academic AHSSBL STEMM Professional and Support Staff 2013 Academic AHSSBL STEMM Professional and Support Staff (vii) Transition from part-time back to full-time work after career breaks

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. 103 All staff who choose part-time and/or flexible working due to caring responsibilities can return to original hours. In addition, any staff working part-time may request to increase their working hours. Carer-Break provision is also in place and additional structured patterns of support are planned (Actions 5.11a-e).

(viii) Childcare 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.

Previous Bronze actions completed:  Monthly Childcare vouchers stats available by contract type and School/Unit reported to STEMM dSATs (Jun 2016 then annually) + AHSSBL dSATs (Jun 2017).

103

 Presentation given to each STEMM School AS lead on the changes to Family Friendly Polices, especially the introduction of Shared Parental Leave (Dec 2015).  Promotion of childcare vouchers awareness through: - Friday Staff Memo for promotion (Mar 2014 then annually) - All Staff Newsletter In the Loop (Apr 2014 then annually) - Staff Induction (Jul 2014 then monthly) - New Staff ‘Getting Started’ pack (Jul 2017) - STEMM School E&D webpages (Jun 2016)  New dedicated webpage launched promoting childcare vouchers (Mar 2013).  Registered local child-care providers uploaded onto Childcare webpage – however staff feedback gained (Jul 2017) requests list of child-minders in the town that can be booked last minute for emergency child-care as a new action (Action 5.12a).

Childcare funding process Our pre-tax salary Childcare Vouchers Scheme has been frequently promoted to all staff in previous AS Bronze actions (Figures 5.5-4 and 5.5-5). Average take-up has increased from 110 to 210 employees (Figure 5.5-3).

Figure 5.5-3 Average number of employees using University Childcare Vouchers 250 210 198 200 175

150 135 110 118

100 No.Employees

50

0 104 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year

104

Figure 5.5-4 Childcare article in the All-Staff Newsletter

Figure 5.5-5 Example of how Childcare Voucher awareness is mainstreamed into STEMM school newsletters

105

Nursery provision In 2014 a local nursery closed, resulting in childcare disruption. In response, an increase in private nursery capacity (in a leased university building) was negotiated by the University, along with discounts for staff/students with regional nurseries, and dedicated nurseries/childcare webpages were introduced. However, focus group feedback (STEMM maternity returners) showed a need for more information and STEMM School E&D webpages now link to the guidance.

To safeguard staff/students from future disruption, the University developed a purpose-built- nursery (Roseangle House, for children 2 months to 5 years), opened by the Principal in April 2017. It offers staff/students a 10% discount. To advance equality of opportunity, preference is given to: parents or children with a disability; lone parents; and student parents. To provide maximum flexibility, the nursery is open 7:30am-6:30pm (longer than other providers). To ensure the nursery meets staff/student needs, an online survey will be conducted (Action 5.12b).

105

Figure 5.5-6 Image of the Principal opening the new nursery

Redacted

Childcare Support during school closures The Sports Centre worked with iSAT/dSATs and HR to offer additional support for school holidays/closures (Action 5.12c):  Junior Saints Summer Camps offering a variety of sports for children 3-12 years (July- August) (see Figure 5.5-7).  Day classes to align with in-service days when schools are closed (see Figure 5.5-8).

Figure 5.5-7 Summer Camp Flyer

106

106

Figure 5.5-8 In-Service Day Class Flyer

A registered childcare provider mobile crèche (Figure 5.5-9) was successfully piloted for AS Workshop attendees (Jun 2017). In future, the University will provide funding for mobile crèche facilities on demand for staff attending key events/seminars (Action 5.12d).

Figure 5.5-9 Notice signposting to crèche facility

107

(ix) Caring responsibilities

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

Previous Bronze actions completed:

107

 New HR Family Friendly support webpage created (www.st- andrews.ac.uk/hr/employeebenefits/familyfriendly)  STEMM school webpages have weblinks to HR Family Friendly policies, services and Carers’ webpage – new action (9) to extend to AHSSBL schools.  Presentation given to each STEMM School AS lead on the changes to Family Friendly Polices, especially the introduction of Shared Parental Leave (Dec 2015).  Mechanism created through a new anonymous Online Exit Survey to determine why women might not return to work after having a family.  Fife Carers delivered a Carers’ Toolkit workshop at the University (Apr 2013) promoted via ‘In the Loop’ all staff newsletter and through the staff ‘Wellbeing & Engagement Group’.  Findings sought from surveys conducted in all STEMM Schools with actions undertaken (2013-16), resulted in a new ‘Carers’ Fund’ launched in Jul 2014 to help staff with care costs when travelling away on conferences.  HR Equality Carers webpage reviewed quarterly (www.st-andrews.ac.uk/hr/edi/carers).  University gained the Healthy Working Lives Silver award (Dec 2016) progressing from Bronze.

Institutional Wellbeing Group The group have developed programmes/courses recognised by an NHS Scotland Healthy Working Lives Silver award (Action 5.13a). From evaluations, attendees requested in-person carer’s forums to share experiences, and further courses (Actions 5.13b-c).

Caring Fund The fund assists staff attending conferences with children or elderly parents (including costs for partners/child-carers/respite-care). Following Maternity Leave focus group feedback, the £500 application limit was enhanced to an aggregate £1,000 annually (July 2017). In comparison with other UK HEIs, the fund is more generous and inclusive (open to Academics and PSS regardless of grade). 108 All 25 applications received (2014-2016) were accepted. A review will be conducted to ensure the fund continues to meet staff needs (Action 5.13d).

Table 5.5-11 University Caring Fund applications by gender

Year Academic / Professional AHSSBL / Application Female Male and Support STEMM Authorised AHSSBL Academic 2016 STEMM Professional and Support - AHSSBL 2015 Academic STEMM

108

Professional and Support - AHSSBL Academic 2014 STEMM Professional and Support -

Our Supporting Staff Carers statement/guidance was launched September 2016, and will be updated through an EIA (Action 5.13e). In recognition of excellent support, the Principal received the Carer Positive Employer award (one of four Scottish HEIs) in 2016 and successfully renewed in June 2017. This will be renewed annually (Action 5.13f).

Figure 5.5-10 Presentation of the Carer Positive Employer Award

We are now focussing more attention on student carers, working with the Carers Trust to create a visible online statement welcoming applications from students with caring responsibilities (Figure 5.5-11). Figure 5.5-11 Online Statement Welcoming Applications from Carers

109

The new Institutional Student Carer Group will undertake caring provision self-assessment (Action 5.13g) and will ensure schools signpost staff/students accordingly (Action 5.13h).

109

5.6 Organisation and culture

(i) Culture

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.

The University actively considers gender equality and inclusivity through:  Active engagement of Champions at the highest levels (Principal, Senior VP Teaching and Learning, VP Research, Dean of Arts)  The ongoing work of iSAT/dSATs, including advice to University Court.  Promotion of ED&I culture through events and research.  Active engagement of HR/E&D teams and other key staff in external networks (with peer institutions) and liaison with key sector bodies.  The processes detailed in Section 3.

Recent actions demonstrating embedding of AS principles:  Embedding gender equality monitoring and positive action in promotion procedures, which now also consider the value of teaching and administration equally.  Establishment of professorial pay bands and review arrangements to proactively tackle residual pay gaps (Actions 4.6a-h).  The opening of a University nursery.  Attainment/renewal of: HR Excellence Award; LGBT Charter; Carer Positive Employer Award; and Healthy Working Lives Silver Award.  Provision of maternity/paternity leave arrangements for all PhD students, regardless of funding source.  Establishment of the Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Research Fund, mainstreaming ED&I 110 in the research life of the University.  Establishment and prominence of LGBTIQ+ Role Models, including the Dean of Arts (iSAT Chair).  Roll out of unconscious bias training module to all managers (over 900 staff completions since April 2016 launch).  Mandatory diversity workshops during Student Sabbatical officer induction.  Good practice exchange event involving STEMM, AHSSBL, PSS and students (with invited guests from other universities).

Good practice is identified and shared across the institution through:  Communication at iSAT/dSAT meetings and specific ‘good practice exchanges’.  Responses to staff/student issues identified in surveys, focus groups and ad-hoc meetings.  Regular dialogue between HRBPs, HoS, PSS directors and staff networks and fora.

110

 Specific staff networks, such as the Staff LGBTQI+ Network and Institutional Wellbeing Group.

(ii) HR policies

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.

Consistency in policy application is monitored by HRBPs, working with Schools/Units.

Policies are amended on a review schedule, in line with legislative changes and in response to staff/student feedback (Figure 5.6-1). Multiple training/awareness methods (Figure 5.6-2) ensure compliance with updated policy, including HR policy presentations by HRBPs and E&D (Table 5.6- 1) at Staff Inductions.

