Athena SWAN Bronze Department award renewal application
Name of institution: Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) Department: School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science (EECS)
Date of application: 29 April 2016 Athena SWAN process: pre-May 2015
Date of university Bronze and/or Silver SWAN award: 2008 (Renewed most recently in 2014) Date of department Bronze award: 2012 Level of award applied for: Bronze
Contact for application: Elaine Chew Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0 20 7882 5813 Departmental website address: www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk
Please note: This application follows major leadership changes in both EECS and QMUL. As a result of the turnover in senior management, the ECU granted us a one-year extension for this Bronze renewal application.
Athena SWAN Bronze Department award renewals recognise that in addition to university-wide policies the department has made progress in promoting gender equality and addressing challenges particular to the discipline. It is expected that after three years Athena SWAN Bronze Department award holders should be at the stage to make a new application for a Silver Department award. However, in exceptional circumstances a Bronze Department renewal award submission can be made.
Page 1 / 49 List of abbreviations
AP Action Plan
BUPT Beijing University of Post and Telecommunication
CAPD Centre for Academic and Professional Development
CDT Centre for Doctoral Training
CPD Continuing Professional Development
CS Computer Science
CS4FN Computer Science for Fun (magazine)
CSC China Scholarship Council
ECU Equality Challenge Unit
EDO Equality and Diversity Office
EE Electronic Engineering
EECS School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science
FTC Fixed-term Contract
HoG Head of Group
HoS Head of School
HR Human Resources
ICT Information and Communications Technology
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering
JP Joint Programme
MAT Media and Arts Technology
PDRA Postdoctoral Research Assistant
PDRF Postdoctoral Research Fellow
PG Postgraduate
PGCAP Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice
PGR Postgraduate Research
Page 2 / 49 PGT Postgraduate Taught
QMUL Queen Mary University of London
RCUK Research Councils United Kingdom
SAT Self-Assessment Team
S&E Science and Engineering
SMT Senior Management Team
STEMM Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine
Survey 2015 EECS Staff Culture Survey
T&R Teaching and Research
T&S Teaching and Scholarship
UCU University and College Union
UG Undergraduate
VP Vice Principal
WIE Women in Engineering
WISE Women in Science and Engineering
1. Letter of endorsement from the Head of Department – max 500 words
An accompanying letter of endorsement from the Head of Department should explain how the SWAN action plan and activities in the department have and will in future contribute to the overall department strategy and academic mission.
The letter is an opportunity for the Head of Department to confirm their support for the renewal application and to endorse and commend any women and SET activities that have made a significant contribution to the achievement of the departmental mission.
Page 3 / 49
Queen Mary University of London Mile End Road, London E1 4NS Tel: 020 7882 5555
Prof. Geraint A. Wiggins School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science Sarah Dickinson Direct Tel: 020 7882 5200 Head of Equality Charters Fax: 020 7882 7064 Website: www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk Equality Challenge Unit, 7th Floor Queens House 55/56 Lincoln’s Inn Fields London WC2A 3LI
15 April 2016
Dear Sarah, The School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) at Queen Mary University of London is proud to be part of the Athena SWAN campaign, and fully endorses its Charter. An academic department is a social enterprise, and EECS is like any other in this respect. The consequence for such an enterprise in which half of the population is systematically underrepresented it is losing the talent of a large proportion of the population. This is a state of affairs that requires change. Since our 2012 Bronze award, EECS has encouraged women to join our organisation at all levels, and to put in place actions to support and retain them. We have found that the vast majority of changes that improve prospects for women also improve prospects for men. We are working to improve involvement of women at all levels of electronic engineering and computer science, from high school (which we can influence via indirect means) through to professor. In doing so, I have been heartened to learn of the keenness of my male colleagues to help put the imbalance right. The results of everyone’s efforts are laid out in this submission. Our young people’s outreach activities, which include the nationally recognised CS4FN (CS for Fun) magazine (cs4fn.org), are carefully aimed at both genders, with regular emphasis on the importance of women in the history of EE and CS. We recently renamed our meeting rooms, used by students, after prominent women contributors, and commemorative plaques are being made. These are examples of how we provide role models for the female scientists of tomorrow: this is where change is most directly achieved.