111

111

Figure 5.6-1 HR Policy/Procedure review due to feedback, legal changes, or renewal expiry date

•Consultation (first): Trades Union Consultative Committee 1 (UCU/UNISON/UNITE)

•Conduct EIA: Policy check with updated ACAS & EHRC Equality Act (2010) statutory guidance, good UK HE sector practice 2 through ECU guidance

•Engagement: Confidential feedback via Online Feedback Form, University Equality Compliance Group and Institutional and 3 School ED&I/AS Committees

•Internal review: HR Business Partners and Director of HR review 4 content, format and operational delivery methods

•Senior level review: Policy/Procedure checked by the Principal's 5 Office

•Consultation (second): Trades Union Consultative Committee 6 (UCU/UNISON/UNITE)

•Publish online: Sign-off by Director of HR and the Principal's 7 Office for publishing

112

112

Figure 5.6-2 Overview of HR & E&D Policies-related training

Sabbatical Diversity E&D module Student Induction

Diversity in E&D the Workplace Staff Induction module

Recruitment & Unconcious Selection Bias module Staff module

Diversity HR Policies for for Managers Managers

Table 5.6-1 HR Policies explained in Staff Induction and HR Policies for Managers Training 113 Policy Adverse Weather Academic Review and Development Scheme Capability Discipline Equality and Diversity Inclusion Policy Policy & Guidance for Trans Staff & Students Family Friendly Policies (Maternity, Paternity, Etc.) Grievance Harassment and Bullying (Dignity & Respect) Policy on Relations between Staff and Student Probation Promotion

113

Sickness Absence Special Leave

HR Policy is also supported by online training modules (Table 5.6-2). Unconscious Bias online training, the most recent module, focuses on admissions, staff/student recruitment, teaching and research. It has been targeted at all academic staff and will be extended to all managers (Action 5.14a).

Table 5.6-2 ED&I and HR Policy-related training provision

Number of Staff Completions by Year Course Type Course Title 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 Diversity in the 504 321 670 70 52 Workplace Online Training Recruitment 252 68 - - - Module Student Diversity 209 209 - - - Unconscious Bias 766 - - - - Diversity for Managers (inc. 31 31 30 42 33 In-person Unconscious Bias) training HR Policies for 51 50 14 10 Managers -

The University monitors the effectiveness of procedures for dealing with bullying/harassment through staff survey results (Figure 5.6-3).

Figure 5.6-3 Staff Survey Results Regarding Harassment and Bullying Procedures

'Procedures for dealing with harassment and bullying at work appear to be effective.'

Total 9% 18% 56% 17% 114

Male 8% 12% 59% 21% 2017 Female 9% 19% 56% 16%

Total 9% 21% 55% 15%

Male 7% 19% 55% 19% 2015 Female 9% 20% 59% 12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

114

Current results are broadly similar to the previous survey, with a slight increase in favourable responses from both men and women. The responses still seem relatively negative compared with strongly positive comments on the working environment; for that reason, we will explore focus groups to reveal details in this pattern and identify the depth of concerns and need for action (Action 5.14b)

Diversity and policy training Diversity for Managers and HR Policies for Managers training sessions are delivered and evaluated quarterly. Feedback has been positive. In-person Diversity workshops also form part of Student Sabbatical Officer Induction, supporting collaboration between iSAT, ECG and the Student Representative Council Equality Committee.

Overall, Staff Focus Group and iSAT feedback will drive a tailored approach to policy dissemination (Actions 5.14c-d).

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

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

Tables 5.6-3 and 5.6-4 present data on the gender ratio for HoSs and School Management committees. Female staff are underrepresented in HoS roles and improvement is a priority. HoSs are typically in post for 3-5 years, (in Medicine the role is permanent) and HoSs have traditionally been Professors, limiting rates of change and the pool of women available (Actions 4.3a-c target this).

However, in recent years Readers have been able to take the role. This widening of the cohort increases the number of female candidates. In addition, a revision of academic groupings has been undertaken, resulting in staff traditionally classed as Teaching Fellows being categorised as 115 Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader, and Professor, also widening the pool. August 2017 saw the first such transition in Biology, where a newly promoted female Professor (from Principal Teaching Fellow) became HoS.

The gender ratio in School Management Groups is more balanced; at least 50% of Schools have 40% or greater female representation. Capacity to increase this may be limited, since this covers a large proportion of our grade 9/8 cohort. However, the changes to academic groupings may lead to increased flexibility.

To expand capacity, action has been taken to develop and support women for senior roles, such as:  Cohorts of female academics (25) sponsored to attend the LFHE Aurora Programme over the last 3 years, and ongoing commitment to participation and mentoring (Action 4.2a).  Development of a senior women’s mentoring programme (Action 4.2b).  Development of the Academic Review Scheme in 2016.

115

 Introduction of Co-Heads of School, to allow flexibility for those with caring responsibilities to take up senior roles by allowing shared responsibility/workload.

The impact of these actions is at an early stage.

116

116

Table 5.6-3 HoS by Gender

Year School 2017 2016 2015 Biology Female Male Male Chemistry Male Male Male Computer Science Male Male Male Earth & Environmental Sciences Male Male Male Mathematics & Statistics Male Male Male Medicine Male Male Male Physics & Astronomy Male Male Male Psychology & Neuroscience Male Male Male Art History Male Male Male Classics Male Male Male Divinity Male Male Male Economics & Finance Female Female Female English Language Teaching Female - - English Female Female Female Geography & Sustainable Male Male Male Development History Male Male Male International Relations Male Male Male Management (Co-Heads) Female Female Female Management (Co-Heads) Male Male Male Modern Languages Male Male Male Philosophy Male Male Male % Female Across Schools 24% 15% 15%

117

117

Table 5.6-4 School Management Groups by Gender

2017 2016 2015 School F M % F F M % F F M % F Biology Chemistry Computer Science Earth & Environmental Sciences Mathematics & Statistics Medicine Physics & Astronomy Psychology & Neuroscience STEMM 29 43 40 27 46 37 25 47 35 Art History Classics Divinity Economics & Finance English Language Teaching* English Geography & Sustainable

Development History International Relations Management (Co-Heads) Modern Languages Philosophical, Anthropological

and Film Studies 118 AHSSBL 37 48 44 33 49 40 35 50 41 *Hybrid academic unit, developing formal academic qualification route from 2017/18 AY.

It is anticipated that the female/male HoS ratio will continue to increase as actions to support women’s progression continue. However, addressing the lower proportion of female Professors within STEMM compared with AHSBBL requires committed long-term action. To achieve this, we have a substantial programme of current and future actions (Actions 4.1b-f and 4.3a-c).

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

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

118

Following a restructure in the summer of 2017, the PO Executive Team consists of the Principal, Deputy Principal, Quaestor (COO) and four Vice-Principals. While an incidental effect of the restructure reduced the proportion of women, the (female) Proctor was promoted to Senior Vice- Principal and a new post of Director of Strategy and Policy was created, with a female incumbent. In addition, work to provide support and mentoring for senior women will create a broader field of potential candidates for future appointments to top management posts (Actions 4.1a-f, 4.2a- c and 4.3a-c).

Other key senior management posts include two Assistant Vice-Principals (one of these posts was specifically created to provide an opportunity for a mid-career academic), the Deans (and Pro Deans / Associate Deans) and Directors of PSS units. An overview of this structure is shown below.

Table 5.6-5 Overview of membership of senior management by gender 2015/16-2017/18

2017/18 Senior Management Role Academic % Female Male Year Female 2017/18 Principal’s Office (PO) Executive team 2016/17 2015/16 2017/18 Assistant Vice Principals (from 2017) 2016/17 2015/16 2017/18 Deans 2016/17 2015/16 2017/18 Pro and Associate Deans 2016/17 2015/16 2017/18 119 Professional Service Unit Directors 2016/17 2015/16

With the exception of the Quaestor and Vice-Principal (Governance), office holders in the PO and Decanal teams are research-active academics appointed for fixed periods (3-5 years) to management roles. Where vacancies arise, encouragement is given to women and other under- represented groups when expressions of interest are sought.

The Directors of Professional Service Units collectively form the Service Directors Group; they are recruited on a permanent basis and turnover is, accordingly, low. Shifts in gender balance can only happen gradually, and will be supported through mentoring and regrading support (Actions 4.2a-b, 4.3b). Mentoring is particularly important. It will help to identify, encourage and enable talented individuals at earlier stages in their careers so that they are well-placed to take advantage of the opportunities that arise.

119

Academic oversight across Schools is provided by the Learning and Teaching Committee and the Postgraduate Research Committee, attended by key School leadership team members – Directors of Teaching and Directors of Postgraduate Research. Oversight of research activities is managed by Directors of Research in each school/department, working with Directors of Impact. Membership of each group is shown in Table 5.6-6.

The picture remains broadly static, reinforcing our commitment to further development opportunities for senior women. The University’s mentoring schemes are aimed at improving the progression of women into senior roles, and are enhanced in the University’s Equality Action Plan (2017-21) through commitments to provide female-specific support on external and internal leadership programmes (Action 4.2a), and a new mentoring programme for senior women, led by the Principal (Action 4.2b). Research into the experiences of mid-career academic women (Action 4.2c), completed in November 2017, will assist in identifying barriers to progression and inform developments.