Patron: Her Majesty the Queen
Letter of Endorsement: Page 1 of 2 Incorporated by Royal Charter as Queen Mary & Westfield College, University of London
Historically, EECS has been successful in recruiting a higher percentage of female undergraduate students (21%) than the national average (15%), and we want to increase it even further. We specifically aim to make our recruitment events friendly to all genders, and we are actively seeking ways to be more attractive to potential female applicants. At postgraduate level, EECS has three organisations promoting female involvement, G.Hack (Girls who Hack, ghack.eecs.qmul.ac.uk), IEEE WIE (Women in Engineering, ieeesb.elec.qmul.ac.uk/category/wie-news), and WISE@QMUL (Women in Science and Engineering, wiseqml.wordpress.com). We actively support all students, undergraduate and postgraduate, who organise networking and training activities for all genders. An innovation of which I am proud to have personally set in place is our systematic proactive encouragement for junior academics to apply for promotion—now a formal element in our annual cycle. Since it is well known that women are less likely to apply for early promotion, I believe that, over time, such proactivity will afford substantially fairer rewards. EECS’ Athena SWAN activities have achieved much since 2012 but there is still a long way to go. Our action plan charts a course that, as Head of School, I will ensure we follow with enthusiasm and commitment. I endorse the plan in full. I confirm that the information presented in this application is an honest, accurate and true representation of the department.
Yours sincerely,
Geraint A. Wiggins Professor of Computational Creativity & Head of School
500 words (main text)
Letter of Endorsement: Page 2 of 2
2. The self-assessment process – max 1000 words
Describe the self-assessment process. This should include: a) A description of the self-assessment team: members’ roles (both within the department and as part of the team) and their experiences of work-life balance, parental leave, flexible working etc.;
The SAT has 17 members of EECS and the BUPT Joint Programme (JP), representing a range of career stages, family arrangements, home responsibilities, and management experiences.
Dr. Kat Agres – PDRA in the Cognitive Science group and Computational Creativity and Music Cognition labs. She has experience recruiting and mentoring undergraduate / PhD students from her previous US institution.
Professor Elaine Chew – Athena SWAN Champion and University Gender Equality SAT member, is Professor of Digital Media and Director of Music Initiatives for the Centre for Digital Music. Moving from the US to the UK in 2011, she is in a dual- career family and is co-primary carer for a 6-year-old child.
Sharon Cording – EECS Finance Manager, has served on interview panels for professional staff appointments. In a dual-career family, she works part time (0.6) and is co-primary carer for a 7-year-old child.
Dr. Felix Cuadrado – Data Team co-Lead, is Senior Lecturer in Networks, Programme Coordinator of the MSc in Big Data Science, teaches in the BUPT JP, has recruited PhD students and RAs, and been on lectureship interview panels.
Professor Paul Curzon – Outreach Projects Lead, has served as School Director of Public Engagement and led recruitment panels for RAs, PhDs, administrative posts, and short-term/part-time jobs. In a dual-career family, he works part time (0.9), is co-primary carer of a 4 and a 16 year old.
Ioana Dalca – Data Analyst, is a PhD Candidate in the Music Cognition Laboratory of the Centre for Digital Music.
Elizabeth Deacon – JP Operations Manager, manages three administrative staff in London and remotely in Beijing. Sits on recruitment panels for administrative staff. She works flexibly (0.5) around part-time MSc for CPD.
Dr. Dorien Herremans – Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action Fellow with experience in PhD and MSc student recruitment. Her partner is a full time academic.
Dr. Andrew McPherson – Senior Lecturer in Digital Media. He is first year curriculum coordinator for the MAT Centre for Doctoral Training, and has been involved PhD
Page 6 / 49 and PDRA recruitment. In a dual academic career family, he moved to the UK from the US in 2011.
Dr. Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh – Athena SWAN Website Lead, is a Lecturer and EPSRC Career Acceleration Fellow. She has recruited postdocs and PhD students. In a dual- career family, her spouse is also a full-time academic.
Dr. Jesus Requena Carrion – Data Team Member, is a Lecturer in Hardware Design teaching in the BUPT JP. He has recruited PhD students. In a dual-career family, he is co-primary carer of 7- and 3-year-old children.
Professor Edmund Robinson – Staff Development and Equality Coordinator, is Head of the Theory Group, and Treasurer and National Committee Member of the Council of Professors and Heads of Computing. He was former Head of School, with extensive experience in recruitment and promotion processes. Until recently, had caring responsibilities for a disabled live-in father-in-law.
Dr. Daniel Stowell – Data Team co-Lead, is an EPSRC Early Career Research Fellow with experience in PhD recruitment and supervision.