Table 5.6-6 Key Committees and School Leadership Roles

Academic % Committee Female Male Year Female 2017/18 17 25 40 Learning and Teaching Committee 2016/17 16 27 37 2015/16 19 24 44 2017/18 18 22 45 Postgraduate Research Committee 2016/17 14 21 40 2015/16 12 23 34 2017/18 38 Directors of Research 2016/17 38 2015/16 24 2017/18 19 Directors/Co-ordinators of Impact 2016/17 29 2015/16 29 120 2017/18 54 UTREC 2016/17 54 2015/16 50

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

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.

Court

120

Currently (Aug 2017) Court has 23 members (Table 5.6-7), consisting of a mix of elected and nominated/co-opted members. Most Court appointments are for 4-8 years, and the low turnover rate influences the slow pace of change in composition.

Table 5.6-7 Current Court Members by Gender and Post

Post Female Male Total Comments Male Rector from mid- Rector November 2017 Independent Co-opted members Includes Senior Governor Representing Chancellor Nominated lay Assessors and Provost of Fife Elected General Council Assessors Elected by alumni Elected Staff Assessors Student representatives Includes Rector’s Assessor Principal and Deputy Principal Total 8 15 23

Table 5.6-8 Gender Balance within Court membership

Academic Year Female Male % Female 2017-18 8 15 35 121 2016-17 7 16 30 2015-16 6 17 26

Four main Court Committees cover Planning and Resources; Audit and Risk; Governance and Nominations; Remuneration and HR. Appointments to Court Committees are based on skills and experience, including E&D as one of the assessed areas. Gender representation on Court committees (Table 5.6-9) is taken into account when looking at the overall balance of members.

Table 5.6-9 Court Committee Memberships over Three Years

Academic Committee Female Male % Female Year Planning & Resources 2017-18 (9 members, female Chair) 2016-17*

121

2015-16 2017-18* Audit & Risk 2016-17* (6 members, female Chair) 2015-16 2017-18 Governance & Nominations 2016-17 (7 members, male Chair) 2015-16* 2017-18 Remuneration & Human Resources 2016-17 (6 members, male Chair) 2015-16 *1 Committee vacancy this year

Academic Council The University Senate is the supreme academic body of the University. With over 230 members, it devolved its regular business to Academic Council, chaired, like Senate, by the Principal (membership, August 2017, Table 5.6-10).

Table 5.6-10 Membership of Academic Council

Post Female Male % Female Principal and Deputy Principal Proctor, Provost and Deans Heads of School and Director of ELT Senate Assessors Student representatives Elected academic representatives Total 14 32 30 122

The make-up of Academic Council, with HoSs appointed for three years, and elected representatives with four-year tenures, means that changes in its composition take time.

Table 5.6-11 Academic Council Membership over three years

Academic % Female Male Year Female 2017-18 14 32 30 2016-17 13 33 28 2015-16 9 34 21

122

(vi) Committee workload

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.

To avoid the overload of eligible women, particularly in STEMM, we encourage committee membership diversity but do not impose quotas. We also seek to avoid career detriment through: rotating roles (normally on three-year cycles); taking committee duties into account within School workload models; and recognizing committee membership in the University’s Service and Leadership promotion criteria.

Further adjustments to practices to reduce potential overload will be considered during review and revision of mandatory workload model principles (introduced August 2017) to ensure no- one is unfairly loaded (Action 5.15a).

(vii) Institutional policies, practices and procedures

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?

Strong leadership on E&D is given by the Principal. The increased profile of gender equality means it is actively considered when discussing policy proposals. Underpinning this, EIAs systematically evaluate E&D impact for new/reviewed policies. EIAs have identified a number of opportunities to advance gender equality – these include:  For promotion and recruitment processes, always providing female and male points of contact for applicants, and barring single-gender shortlists for academic posts;  For senior salary review, creating a system of banding and increments at professorial level that allows a greater granularity of analysis and a systematic approach to tackling issues.

E&D is also a standing agenda item on six-weekly meetings with TUCC. Within the PO, responsibility for E&D sits with the Vice-Principal (Governance) and two Vice-Principals, one 123 female, one male, are designated as Equality Champions.

As a result of this framework, the University has a range of regularly reviewed family-friendly policies and a flowchart that provides easy access to all entitlements.

(viii) Workload model

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.

123

A common workload model framework that covers the full range of activities – teaching, administration, outreach/impact/engagement and research – was introduced with mandatory effect (August 2017), through consultation with Schools. Implementation is scrutinised by the Deputy Principal.

Core principles of the model include: clear expectations and accounting of workload balance; common baseline expectations before adjustments; and mandatory workload adjustments for all significant administrative and service roles (including E&D Officer). These principles mandate that service activities must be assigned in accordance with clear workload proportions that are equitable for all. In addition, there is a specific requirement to consider individual staff circumstances, with further guidance from HR policies. Furthermore, the revised promotion process (2017) has been designed in parallel to provide recognition and reward for administrative service, leadership, teaching excellence and outreach/impact/engagement as well as research. For us, this is a positive step change; nevertheless, we are committed to monitoring implementation and refinement (see Action 5.15a).

(ix) Timing of institution meetings and social gatherings

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

A policy for core meeting hours of 9:30am-4:30pm across all schools was developed in consultation with Schools, and implemented in August 2017. Many Schools already have tighter core business hours (Table 5.6-12) and a mandatory target for all Schools to move to 10:00am- 4:00pm core meeting hours by 2020 has been established (Action 5.16a), reflecting feedback from staff. The policy also gives guidance on the use of lunchtimes and providing long notice periods for exceptions such as social gatherings and occasional activities. We will monitor the implementation of this policy and develop refinements where appropriate (Action 5.16b). We are also exploring implementation of the same standards in PSS and Senior Management Groups (Action 5.16c).

Table 5.6-12 Schools already operating tighter core business hours than the Institutional Standard 124

School Core hours operated Classics 10am-3pm Maths & Stats 10am-3pm Divinity 10am-4pm Earth & Environmental Sciences 10am-4pm Geography & Sustainable Development 10am-4pm Management 10am-4pm History 9:30am-4pm Medicine 9:30am-4pm Physics & Astronomy 9:30am-4pm

124

(x) Visibility of role models 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.

Senior role models: visible presence The Principal, the Rector (President of University Court) and the Senior Governor of Court are high-profile positions representing the University, all of which were held by women up to November 2017.

Events providing visibility of role models

Table 5.6-13 Events specifically focussed on Gender, Diversity and Inclusion

Gender, Diversity and Inclusion events hosted at the University (April 2015- November 2017)

30 November 2017 New Early Career Women (ECW) Network launch 15 November 2017 Gender Fluidity in the Ancient World Conference 10 November 2017 Professor Dame Linda Partridge: Ageing Healthily 10 November 2017 Interconnect: Student Networking for Women in STEM University shared good practice on family friendly and flexible 28 October 2017 working policies at the external Working Families Scottish Employers Workshop (upon invitation) 125 10 October 2017 Launch of Elizabeth Garrett Mentoring Programme 4 October 2017 Casting Race on Stage & Screen October 2017 Out of the Box: Diwali (month long events) 28 September 2017 Queer Question Time: Student and external LGBT+ panel Women and the academic career: Examining the obstacles for 10 May 2017 women in the academic career 22 April 2017 Coexistence Initiative (interfaith event) 21 April 2017 Why isn’t my Professor Black? International Women's Day: Annual lecture in the History of 08 March 2017 Women, Gender and Sexuality, Art Feminism Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon, Sister sit out 11 February 2017 St Andrews Pride (LGBTIQ+ event)

125

11 February 2017 11 Feb 2017 UN International Day of Women and Girls in Science 06 February 2017 6 Feb 2017 Gender & Equalities Research Event 27 January 2017 Holocaust Remembrance Day Pier Walk 19 January 2017 National conference on Equal Opportunities in Education: attended by Scottish universities, colleges, schools and agencies, with talks and presentations by the Deputy First Minister, Scottish Funding Council, ECU, and then the Principal, Professor Sally Mapstone:

‘Education is transformative; it takes you somewhere new, intellectually, culturally, physically, and professionally, and it can go on doing that throughout your life.’ 11 December 2016 Breaking the Glass Ceiling, Ruth Hunt (CEO Stonewall) 18 November 2016 Athena SWAN: Life, Death and a Career in Academic Medicine 14 November 2016 Fifth Annual Interfaith Lecture (with Fife Interfaith) 29 October 2016 Pangea (BME multi-cultural events, to 3 Nov 2016) 30 Sep 2016 The Science of Sex Differences 28 September 2016 Inaugural lecture, Prof Ruth Woodfield: Excellence and Gender 26 September 2016 How different religions look at sex and sexuality? 25 September 2016 Declaration for Humanity signing (interfaith event) 02 June 2016 Gender and Prestige in Academic Work 30 March 2016 Getting More Woman into Tech Careers 02 March 2016 Race and Racism in Higher Education 27 January 2016 Holocaust Remembrance Day Pier Walk 126 14 January 2016 One World Exhibition: University Museum (to 30 Oct 2016) 13 November 2015 Pangea (BME multi-cultural events, to 14 Nov 2015) 10 November 2015 Feminism in Islam Conference 16 April 2015 Breaking Through the Glass Ceiling: A Conversation with Women in Academia

126

Introduced by Principal Prof Louise Richardson, inspirational talks by Prof Dame Jinty Nelson (King’s College London) and Prof Ottoline Leyser (Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge).