Siying Wang – Secretary of the IEEE Student Branch and Chair of its Women in Engineering charter, is a PhD student in the Music Informatics Laboratory of the Centre for Digital Music.
Professor Caroline Wardle – Athena SWAN Advisor, is a Visiting Professor. Whilst working at the National Science Foundation in the US, she headed a national effort to increase opportunities for women in computing. She is a single parent of a grown- up daughter whom she adopted as a baby.
Professor Geraint Wiggins – Head of EECS and Professor of Computational Creativity. A researcher and composer, his works have been performed in Scotland and America. As a gay man, he is particularly interested in matters of equality.
Dr Graham White – Lecturer, Senior PhD tutor, and course coordinator for Computer Science and Mathematics. Shares caring responsibilities with spouse for elderly and infirm parents who do not live locally.
Page 7 / 49 b) An account of the self-assessment process, with reference to year-on-year activities since the original Department award application, details of the self-assessment team meetings, including any consultation with staff or individuals inside or outside of the university, and how these have fed into the submission;
This application follows an intense period of leadership changes at the School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science (the School) and at QMUL (the University), impacting both on general management and on staff with specific responsibility for Diversity and Athena SWAN. For example, the Vice Principal (VP) for the Faculty of Science and Engineering (S&E), who was the University’s Athena SWAN Lead, resigned in 2014; his replacement became University Athena SWAN Lead in January 2016. The University’s Diversity Specialist left in 2014. A new Director of HR was appointed in January 2015, who brought in a Diversity and Inclusion Officer in November 2015.
EECS’ Head of School (HoS) changed over in 2014. Our Athena SWAN Champion moved to another university in 2013. The present HoS (Wiggins) and Athena SWAN Champion (Chew) started their roles in September 2014.
As a result, a new EECS Athena SWAN Self Assessment Team (SAT) was formed in Fall 2014, and has been meeting monthly. Athena SWAN updates are a standing item in School meetings, SAT meeting minutes are shared with the School, and the Athena SWAN Champion presents regular progress reports to the University’s Gender Equality Self Assessment Team. In July 2015, the SAT convened an Athena SWAN Away Day to discuss strategies and ways forward.
The SAT created and administered a staff culture survey (henceforth referred to as the Survey) in summer 2015, following up with analysis and actions. The results were reported back to the School in September.
c) Plans for the future of the self-assessment team, such as how often the team will continue to meet, any reporting mechanisms and in particular how the self assessment team intends to monitor implementation of the action plan.
The SAT will meet monthly to monitor progress and adapt actions as necessary. The SMT with review progress on the 2016 Action Plan (AP) each year.
The SAT will continue to present updates and reports as a standing item in the School meetings. SAT meeting minutes will be shared with the School.
The Athena SWAN Champion will continue to report activities and updates to the University’s Gender Diversity Self Assessment Team.
Page 8 / 49 Between our Survey and the College staff survey, we will ensure a culture survey is administered each year to track progress resulting from the actions.
966 words
Page 9 / 49
3. A picture of the department – maximum 2000 words a) Provide a pen-picture of the department to set the context for the application, outlining in particular any significant changes since the original award.
The School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) is part of the Faculty of Science and Engineering (S&E) and was created by the merger of the Department of Computer Science (CS) and the Department of Electronic Engineering (EE) in 2007-2008. For historical and space reasons, EE and CS staff are split across two buildings, with the administrative unit co-located with CS. Legacy structures remain that prevent students enrolled in CS courses from selecting EE modules and vice versa.
The academic and research staff total 143, of which 31 are women. Each academic staff member is associated with at least one of eight research groups: Antennas and Electromagnetics, Computer Vision, Networks, Risk and Information Management, Theoretical Computer Science, Centre for Digital Music, Interaction and Media Communication, and Multimedia and Vision. The School also hosts two interdisciplinary research centres: the Media and Arts Technology (MAT) and the Centre for Intelligent Sensing.
The School has 125 postgraduate taught (PGT) Masters and 175 postgraduate research (PGR) students, and 56 postdoctoral researchers (PDRAs). There are 14 undergraduate (UG) and 13 postgraduate (PG) taught programmes in EECS. The School is host to a Research Councils UK (RCUK) Doctoral Training Centre (DTC) in MAT.
EECS also has international UG degree programmes with the Beijing University of Post and Technology (BUPT) in China. Students in this Joint Program (JP) are largely taught at BUPT, with QMUL staff traveling to Beijing to teach. UG students in Beijing far outnumber those in London. In response to panel feedback, the SAT has included data on this international program.