Graduation addresses Since our last submission the representation of women speaking at Graduation Addresses has varied from 36% in 2012 to 63% in 2017:

Table 5.6-14 Women Speakers at Graduation

% Year Female Male Female 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

127

127

Figure 5.6-4 Graduation addresses 2016 and 2017

Graduation addresses:

Teaching Excellence Awards Launched in 2014 as a collaboration between the Students’ Association and the Proctor’s Office, the number of women gaining recognition in the annual award has increased:

Table 5.6-15 Teaching Excellence Awards Issued

% Year Female Male Female 2017 2016 2015 2014

Sponsored events Ms Renee Powell, one of the first African-American women to play on the Ladies Professional Golf Association’s Tour, lent her name to the University Ladies Invitational (September 2016).

Ms Powell is known for attracting young female golfers to the sport and in 2008 was awarded an 128 honorary doctorate by the University.

128

Figure 5.6-5 Ms Renee Powell

Online initiatives  University LGBTIQ+ Staff Role Model Members launched on National Coming Out Day (Oct 2016) highlighting 6 staff.  International Women's Day University Profiles webpage launched listing interviews with 7 female AHSSBL/STEMM academics, promoted on University News webpage (Figure 5.6- 6).

Figure 5.6-6 Webpage Promotion of Female Academics

129

129

Publications and other visible symbols

Publications The Academic Women Now publication (Jun 2016) detailing the careers of 33 Young Academy of Scotland female members (4 from the University) was authored by 3 female academics from St Andrews. Focusing on mid-career stage, the publication highlights role models for early career researchers. The University provided financial support for its production and funded research which resulted in a further publication focussing on mid-career women in St Andrews, with additional critical-incident career research to follow.

Figure 5.6-7 'Academic Women Now' Publication (June 2016)

Named Facilities One of our largest halls of residence was renamed 'Agnes Blackadder Hall' (2012/13) after the University’s first female graduate. 130

The Principal dedicated the ‘Dr Ettie Stewart Steele Reading Room’ in Chemistry (March 2017) after the first female student to receive a PhD (1919) and the first female Lecturer in Chemistry (1920-1956).

Figure 5.6-8 Named Facilities Presentations

130

(xi) Outreach activities

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.

Our outreach and engagement activities fall into two groups: those that encourage public engagement with research; and general outreach activities, mainly directed towards Primary and Secondary school pupils.

Most research-focused outreach is led by Academic Schools or research groups. In 2015, the University appointed a Head of Public Engagement (female), who launched an annual Explorathon, which is growing: in 2016, 128 researchers were involved, of whom 61% were female. She also coordinated the ‘XX Factor’ event, which engaged 370 school pupils in science activities. In addition, 57 University staff are registered as STEM Ambassadors, undertaking activities to encourage (often female) students into STEM subjects; 40 (70%) of our ambassadors are female.

131

131

Figure 5.6-9 Collage from Outreach Activities

132 Concerns had been raised about whether the burden of outreach fell unduly on women, and whether outreach is adequately recognised. In response to these concerns:  The introduction of mandatory workload models provides recognition of outreach (and time compensation).  The revised 2017 promotion process introduced Impact/Outreach/Knowledge and Technology Transfer as a category in which candidates may choose to demonstrate their contribution/excellence, including ‘substantial participation in the delivery of outreach activities for research’.

Future action points:  We will develop a fuller picture of research-based outreach activities in the University. This is the first step towards monitoring whether outreach activity is disproportionately undertaken by women (Action 5.17a).  Formal evaluation of promotions outcomes will be conducted, to establish the impact of the outreach/impact/KE category on female success rates (Action 5.17b).

132

The majority of general outreach activities are organised under the Widening Access programme by our Admissions unit (9 staff, 6 female). Academic staff and students assist in programme delivery, working with local schools (primary/secondary). Since 2015, data has been collected on the gender profile of: school pupils participating; the contributing academics; and assisting students. Over 3,000 pupils have participated in widening access programmes over the last three years, of whom 65% were female.

Table 5.6-16 Participants in four key Widening Access programmes

First Chances REACH Space School Sutton Trust Overall Year Overall Overall Overall Overall % % F % F % F % F Participants Participants Participants Participants Women 2017 *425 *63 408 67 67 39 *157 *76 65 2016 371 63 473 66 61 43 146 68 64 2015 263 57 558 69 62 45 147 76 66 *predicted number for 2017 based on those expected to continue on with the programme.

Future actions points:  Monitor gender balance of pupils in Widening Access programmes, and consider whether action is necessary (Action 5.17c).  Monitor gender balance of student ambassadors; consider ways to increase male student participation (Action 5.17a).

133 (xii) Leadership

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

The University expects all Schools/RIs to complete AS applications, with active sponsorship from the Principal. Adding to the Head of E&D’s provision, we have established additional support initiatives since the original Bronze submission.

Supporting programme instituted since the last Bronze submission

Resource  Appointed E&D Assistant and Information Analyst.  All school E&D roles formally recognised and resourced, with adjustments to workload.  Provision of an Associate Dean to release the Dean of Arts (iSAT chair) to focus on AS.

133

Institutional capacity  Creation of a University SharePoint site for AS/E&D data/resources.  Creation of a University best practice sharing forum, annually, for AS/E&D officers (initiated August 2017).  Bespoke AS workshops for iSAT/dSATs (Jun 2017).  Regular iSAT meetings and an open programme of E&D events (see Table 5.6-13).  Institutional Gender, Diversity and Inclusion research fund (9 projects commissioned: Table 5.6-17).

Table 5.6-17 Gender, Diversity and Inclusion research awards 2017

Award Project title / summary date Mid-career academic women @St Andrews: bringing together Grade 8 women, to create a peer-support group; enrolling Grade 8 women as role models and May-17 mentors for ECR women; supporting Grade 8 women who seek promotion to Grade 9; and identifying key research questions for further research into the challenges and the characteristics of the mid-career stage. Communicating psychological sex differences: What does ‘men are more May-17 aggressive than women’ imply? Who Takes Unpaid Internships in Science? Access to Graduate Internships by May-17 Gender, Ethnicity, and Family Background in the UK. Why are female undergraduates less likely to undertake an MPhys year than May-17 male students? May-17 Demonstrating Mathematical Models of Sexism

Sep-17 Mid-career academic women @St Andrews – Qualitative Data Analysis

Sep-17 Gender & Equality Network Research Seminar Series

Sep-17 Translating religious cultures Pathways into, and consequences of, lone parenthood in Europe and the Sep-17 134 United States

Communications, participation and culture:  Student representatives, academic and PSS staff all engaged in AS working groups.  Monthly semester-time updates on AS/E&D activities circulated to all staff, with encouragement to get involved.

134

135

6 SUPPORTING TRANS PEOPLE Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words (Actual: 492) (i) Current policy and practice 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.

Policy scrutiny and accreditation After panel assessment, our LGBT Charter was successfully renewed in October 2017 for inclusive employer/student policies/practice – we are the only university to hold the charter amongst 42 private/public employers. This follows gaining the ‘Most LGBT Friendly Organisation’ title, plus

135

Stonewall stating that the ‘University’s Procurement process was the best for LGBT inclusion in HE’ (March 2015).

Figure 6-1 LGBT Accreditations



Figure 6-2 Equality Statement mainstreamed across the University

Specific policy and support practice The ED&I Policy and Policy and Guidance on Trans Staff/Students protects Trans staff/students 136 from:  Bullying/Harassment

 Direct/indirect Discrimination  Discrimination by Association/Perception

 Victimisation Training to support policy and practice Annually reviewed in-person and e-learning training (see section 5.6(ii)) is provided. Following participant feedback, bespoke ‘Equality Briefings: Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation’ were provided to reinforce messages of protection from discrimination and hate crime. Due to changing terminology, the Staff LGBTIQ+ Network requested briefings to be reviewed frequently (Action 6.1a) and a broader range of gender-neutral titles to appear on staff forms and databases (Action 6.1b)

136

The University supported an onsite full-day Transgender Inclusion Workshop (Dec 2016) attended by directors, counsellors, wardens, and advisors. Feedback was positive for further workshops (Action 6.1c).

The Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) employer focused e-module was piloted by HR and staff/student LGBT+ networks, advising employers on supporting Trans staff. Feedback was positive, and it will be rolled-out to managers (Action 6.1d).

Figure 6-3 Promotion of Transgender Awareness Training

Outreach, visible support and awareness raising to underline policy commitments The University facilitated the first ‘St Andrews Pride’ (February 2016), continuing annually (Action 6.1c) with NHS Fife, Terrance Higgins Trust and Stonewall attending and providing in-person support.

A focussed presentation, ‘Jessica Lynn’s Transgender Journey’, was hosted by the University (June 2017). Her seminar covered her transition, and the legal and ethical aspects of gender identity.

Figure 6-4 Images of St Andrews Pride event and Jessica Lynn’s event

137

137

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

Monitoring EIAs are conducted to monitor impact (outlined in section 5.6(ii)). The Policy and Guidance on Trans Staff/Students was reviewed (Dec 2016 - May 2017) with: checks by Stonewall, LGBT Scotland, and iSAT/dSATs; input from LGBT+ staff/student networks; and online feedback prompted via the All-Staff Newsletter.

Figure 6-5 Image of promotion of Online Engagement Form re Trans Policy via Facebook

138

Acting on findings LGBT+ staff/student networks revealed the lack of available gender-neutral toilet provision as the most common negative issue. As a result, all new/refurbishment building projects will include gender-neutral toilets. Following an audit of current provision (Sep 2017) by Estates and Head of E&D, an increase from 76 to 128 gender-neutral toilets (Action 6.2a) is planned.

Online policy feedback also requested greater policy visibility and support for Trans staff/students, e.g. an online signposting leaflet (Action 6.2b). Overall, staff at the University strongly believe that we are a well-integrated, diverse community as shown in Figure 6-6:

138

Figure 6-6 University Staff Survey 2015 and 2017 results comparisons

'The diverse groups of people that make up the university community get on well together'

2017

2015

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

To continue our progress, our trans policy was reviewed to become non-binary inclusive, and opportunities for additional practical support measures will be monitored (Action 6.3).

(iii) Further work Provide details of further initiatives that have been identified as necessary to ensure trans people do not experience unfair treatment at the institution. We will: continue to implement gender-neutral facilities in new/refurbishment building projects; share Stonewall’s report A Vision for Change: acceptance without exception for trans people at Staff Induction; provide training on trans inclusion to HoS, Service Directors and Student Officers; and ensure representation from the established staff/student LGBTIQ+ networks on the continuing Action Plan Monitoring Group (Action 6.3).

139

139

7. FURTHER INFORMATION Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words (Actual:160) 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. This submission includes the latest available data sets. There are variations in data time frames which result from differences in financial and academic years, statutory Scottish reporting requirements and the availability of comparator data. Variations include:

 All staff data is provided as headcount, whilst student data is by FTE.

 Recruitment data captures applicants by year they applied and states their progression stage to the end of the given year. For this reason the number of offers made will not precisely match the number of New starts reported here.

 UK Percentage figures are sourced using data provided by HESA and reflect the combined figures from all reportable institutions. We wish to acknowledge the support and collaboration, in the development of our process and the review of the submission, of the following colleagues:

 Dr Clare Cunningham, Psychology Head of Division, Abertay University, for conducting an external review of the submission.

 David Bass and Kelsey Paske (ECU) for delivering the onsite AS Workshop.

140

140

8. ACTION PLAN

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 1. Action plan sponsorship. Significant and resource Ongoing Principal Completion of intensive changes will be substantive action required to advance equality plan items (3.1 to principles, and sponsorship 6.3) by the from the highest level will be specified required to mobilise resources timescales. and support.

141

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 2. Action plan monitoring A complex set of actions are Ongoing with action plan iSAT Chair Annual reports and coordination. required and overall progress tracked at (November) to the coordination and monitoring is quarterly iSAT meetings sponsor (Principal) necessary to manage the recording progress complexity. on substantive action plan items (3.1 to 6.3).

142

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 3.1 Increase male Current membership is only (a) Complete by Nov 2020 (a) Heads of More than 50% of participation in iSAT, 37.5% male, placing a (school officer roles are School, iSAT membership is through: disproportionate burden on the typically 3 years reporting to male by November (a) Requiring School ED&I mid-career to senior staff (of duration) Deputy 2020. officers (ex officio which a minority are female) (b) Complete by Nov 2018 Principal at members of iSAT) to involved in the work of iSAT. (these representatives annual rotate gender at the next are not ex officio) strategic role handover. planning (b) Requiring PSS and meeting student constituencies to (b) Head of E&D send gender balanced to representation. communicate and enact

143

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 3.2 Ensure that new iSAT and Training of is considered (a) For each new member, (a) Head of E&D 100% of iSAT dSAT members are trained mandatory for effective training to be to monitor members have and supported effectively, understanding of equalities completed within 1 annually and completed training through: issues and good practice. As month of joining iSAT report to iSAT at annual (a) Completing online equality agendas intensify, it is (b) ECU AS Webinar Panel Chair checkpoints from training modules titled also important that central training completed (b) Head of E&D November 2018 ‘Diversity in the Workplace resource keeps pace with within 6 months of to monitor forward (items a (Equality Act)’; support requirements. joining annually and and b). ‘Unconscious Bias’; and (c) Proposal for additional report to iSAT ‘Recruitment & Selection’. resource developed for Chair Central support (b) Undertaking ECU AS PO consideration by (c) iSAT Chair resource increase panel training. end December 2017 agreed by February (c) investigating the 2018 (item c). provision of additional central support for AS and other ED&I processes.

144

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 4.1 Enhance recruitment The university has under- (a) Already enacted (a) Director of Percentage of processes to promote the representation of female staff (b) Already in operation in HR female staff proportion of women in senior grades, especially in principle (since April (b) Director of recruited at all joining the university, academic roles and notably in 2017), to be formally HR grades exceeds especially in senior the professoriate. Although enacted in January (c) Deputy 40% by November academic roles, through: performing better in 2018 Principal via 2019 and reaches (a) Ensuring all comparison to Scotland as a (c) Already in operation in HoS meetings 50% by November recruitment panel benchmark, we are under- principle (since April and Chief 2021. members complete the represented in BME and 2017), to be formally Operating ‘Unconscious Bias’ online LGBTIQ+ staff in comparison to enacted January 2018 Officer via Percentage of BME training module (in the wider UK. It makes sense to (d) After a compliance Directors’ staff recruited at all addition to the mandatory implement processes check with the EHRC meetings grades exceeds 5% ‘Recruitment & Selection addressing this deficit in the Scotland, implement in (d) Director of by November 2019 module’). same action, as a statement of two target schools HR, Deputy and exceeds 7.5% (b) Permanent ban on our solid commitment to from April 2018 Principal, by November 2021 single-sex recruitment diversity and equality on all (e) Focus group formed Head of E&D (both of these shortlists for academic fronts. (Focussed minority and recommendations (e) Head of E&D values significantly posts. issues are discussed in more adopted January 2018 (f) Director of exceed the 4% (c) Heads of schools / units detail in the submission (f) Implement by January HR, HR Scottish national encouraged and document, in later sections). 2018 Recruitment average and 2.4% supported to directly (g) Ongoing – review and Manager local Fife county reach out to potential plan annually in June (g) Head of E&D average, based on female and BME recruits of each year (h) Head of E&D, 2011 census). when seeking to make (h) Gender specific all- HR E&D appointments. staff focus groups Assistant Percentage of (d) Trial a guaranteed conducted: LGBTIQ+ staff is interview scheme for all - Disability by consistent with BME and female potential September 2018 demographic data recruits, meeting all of the and 2020 available in 2018, essential post criteria, in by 2021. the school with the largest - BME by October imbalances. 2018 and 2020

145

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures (e) Review job Monitoring of advertisement templates protected to supplement male and characteristics female information reports aligned contacts (already standard with national practice) with other Census 2021. wording changes through focus group work. Findings from (f) Develop targeted intersectional focus recruitment advertising group, plus strategies, including: comparison Revising positive action responses (2018 statement in job adverts; and 2020) Providing details of both implemented into female and male related policy and academics as provision review. points of contacts; Instructing recruitment agencies/head hunters to provide no single-sex short-lists; Introduce the Scottish Government recommended Working Families ‘Happy to Talk Flexible Working’ strapline within adverts; Continuing to place adverts on the Women in Science Campaign webpage. (g) Engage in targeted outreach (local, regional and national) to BME and

146

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures LGBTIQ+ groups promoting case studies and points of contact of BME and LGBTIQ+ staff. (h) Undertake intersectionality focus groups.