A significant proportion of JP teaching staff are female lecturers, formerly on contracts without promotion prospects or access to doctoral supervision. Consequently, the School has created Teaching & Scholarship (T&S) academic contracts which opens up pathways to promotion for teaching staff, and taken action to transition all JP T&S staff to these new contracts. Started in 2016 the University is running a pilot in the Science and Engineering Faculty for a new promotion pathway for staff in roles focused on teaching & scholarship using a template developed in EECS.
The School recognises a lack of female academic role models in positions of power and decision making. Since our last application, two out of three senior women academics have left EECS. To strengthen the pipeline, the School has improved its
Page 10 / 49 recruitment and selection processes to reach out to qualified female candidates to encourage them to apply for newly available academic posts, and proactively identifies female candidates and provides mentoring for preparing promotion applications. AP 3.3: EECS to actively identify and reach out to qualified female candidates to encourage them to apply for new academic positions.
EECS to ensure academic jobs are widely circulated, especially to mailing lists targeting female researchers.
Undergraduate EE and CS women are a small minority in the national student population. To encourage entry to the fields, the School has run internationally recognised local and national campaigns for over 10 years promoting the two subjects using contextually rich stories and activities that show what can be achieved with technical skills. The School also publishes a widely praised CS4FN (CS for Fun) magazine (cs4fn.org).
Our female PGR students, with support from the School and University, have built network and support groups for women, such as G.Hack (Girls who Hack, ghack.eecs.qmul.ac.uk) and IEEE WIE (Women in Engineering, ieeesb.elec.qmul.ac.uk/category/wie-news). The School backs the QMUL IEEE WIE Affinity Group, a local-level group of IEEE WIE dedicated to inspiring female students to follow their academic interests to a career in engineering.
The above are but a few of a series of continuing and planned actions to demonstrate EECS’ commitment to creating a culture where female academics and researchers can thrive.
Page 11 / 49 b) Provide data and a short analysis for at least the last three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following, commenting on changes and progress made against the original action plan and application, and initiatives intended for the action plan going forward.
Student data (i) Access and foundation male and female numbers – full and part time.
EECS does not offer foundation courses.
(ii) Undergraduate male and female numbers – full and part-time.
The School runs UG degree programmes at its Mile End campus in London, and in Beijing as part of the BUPT Joint Programme. The programmes in London span Computer Science (technical and engineering), Electronic Engineering, and IT (business-related approaches). The programmes in Beijing relate predominantly to Electronic Engineering (Telecommunications, Multimedia, and Internet of Things), with an additional IT program on e-Commerce. There are approximately 800 students in London and over 2400 in Beijing.
Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 show that female UG enrolment in the London UG programmes has been at least 20%, consistently putting us in the upper quartile of institutions nationally. In Beijing, the numbers are even higher, with female engineering students consistently 41% of the cohort. In the 2012 application, we did not have JP figures, these are now integrated into our analyses.
Table 3.1 Numbers and percentages of women in EECS’s London and Beijing UG degree programmes between 2010 and 2015, in comparison to national median, and lower and upper quartiles (combined CS and EE figures from HESA)
Undergraduate Students
QMUL EECS QMUL JP Women (Percent Representation)
National National QMUL QMUL Lower National Upper Year F M F M EECS JP Quartile Median Quartile
2010/11 188 602 24% 12% 15% 18%
2011/12 173 602 831 1174 22% 41% 12% 15% 18%
2012/13 152 624 852 1264 20% 41% 12% 15% 17%
2013/14 138 561 904 1349 20% 41% 12% 15% 18%
2014/15 159 608 964 1445 21% 41% 12% 15% 18%
Page 12 / 49 QMUL EECS Undergraduate Student Women Figures
700 30%
600 25% 500 20% 400 15% 300 10% 200
100 5%
0 0% 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Women Men
QMUL EECS National Lower Quartile
National Median National Upper Quartile
Figure 3.1 QMUL EECS (London) UG female vs. male student numbers (represented by histograms and axis on left) and percentages of women in the UG programmes (represented by lines and axis on right) between 2010 and 2015; histogram: in each pair, left bar mark female numbers, right bar mark male numbers; top line marks the QMUL EECS (London) female percentages, lower three lines show the national lower quartile, median, and upper quartile figures (combined CS and EE figures from HESA)
Page 13 / 49
Table 3.2 and Figure 3.2 illustrate that, consistently, a larger proportion of women receive first and upper second degree classifications than men. Women also tend to receive a third/pass less often than men. Thus, women who choose to pursue EECS degrees at QMUL tend to perform better than men.