147

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 4.2 Enhance mentoring The university has under- (a) Already engaged (45 (a) Head of E&D, (a) Annual processes to support representation of female staff participants since Heads of participation womens’ career in senior grades, especially in 2014/15), but there Schools, in the LFHE development through: academic roles and notably in will be a renewed Service Unit programmes (a) Active, encouraged the professoriate, and we need emphasis on Directors (at least 8 participation in the Aurora to build on the substantial supportive senior staff (b) Principal, women in programme with strong mentoring programme engagement from the Director of Aurora and 2 support from mentors, investments we have already 2017 cohort. Support CAPOD BME women including engagement made. female BME staff in (c) iSAT Chair in Diversifying with PSS. LFHE Diversifying Leadership). (b) The development of a Leadership (b) Completion bespoke in-house Programme (building and mentoring programme for upon 2 male evaluation of senior women, with senior academics supported initial cohort management involvement in 2017 and 2018) in January and support. (b) The ‘Elizabeth Garrett 2018. (c) Research on the career programme’ for (c) Good practice trajectories of mid-career senior women has from the women in St Andrews, to been designed by study identify critical areas and CAPOD and the showcased to times for support in Principal, and will be the AS sector. comparison with men. operated in January 2018 For the collective (c) Complete study by cohort from both September 2018 actions, at least 50 % achieving a promotion or other recognised increase in status and influence by November 2021.

148

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 4.3 Enhance promotion The university has under- (a) Enacted for the 2017 (a) Director of Women are processes to support representation of female staff promotions round in HR, Deputy promoted in womens’ career in senior grades, especially in March 2017; will be Principal, proportion to their progression and recognise academic roles and notably in reviewed and revised Dean of Arts, numbers on their achievement in areas the professoriate, and areas based on outcomes by Dean of current grade by where women are leading: where some women choose to March 2018 Science the 2020 (a) Revise promotions focus their work have not been (b) Enacted in the revised (b) Head of E&D promotions round. criteria to better recognise considered adequately in promotions policy in (c) Dean of contributions to teaching, promotion criteria in the past. early 2017; will be Medicine, outreach and impact. A review of promotion reviewed based on Head of E&D (b) Require Heads of processes provides an information from HR, School and Directors of opportunity to address these interventions by March PSS units to plan points, and ensure that 2018 corrective action when the monitoring tracks the (c) Model developed in the proportion of promotion effectiveness of interventions. School of Medicine to (re-grading in the case of be shared with all PSS) applications is not in schools and considered line with the gender for adaptation and balance for a grade within adoption by November the school. 2018 (c) Encourage preparatory support schemes for promotion applications in academic schools.

149

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 4.4 Investigate ‘bridging fund’ The university has been seeking Complete survey and (a) Director of Demonstration of effectiveness by: to offer more continuity for data collation by July HR, Head of fund effectiveness (a) Conducting focus those reliant on soft research 2018 and decide on E&D, HR established or groups with women in funding and the effectiveness programme Assistant alternative uses research and teaching, of the scheme needs to be continuation and/or (E&D) identified by research-only and determined – and refinements refinements by (b) Director of November 2018. teaching-only roles in made if necessary. November 2018 HR AHSSBL and STEMM. (b) Generate possibilities, for support scheme(s) for women to successfully apply for standard contract posts (here or elsewhere).

150

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 4.5 Investigate bank worker The university offers flexible Complete data collation by Director of HR, Confirmation that gender and profile. ‘bank’ contracts to PhD July 2018 and provide Information ‘bank’ contract students to provide a certain guidance to academic Analyst (E&D) opportunities are amount of additional income schools if any imbalances offered on an equal and teaching experience, but are established, ensuring basis (or have been the gender profile of those correction by November adjusted to be so) taking these opportunities has 2018 by November 2018. not been established.

151

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 4.6 Develop a better While the university has been (a) Create report annually (a) Director of Parity is the target understanding of the making progress in addressing in January-February of HR, but there will be context and drivers, and the gender pay gap in many each year, to be Information statistical and small develop methods to areas, progress can be delivered to the Analyst cohort variations, address the gender pay accelerated through formal Principal’s Office in (E&D), HR and so the working gap, through: processes. We are committed to February 2018-21 Record target is that by (a) Investigating grades an evidence-based approach to (b) Statement published in Systems November 2020: and occupations where support this acceleration. April 2019 and 2021 in Manager any gender pay gap there are unequal pay line with statutory (b) Director of (in either direction) gaps and produce regular obligations HR, Head of is no more than 1% reports. Analyse gender, (c) Complete – E&D, HR for the University race and disability trends Professorial pay review Record as a whole, and no and produce a report for process was initiated in Systems more than 2% for the Principal’s Office. September 2017 and Manager, VP any given staff (b) Publish Disability, outcomes will be Governance grade. Gender and Race Equal communicated by (c) iSAT Chair Pay Statement containing December 2017 (d) Chief statistical pay gap data (d) Following consultation, Operating online for public view. including with Trade Officer, (c) Encourage all female Unions, reviews were Director of HR professors to participate in initiated in AY2017/18; (e) Director of professorial pay review the impact will be HR, Deputy when scheduled. evaluated and will Principal, (d) Conduct a pay review inform the next review, Dean of Arts, for Grade 9 PSS, and planned for AY2019/20 Dean of develop an ongoing (e) Build on the teaching Science process for periodic pathway successfully (f) Head of E&D review and adjustment. introduced in early (g) Director of (e) Continue to implement 2017 by refining HR, Head of and refine career paths for criteria by January E&D teaching-focussed 2018, and monitor academics, including the progression of staff

152

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures refinement of recruitment annually in comparison (h) VP and promotion criteria. with ‘teaching and Governance, (f) Ensure managers research’ contracted Director of HR involved in pay and staff benefits decisions receive (f) Review training diversity training. completion annually in (g) Gather good practice January of each year from external guidance (g) Report annually as an and the HE sector on appendix to the report proven methods on detailed in (a) closing any pay gap. (h) Pay scales adjusted on (h) Ensure that the 1 August each year university continues to pay at least the living wage.

153

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.1 Develop a better With a view to a future Silver Data gathering and analysis Director of HR, Data available to understanding of focus, the university will need processes implemented by HR Recruitment inform Silver level recruitment experiences to collate intersectionality data December 2018. Manager, action plan in 2021. of intersectional staff in order to inform future action Information (gender with age, plans. Analyst (E&D) disability, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation), through collecting and analysing recruitment data on intersectionalities.

154

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.2 Further develop staff The University’s induction Working group formed by Director of HR, Induction induction processes, processes are rated above the November 2018 and iSAT Chair, Head continues to be following the findings of sector average by all revised induction resources of E&D, Deputy rated above the the University’s strategy participant groups, but there and processes developed Principal, sector average by development process, are variations in gender by November 2019. Director of all participant through forming a working response with men seeming to CAPOD groups, and party to consider the inter- be less engaged. appraisals of utility relationship, timing and by gender vary by processes of induction. no more than 2%.

155

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.3 Further develop an The University’s promotion (a) Develop guidance for (a) Director of (a) Guidance and informed promotions processes have been revised to Heads of School by HR, iSAT applied by all process that encourages take better account of teaching January 2019 Chair, Head Heads of and supports application, contributions and to encourage (b) Review effectiveness of of E&D, School by through: application from all eligible promotions awareness Deputy January 2020. (a) Using insights from the staff – the effectiveness of sessions by January Principal (b) At least 50% of Academic Review and these amendments will 2020 (b) Director of eligible staff Development process to continue to be evaluated and (c) Enact policy by January HR, Deputy engaged in a provide guidance for maintaining our robust 2018 Principal promotions Heads of School. approach to the exclusion of (c) HR Business awareness (b) Continuing to offer and bias will continue. Partners process by develop promotions January 2020. process awareness (c) All staff sessions annually and involved in evaluating the outcomes. promotion (c) Requiring all staff processes will involved in promotions have processes to complete completed online unconscious bias unconscious training. bias training from January 2018 forwards.

156

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.4 Ensure REF2021 processes The University’s REF processes (a) Deliver code of practice (a) Director of REF submission are transparent, equitable have historically been fair, but by May 2018 HR, VP with equal (i.e. and fair through: there was a dip in submission (b) Deliver E&D Research, proportional) rates (a) Establishing a code of percentages in the last round; implications on REF Director of of submission by practice that ensures: we are committed to update to REB by May Research and gender in 2021. processes compliant with maintaining our robust 2018 Innovation employment law and approach to the exclusion of (c) Deliver focus group Services updated ECU REF bias in these processes. findings from STEMM (b) Director of guidance; Principal women to REB by May HR, VP Investigators complete 2018 Research Equality Act (2010) and (c) Head of E&D unconscious bias specific online training, and attend sessions utilising ECU REF materials. (b) Presenting the University Research Excellence Board (REB) with an update of E&D implications for the REF2021 under the proposed Environment template. (c) Holding a focus group involving women from STEMM schools to consider research support for REF.

157

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.5 Improve uptake of review The University’s review and (a) Head of School (a) Deputy Uptake above 90% and development development processes are commitment mandated Principal, HR by 2021 for processes through: generally well regarded (based by December 2018 Business established staff (a) Requiring Head of on sectoral comparisons) but strategic planning cycle Partners School commitment to the uptake could be improved. (b) Mailshots publicising (b) Director of CROS survey data relevant RDS and ARDS on RDS / ARDS training HR continue to track an annual cycle. every six months in (c) Head of E&D above national (b) Publicising training on January and June and averages in the the RDS / ARDS and uptake assessed in period to 2021 and monitoring uptake. February and July broadly the same (c) Monitor uptake and (c) Review gender for men and perceptions by gender and breakdown and women (+/- 5%) at assess reasons. perceptions through the end of the focus groups in March period and August 2019, feed data into annual publicity from 2020

158

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.6 Investigate the potential The University’s maternity (a) Maternity leave (a) VP Improved for improvements in support is clearly well regarded extension proposals Governance institutional maternity provision (in comparison with sector developed by the (working satisfaction rates through: averages) and staff assessment Culture and group chair) with maternity (a) Developing and of this has generally become Organization working (b) iSAT Chair provision in 2019 reviewing proposals for more positive, but we remain group and sent to the (and later) survey extensions to the period of committed to exploring Principal’s Office by July data. paid maternity leave opportunities to enhance 2018 provided by the university support in this area. (b) Analysis of 2019 staff from 16 weeks to 20 survey completed by weeks. July 2020 with (b) Using the 2019 staff recommendations for survey to probe action where differences in experience appropriate between PSS and academic staff groups.

159

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.7 Improve engagement with KiT day uptake is clearly well (a) Presentations to (a) Director of KiT day uptake KiT days through: above the latest available AHSSBL dSATs HR increased to at (a) HRBP Family Friendly national average, but has not completed by (b) Head of E&D least 50% by Policies specialist to been increasing progressively November 2018 (c) Chief November 2021. present on KiT Days and and it is desirable to support (b) Electronic updates and Operating Shared parental leave in and encourage further uptake outreach completed by Officer touch. (SPLIT) Days amongst staff, as a key element end of November 2017 process at each AHSSBL in our supportive approach to (c) Facilities increased as dSAT as part of Family transitions back to work. part of estates Friendly Policy Provision. Addition practical steps for development plan each (b) Enhancing the level of parents with babies are also year from 2018 awareness of KiT / SPLIT integral to this. onwards, and online Days provision through guide produced and updating and updated in June of each disseminating policy year from 2018 component ‘Appendix 3: onwards Guidance for Heads of School/Unit’ in consultation with line- managers, trades unions, iSAT and dSATs. (c) Increasing the baby- changing-facilities across campus and providing awareness of locations to staff/students.

160

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.8 Develop approaches to Maternity return rates in the (a) Data collected and (a) Director of Excellent improve post maternity university are clearly above the analysed annually in HR (comparative) return, through: national average (by 10%) but October of each year (b) Head of E&D return rates (a) Collecting data there is considerable variation (b) Scheme launched and (c) Head of E&D, maintained at 87% annually on reasons why by grade, with lower numbers information HR E&D or above. staff left after maternity amongst research staff in disseminated by March Assistant leave through online exit particular, although there may 2019 surveys, exit interviews, be some conflation with FTC (c) Guide, communication and correspondence. conclusions. and signposting (b) Launching a buddy activities completed by system for staff to make March 2019 following contact with before, consultation with iSAT during and after maternity leave, with signposting on the maternity leave policy webpage and dSAT E&D webpages. (c) Developing an online guide listing locations of expressing milk provision across campus, and promote via iSAT, dSATs and signposting in the maternity leave policy.

161

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.9 Develop insights into the 100% of staff taking paternity Focus group findings Head of E&D, Confirmation that uptake of paternity leave leave take up the full 2-week gathered and analysed by Director of HR no additional and the need for any allocation, but there has been April 2018 with any support is required, additional support, limited uptake of the enhanced recommendations being or enhanced policy through: paternity leave and formal implemented by April 2019 and support (a) Arranging a focus shared parental leave offered developed by April group with academics and by the university; we are keen 2019. PSS staff in AHSBBL and to encourage staff to make the STEMM who have taken most of this flexibility. Paternity Leave during 2015/16 and 2016/17 to ascertain variations in experiences and potential policy or provision changes. (b) Arranging a focus group with partners (mixed and same gender) with children, both employed by the university, on shared parental leave.

162

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.10 Undertake modernisation An increase of policy (a) Publication by October (a) Director of Publication of of flexible working awareness is required, and an 2018 and refreshed HR flexible working through: update of systems to record annually to October (b) HR Business case studies by (a) Publication of case application success rates. While 2021 Partner October 2018 and studies on academics we welcome local collegial (b) Content policy changes (Flexible annually to requesting flexible flexibility, integrating processes by February 2018 with Working October 2021 working from within the formally will help us to link up review in February 2019 Lead) University and examples other supportive provision. (c) Wider promotion of (c) Director of First Policy review from across HE. reviewed policy by HR undertaken by (b) Updating the Flexible March 2018 (d) HR Business February 2018. Working Policy by: (d) Reviewed policy Partners Second policy inserting FAQs for explained to all Heads (e) School/Unit review undertaken, managers and staff; of School and Service managers, HR including broad removal of assumption Unit Directors from Business further that flexible working is a March 2018 to June Partners consultation, by permanent change to 2018 February 2019. contract; removal of the 3- (e) Applications month processing systematically provided Data on flexible timeframe; and from Schools/ Units working conducting another review using reviewed policy applications to determine policy from March 2018 consistently effectiveness. recorded from (c) Wider promotion of the March 2018. Flexible Working Policy through inclusion of Gender analysis of managing flexible working success rates requests in the ‘HR Policies presented to iSAT for Managers’ course. and dSATs annually (d) Explanation of the from March 2019. reviewed policy to all Heads of School and Service Unit Directors.

163

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures (e) Requiring School/Unit flexible working applications to be processed centrally by HR, and managed by HR Business Partners.

164

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.11 Implement stronger Our data show that the (a) Already enacted in the (a) Director of High levels of staff support for transition from University does not have any 2017 promotion round; HR, Deputy satisfaction (90% or part-time to full-time particular issues in this area, written into draft policy Principal greater) with part- work, through: however comparison with and guidance and (b) Head of E&D time to full-time (a) Ensuring that the practice and policy across the considered at Panel (c) Director of transitions, to be Academic Promotion sector has revealed helpful meetings; will be HR, VP assessed in 2021 Procedure acknowledges good practices which we are confirmed and ratified Research, VP staff survey. the reduction in outputs keen to adopt. for the 2018 and later Teaching and due to family-friendly promotion rounds Learning working and that this (b) Program developed and (d) Head of E&D reduction does not impact launched by April 2020 (e) iSAT Chair, adversely on the (c) Program developed and Head of E&D academic’s career. launched by April 2020 (b) Launching a ‘Ramp (d) Network and supporting Back Program’, designed online guidance for birth established by mothers/adopters to ease December 2018 back to full time work with (e) Promotion of the up to 4 weeks of flexible Daphne Jackson Trust working after their leave, and the Royal Dorothy which can be operated in Hodgkin Fellowship any way to suit their through iSAT and dSATs personal circumstances. by November 2018 and (c) Providing ‘scholarship inclusion in online time’ for academics guidance by the same returning from a career date. break or extended family- friendly leave; this would excuse them from other work for up to 3 months, to allow them to re- establish their research

165

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures portfolio and draft grant applications, or (for teaching-only staff) develop new teaching materials, modules and pedagogic research plans. (d) Implementing a support network for academics returning to full-time employment, building on best HE sector practice and offering guidance, mentoring and networking events. (e) Increasing the awareness of the Daphne- Jackson trust scheme encouraging and supporting scientists, engineers and technologists returning to academic life following a career break.

166

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.12 Provide further Childcare provision and (a) Information gathered (a) Head of E&D High levels of staff improvements to childcare support in the university is and signposted to staff (b) Head of E&D satisfaction (90% or provision and support, already very good, but insights by March 2018 (c) Director of greater) with through: from staff have suggested (b) Survey completed by Sport and childcare provision (a) Working with local further enhancements that April 2018 Exercise and support, to be providers and the Scottish would be welcome – and that (c) Operation of camps (d) Head of E&D assessed in 2021 Families Information fresh information and June / July / August survey. Service to Create a list of awareness-raising would be 2018 and annually local child-minders helpful. thereafter providing ad-hoc last- (d) Mobile crèche scheme minute childcare. arrangements in place (b) Conducting a review on from January 2018 childcare and nursery provision by surveying staff/students online. (c) Supporting the Sports Centre to run holiday camps during non-term- time and school closure dates annually. (d) Providing mobile crèche facilities on demand (from a central institutional crèche fund organised by E&D) to supporting key events, seminars, visiting speakers and inaugural lectures.