Table 3.2 Numbers and percentages of women and men receiving different degree classifications in EECS (London) UG degree programmes over the three-year period 2012-2015
Degree classification F F M M
2012/13 First 12 25.0% 42 25.4%
2:1 16 34.3% 51 30.3%
2:2 14 28.9% 43 26.0%
Third/Pass 6 11.8% 31 18.3%
All qualifiers 47 100.0% 167 100.0%
2013/14 First 12 25.3% 25 15.3%
2:1 18 36.3% 56 33.8%
2:2 12 24.0% 57 34.4%
Third/Pass 7 14.4% 27 16.5%
All qualifiers 49 100.0% 166 100.0%
2014/15 First 12 25.2% 50 33.8%
2:1 20 42.1% 43 29.2%
2:2 12 25.2% 42 28.2%
Third/Pass 4 7.5% 13 8.8%
All qualifiers 46 100.0% 148 100.0%
Page 14 / 49
Figure 3.2 Proportions and percentages of women and men receiving different degree classifications in EECS (London) UG degree programmes over the three-year period 2012-2015
(iii) Postgraduate male and female numbers on and completing taught courses – full and part-time.
All postgraduate taught (PGT) programmes are offered in London only. Table 3.3 and Figure 3.3 show that, except for 2012/2013, the total number of PGT students has steadily decreased over the years due in part probably to changes in UK visa policies, but also to a national decline of EE programs. Overall, the numbers of women have decreased less, resulting in the percentage of women growing from low-20% in 2010-2012 to high-20% in 2013-2015. The numbers are consistently above the national median and, in 2013/14, in the upper quartile.
Table 3.3 Numbers and percentages of women in EECS PGT programmes in comparison to national median, and lower and upper quartiles (combined CS and EE figures from HESA) over the five-year period 2010-2015
Postgraduate Taught Students
QMUL EECS Women (Percent Representation)
National National Lower National Upper Year F M Total QMUL Quartile Median Quartile
2010/11 41 148 189 22% 14% 19% 24%
2011/12 34 110 144 24% 15% 20% 26%
2012/13 47 108 155 30% 16% 21% 27%
2013/14 40 96 136 29% 14% 22% 28%
2014/15 32 93 125 26% 14% 21% 30%
Page 15 / 49
QMUL EECS Postgraduate Taught Student Women Figures
160 35%
140 30% 120 25% 100 20% 80 15% 60 10% 40 20 5% 0 0% 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Women Men
QMUL National Lower Quartile
National Median National Upper Quartile
Figure 3.3 QMUL EECS PGT female vs. male student numbers (represented by histograms and axis on left) and percentages of women in the PGT programmes (represented by lines and axis on right) over the five-year period 2010-2015; higher line peaking at 2012/13 marks the QMUL EECS PG female percentages, other three lines show the national lower quartile, median, and upper quartile figures (combined CS and EE figures from HESA)
(iv) Postgraduate male and female numbers on research degrees and completion times – full and part-time.
EECS has experienced a steady growth of the number of PGR students, with the current cohort numbering 175. Table 3.4 and Figure 3.4 show that we have a healthy proportion of female PGR students, with figures well above the national upper quartile. We have found that women are particularly attracted to the Media and Arts Technology CDT as well as being a high proportion of the students recruited from China through the China Scholarship Council (CSC) scholarships.
Page 16 / 49 Table 3.4 Numbers and percentages of women in EECS PGR programmes in comparison to national median, and lower and upper quartiles (combined CS and EE figures from HESA) over the five-year period 2010-2015
Postgraduate Research
QMUL EECS Women (Percent Representation)
National National Lower National Upper Year F M Total QMUL Quartile Median Quartile
2010/11 45 100 145 31% 15% 20% 26%
2011/12 48 105 153 31% 17% 22% 28%
2012/13 54 117 171 32% 17% 20% 25%
2013/14 53 125 178 30% 17% 22% 25%
2014/15 63 112 175 36% 18% 22% 28%
QMUL PostGraduate Research Student Women Figures
140 40%
120 35% 30% 100 25% 80 20% 60 15% 40 10% 20 5% 0 0% 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Women Men QMUL National Lower Quartile National Median National Upper Quartile
Figure 3.4 QMUL EECS PGR female vs. male student numbers (represented by histograms and axis on left) and percentages of women in the PGR programmes (represented by lines and axis on right) over the five-year period 2010-2015; top line marks the QMUL EECS PG female percentages, lower three lines show the national lower quartile, median, and upper quartile figures (combined CS and EE figures from HESA)
Page 17 / 49
(v) Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender for undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research degrees.