167

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.13 Build on our strengths in Support for carers in the (a) The fora will be (a) Chief Renewal of Healthy supporting carers, university is excellent and as launched on World Information Working Lives through: such is recognised by external Cancer Day (4 February Officer, Head Silver award and (a) Creating a new Carers accreditations. We see an 2018) of E&D, Carer Positive and Parent’s Forum both opportunity to build on these (b) Courses to be delivered Wellbeing Employer award in-person and as an online strengths as sector champions, in October-November Group Chair moving from portal. particularly through more work 2018 period (b) Head of Engaged to (b) Running ‘Wellbeing for with students. (c) Renewal of Healthy Organisationa Established level Carers’ course and Working Lives Silver l & Staff (target dates ‘Introduction to Dementia award in April 2018 Development detailed under and making the most of (d) Review of the Caring (c) Head of ‘timescale’) retained skills’ courses. Fund completed in Organisationa (c) Renewing the Healthy March 2018 and l & Staff Working Lives Silver annually thereafter Development award. (e) Supporting Carers (d) Deputy (d) Reviewing the Caring Statement reviews in Director of Fund to assess financial January 2018 and HR adequacy on an annual January 2020 (e) Head of E&D basis. (f) Renewal of the Carer (f) Director of (e) Conducting an EIA / Positive Employer HR, VP review on the Supporting award in July 2018 Governance, Carers statement. (g) Assessment of student Head of E&D (f) Renewing the Carer caring provision (g) Head of E&D, Positive Employer award, completed between Deputy including external scrutiny February and July 2018 Director of of policies and provision, (h) Caring resources Admissions, and sharing good care available and President of practice with Scottish HEIs. signposting completed Students’ (g) Undertaking self- by September 2018 Association, assessment of student Director of caring provision, involving Student the Carers Trust. Services

168

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures (h) Ensuring that all non- (h) Head of E&D STEMM schools signpost staff and students to online carer’s provision through newly created E&D webpages, which include AS activity.

169

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.14 Continue to develop, Support for carers in the (a) Training to be (a) Head of E&D Satisfactory communicate and university is excellent and as completed by July 2018 (b) Head of E&D assessment of implement policy such is recognised by external (b) Completion of focus (c) Director of policy provision, effectively, adding to accreditations – we see an group work and HR, HR through discussion current practice through: opportunity to build on these recommendations Business in iSAT meeting, (a) Extending unconscious strengths as sector champions, formulated by July 2018 Partners late 2018. bias training to all line particularly through more work (c) Promotion of policies in (d) Director of managers. with students. January 2018 and HR, HR (b) Focus groups with staff annually thereafter for Systems on policy on bullying and all updated content Team harassment, to identify (d) Distribution of leaflet whether staff survey versions of policies and question needs better web-searchable elaboration or remedial HR Policies (working actions required. with IT Services) by July (c) Re-promoting policies 2018 through HR Business Partner explaining changes at School/Unit team meetings, with further promotion via School/Unit memos and social media. (d) Providing leaflet style hard-copies of policies in each School / Unit office / management area, with separate versions for managers and staff and improve access to online policies.

170

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.15 Continue to consider and The university has recently Review operationalization iSAT Satisfactory refine workload model introduced mandatory of principles through representative workload model principles to support workload model principles in feedback to iSAT by members, iSAT principles equitable loads and order to provide better and November 2018 and Chair, Deputy operationalization committee participation, clearer support for equitable introduce any necessary Principal confirmed by iSAT through: loads and committee modifications by August in August 2019 Reviewing the participation, and the 2019 operationalization of the effectiveness of this will be mandatory workload monitored. model principles introduced in August 2017 and introducing adjustments where necessary.

171

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.16 Continue to monitor and The university has recently (a) Issue reminders about (a) Deputy Revised core hours reform the arrangement adopted mandatory core hours January 2020 core hours Principal, iSAT in operation across of institutional meetings across all academic schools and change in November Chair all schools and the and social gatherings, has plans in place to monitor 2019 (b) iSAT widest possible PSS through: adoption, and to further refine (b) Report on core hours members grouping by (a) Moving schools to a and spread best practice to PSS adoption to iSAT Chair (c) Principal, January 2020. narrower core hour range and senior management in August 2018 and Chief of 10:00am to 4:00pm. groups. August 2020 Operating (b) Monitoring successful (c) Review of practice and Officer, iSAT adherence to core hours recommendations for chair policy. adoption of core hours (c) While recognizing and limitations by specific on-call and late August 2019 working needs, exploring the implementation of core hours to PSS and senior management groups.

172

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.17 Monitor participation in, The university is committed to (a) Schools consulted and (a) Head of E&D All necessary and effects of, outreach and values highly its outreach outreach data analysed (d) Director of adjustments to and impact activities and impact activities and by November 2018 and HR, Deputy policies and through: wishes to ensure gender any necessary Principal, iSAT processes in place (a) Surveying schools balanced participation and adjustments to policy Chair by the stated dates through Heads of Schools appropriate reward for these and process developed (e) Director of under ‘timescale’. to develop a picture of activities. by November 2019 Admissions staff and student (b) Promotions round data engagement in outreach, from 2018 reviewed by widening access and August 2018 and any impact activities. necessary adjustments (b) Reviewing promotions to policy and process outcomes, making specific developed by January records for decisions 2019 affected by evaluations of (c) Gender balance data impact and outreach collated and analysed activities. by November 2018 and (c) Monitoring gender any necessary balance of pupils in adjustments to policy Widening Access and process developed programmes, and by November 2019 considering whether action is necessary.

173

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 5.18 Continue our commitment The university is committed to All AHSSBL schools Principal, Deputy All AHSSBL Schools to active engagement in the charter principles and completing their Principal, Heads complete AS processes through active participation right across applications for Bronze of AHSSBL submission by April applications from all the institution. awards by April 2019 Schools, Head of 2019. AHSSBL schools. E&D

174

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 6.1 In conjunction with the The university is committed to (a) Further renewal of LGBT (a) Head of E&D, Renewal of the renewal of the LGBT maintaining its strong support Charter by October Chair of the LGBT Charter by Charter (already renewed for trans staff and students in 2021. Workshops Equality October 2021. ion 2017) continue to the context of its broader offered annually from Compliance provide strong support to commitment to the LGBTIQ+ March 2018 onwards Group Broader range of the trans community communities, and active (b) Internal and external (b) Head of E&D gender-neutral through: engagement has identified consultation on staff (c) Head of E&D titles on staff forms (a) Holding an annual areas or further enhancement. titles undertaken by (d) Head of E&D, and databases, and Transgender Inclusion May 2018 as part of President of greater Trans and Workshop facilitated by a International Day Students’ non-binary trainer from LGBT Youth against Homophobia, Association monitoring data Scotland for managers. Transphobia & Biphobia available (the latter (b) Establish a broader (IDAHOT). Confirmed also assessed range of gender-neutral titles in place within HR annually), from titles on staff forms and by September 2018. September 2018. databases. (c) GIRES module offered (c) Promoting the Gender annually from February All planned events Identity Research and 2018 onwards and training Education Society. (GIRES) (d) Pride event held opportunities employer focused module annually from February delivered on to all managers. 2018 onwards with schedule in/by (d) Supporting the running external agencies February 2018. of St Andrews Pride participation (Terrance annually in partnership Higgins Trust, Fife with external support LGBTI+ Network, LGBT agencies. Youth Scotland, Scottish Trans Alliance, Stonewall Scotland)

175

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 6.2 We will continue to The university is committed to (a) Complete increase in (a) Director of Expanded gender- respond positively to maintaining its strong support provision gender- Estates neutral toilet feedback from the trans for trans staff and students, in neutral toilet provision (b) Head of E&D, provision in place community and take the context of its broader by November 2018 Director of by November 2018, appropriate action, commitment to the LGBTIQ+ (b) Website updates on Corporate with website of including: communities, and to acting on gender-neutral toilet Comms. locations in place (a) Increasing the current feedback about particular provision complete by (c) Director of by December 2018. gender-neutral toilet issues, concerns and December 2018 HR, Director provision by 67% to 128 opportunities. (following the of Corporate Overlapping with units (further units will completion of (a) Comms. action 6.1(d), forms also follow as part of the above) and pronoun use mainstreamed practice for (c) Changes to forms aligned by all new build and implemented by September 2018. refurbishment September 2018 programmes). (b) Creating hyperlinks from Staff Induction packs and Student Matriculation materials to signposted gender neutral provision via online campus map. (c) Aligning institutional policies and practices to the ECU and Scottish Trans & Non-Binary Guidance, covering design of forms and the use of names and pronouns.

176

Action Rationale Timescale Responsibility Success measures 6.3 We will continue to The university is committed to Review action planning iSAT Chair Representation of engage proactively with maintaining its strong support working group membership LGBT staff and LGBTIQ+ and specific trans for trans staff and students, in annually from August 2018 students is issues through: the context of its broader to accommodate rolling maintained and Engaging LGBT staff / commitment to the LGBTIQ+ student membership. confirmed annually student network communities. in August of each representatives in the year from 2018 ongoing action planning onwards. working group.

177

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]

178