Referring to Table 3.5 and Figures 3.5 and 3.6, over the past five years, the UG programmes have seen an increasing proportion of female applicants receiving offers; the percentage of these who accept the offers has fluctuated slightly. A similar pattern can be observed in the male figures, showing that women are not being disadvantaged in the recruitment process. The SAT will continue to monitor these figures to track trends in female recruitment.
Table 3.5 Numbers of applications, offers, and acceptances, and application: offer, application: acceptance, and offer: acceptance ratios for women and men, for UG, PGT, and PGR programmes, between 2010 and 2015
Applications to Offers to Number of Number of Number of Applications Acceptances Acceptances Applications Offers Acceptances to Offers ratio ratio ratio
Scheme Year F M F M F M F M F M F M
UG 10/11 387 1806 204 882 118 494 1.89 2.05 3.28 3.66 1.73 1.79
11/12 261 1190 152 700 81 402 1.72 1.70 3.22 2.96 1.87 1.74
12/13 273 1122 153 636 84 353 1.78 1.77 3.27 3.18 1.84 1.80
13/14 290 1338 191 775 106 456 1.52 1.73 2.73 2.94 1.80 1.70
14/15 310 1563 235 1020 135 541 1.32 1.53 2.30 2.89 1.74 1.88
PGT 10/11 280 801 221 608 101 276 1.27 1.32 2.77 2.90 2.19 2.21
11/12 213 577 171 450 95 246 1.25 1.28 2.24 2.34 1.79 1.83
12/13 227 640 187 499 103 269 1.21 1.28 2.20 2.38 1.82 1.86
13/14 266 575 204 420 114 225 1.30 1.37 2.33 2.56 1.79 1.87
14/15 260 535 207 405 118 214 1.26 1.32 2.21 2.51 1.76 1.90
PGR 10/11 99 287 35 70 26 50 2.83 4.10 3.81 5.74 1.35 1.40
11/12 107 286 29 67 21 55 3.69 4.27 5.10 5.20 1.38 1.22
12/13 107 292 29 67 21 55 3.69 4.36 5.10 5.31 1.38 1.22
13/14 81 271 20 80 18 66 4.05 3.39 4.50 4.11 1.11 1.21
14/15 139 296 35 57 34 44 3.97 5.19 4.09 6.73 1.03 1.30
Total 3300 11579 2073 6736 1175 3746 1.59 1.72 2.81 3.09 1.76 1.80
Page 18 / 49
Figure 3.5 Application: offer ratios for women vs. men, for UG, PGT, and PGR programmes over the five-year period 2010-2015
Figure 3.6 Application: acceptance ratios for women vs. men, for UG, PGT, and PGR programmes over the five-year period 2010-2015
Although the application numbers are fluctuating for women and men in the PGT programmes over the past five years, the proportion of female applicants receiving offers has been slightly higher than that for male applicants. This positive trend is also present in the offer-to-acceptance and application-to-acceptance figures. As in the UG case, the SAT will be monitoring the PGT recruitment numbers.
We find a different picture when we examine the PGR figures. The number of applicants, both female and male, was rising steadily for three years, then dropped in 2013/2014. However, this past year, there was a 72% increase in female applicants in contrast to a 9% increase in male applicants. We do not yet know the
Page 19 / 49 reason for the dip and sharp rise in numbers over these two years, and we will be examining this further. AP 2.1: EECS to monitor UG and PG student applicant, offer, and accept numbers by gender.
EECS to examine why PGR numbers dipped then rose sharply in past two years. Corrective action to be taken where possible.
Staff data (vi) Female:male ratio of academic staff and research staff – researcher, lecturer, senior lecturer, reader, professor (or equivalent).
The female-to-male academic staff gender ratio in S&E at QMUL approximately 1:4 (or 25%) over the last four years. Figure 3.7 shows the pipeline summary plot from undergraduate through to professor; Tables 3.6 and 3.7 provide the base figures.
Figure 3.7 Pipeline plot summarizing proportions of women (lower line) vs. men (upper line) across the spectrum from undergraduate through professor, averaged over the five-year period 2010-2015 (detailed numbers in sections below); HR figures did not differentiate between academics on research vs. scholarship tracks)
The percentage of women peaks at the PGR (PhD) and lecturer stages. The PGR peak is due in part to degree offerings attractive to female students; we hope it also reflects the success of the many networking groups and activities spearheaded by PGR students such as G.HACK (Girls who Hack, ghack.eecs.qmul.ac.uk), IEEE WIE (Women in Engineering, ieeesb.elec.qmul.ac.uk/category/wie-news), and WISE@QMUL (Women in Science and Engineering at QMUL, wiseqml.wordpress.com).
Page 20 / 49 AP 2.2: EECS to maintain support for at least two events per year led by professional networking groups targeting women.
EECS to provide travel awards for female PhD students to attend national or international professional networking activities.
The lecturer peak is due largely to the higher proportions of female lecturers on T&S contracts in the JP, as corroborated in Table 3.6 and Figure 3.8. This unexpected jump in female lecturer numbers in 2013/2014 is most likely due to the University’s HR system counting JP teaching staff (newly transitioned to T&S contracts) in the academic ranks from that year onwards. The University central data does not distinguish between T&S and T&R academic staff. Apart from the lecturer ranks boosted by JP teaching staff, the female:male ratio is low at the senior lecturer/reader level and the professor level.
Table 3.6 Number of female and male academic staff, and female:male academic staff gender ratio at different academic ranks in EECS over the four-year period 2011-2015
EECS Academic Staff 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Female 7 9 17 15
Lecturer Male 26 26 26 31
% Female 21% 26% 40% 33%
Female 3 4 4 5
Senior Lecturer / Reader Male 14 14 15 18
% Female 18% 22% 21% 22%
Female 1 2 1 1
Professor Male 15 16 17 17
% Female 6% 11% 6% 6%
Female 11 15 22 21
Total Male 55 56 58 66
% Female 17% 21% 28% 24%
Page 21 / 49
Figure 3.8 Number and proportion of female and male academic staff at lecturer, senior lecturer/reader, and professor ranks in EECS over the four-year period 2011-2015
The proportion of women is lowest at the professorial stage, where the absolute numbers (one or two) are too low to make ratios meaningful; the next lowest stage being the research assistants, where many women view the instability of short-term contracts as incompatible with family goals.
AP 2.3: EECS to administer focus group to investigate why female students tend not to choose research careers.
EECS to monitor PGR and PDRA/PDRF numbers.
EECS has a number of actions described in Section 4 addressing how we are working to increase the numbers of women at all academic levels, but in particular, at the senior levels, where we are lacking the most.
AP 3.3: EECS to actively identify and reach out to qualified female candidates to encourage them to apply for new academic positions.
EECS to ensure academic jobs are widely circulated, especially to mailing lists targeting female researchers.
Page 22 / 49
AP 3.7: EECS to maintain proactive identification of candidates for promotion and support for writing promotion applications.
EECS to compare the success rate of women applying for promotion to men applying for promotion to ensure the process is fair.
EECS to monitor success of programme of active promotion candidate identification.
Table 3.7 and Figure 3.9 show that, like the academic staff figures, the female research staff numbers are low, and decrease with pay grade. Informal conversations reveal that female PGR students tend to regard academic research careers as being unstable and incompatible with family goals. We will analyse further the reasons for this trend, and put in place actions to address the issues.
Table 3.7 Number of female and male research staff, and female:male research staff gender ratio at different academic ranks in EECS over the four-year period 2011-2015; Grade 4 corresponds to Masters or PhD students, Grade 5 to a beginning PDRA, and Grade 6 to a senior PDRA
EECS Research Assistants 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Female 7 6 4 8
RA Grade 4 Male 26 11 18 28
% Female 21% 35% 18% 22%
Female 5 2 3 2
RA Grade 5 Male 12 12 12 16
% Female 29% 14% 20% 11%
Female 1 0 1 0
RA Grade 6 Male 4 2 4 2
% Female 20% 0% 20% 0%
Female 13 8 8 10
Total Male 42 25 34 46
% Female 24% 24% 19% 18%
Page 23 / 49
Figure 3.9 Number and proportion of female and male research staff at pay grades 4, 5, and 6 in EECS over the four-year period 2011-2015
AP 3.1: EECS to analyse and identify reasons for low female research staff numbers.
School to develop and implement a PDRA development in response to findings.
(vii) Turnover by grade and gender – where numbers are small, comment why individuals left.
Numbers in Table 3.8 show that turnover for researchers are significantly higher than for academics. This is more than just a consequence of many PDRAs having fixed-term contracts; it is largely an artefact of some PDRAs moving from contract to contract when academics are able to provide brief contracts from grant money—for instance, the Centre for Digital Music’s EPSRC/AHRC Platform Grant provides short- term bridging funds for PDRA’s in between funding. The actual numbers of research staff leaving is often much lower; for example, in 2014/15 we find PDRA contracts ending for 19 male and 11 female researchers, when in fact the number of individuals leaving the institution is 3 or 4. (We are unable to perform an exact individual-attributed breakdown due to HR confidentiality limits.)
Page 24 / 49 Table 3.8 EECS yearly turnover (end-of-contract) figures by gender over the four-year period 2011- 2015
Gender 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Female 7 9 10 11 Researchers Male 22 26 16 19
Female 1 1 1 1 Academics Male 3 3 0 2
Academic staff turnover is consistently low for both genders each year. Over the period studied, one female staff academic left EECS per year, compared to an average of two male academics per year.
The women who leave are largely on T&R contracts, and to be senior or on track to becoming senior. Considering that 24% of academic staff are female (currently 21), and a little less than half (currently 10) are on T&R contracts, this means that T&R female staff are leaving at one per year, which is about 3.5 times the rate of other staff. Thus, the greatest impact of the turnover can be seen in the decline in the number and proportion of senior female academics, especially those in T&R.
Examining the reasons the women left: three left to take up academic posts at other Russell Group institutions (Oxford, UCL, Cambridge). Women in T&R are more visible externally, and thus more susceptible to recruitment elsewhere.
There is no formal exit interview, although HR plans to set this up in the future. We do not have specific details for why female staff left, although the HoS did have informal interviews with the last two female staff who left. The SAT will investigate this further and monitor the trends.
AP 3.10: EECS to investigate why staff are leaving, monitor trends, and take action where necessary.
EECS to work with HR to conduct exit interviews when staff leave.
1847 words
Page 25 / 49
Supporting and advancing women’s careers – maximum 5000 words
Please provide a report covering the following sections 4 – 7. Within each section provide data and a short analysis for at least the last three years (including clearly labelled graphical illustrations where possible) on the data sets listed, commenting on changes and progress made since the original application, and including details of successes and where actions have not worked and planned initiatives going forward.
Please also attach the action plan from your last application with an additional column indicating the level of progress achieved (e.g. zero, limited, excellent, completed).
4. Key career transition points
(i) Job application and success rates by gender and grade
Our analysis covers the period 2011-2014; recruitment data for 2014-2015 was not yet available. For the period covered, we are missing some gender information. The University introduced an online recruitment system in 2013, which helps ensure good quality data capture for gender and other statistics for job applicants, and we expect less missing data in the future.
Examining the data in Table 4.1, the proportion of women increases through the apply-shortlist-offer pipeline in 2011/12 and 2013/14, and only decreases at the shortlist-offer stage in 2012/13, although to a proportion similar to that in the applicant pool. Thus, the data shows that women are not disadvantaged in the selection process when they apply.
Table 4.1 Recruitment statistics for EECS academic and research positions, columns showing numbers and proportions of women and numbers of men who applied, were shortlisted for the positions, and were offered positions over the three-year period 2011-2014; data across all grades have been aggregated because individual numbers were small and scattered across different grades; “?” indicates candidates who chose not to declare their gender or where gender data is not available
Applied Shortlisted Offered
Year F F % M ? F F % M ? F F % M ?
2011/12 6 55% 5 11 4 67% 2 10 2 67% 1 8
2012/13 165 44% 211 25 24 55% 20 10 9 43% 12 8
2013/14 42 20% 169 19 10 29% 24 7 4 27% 11 1
Page 26 / 49
(ii) Applications for promotion and success rates by gender and grade
The numbers involved in promotion applications are generally small. Table 4.2 shows that women who apply for promotion, like men who do, have success rates very close to 50%. These rates are similar to those reported in the previous application.
Table 4.2 Numbers of female and male staff applying for promotion at pay grades 5, 6 and 7 over the five-year period 2011-2015 2015 Applied Approved Grade F M F M 7 1 5 0 3 6 1 6 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 2014
Grade F M F M 7 0 4 0 2 6 1 5 1 3 5 0 0 0 0 2013
Grade F M F M 7 0 3 0 2 6 1 4 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 2012
Grade F M F M 7 0 6 0 1 6 1 4 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 2011
Grade F M F M 7 1 2 1 1 6 0 3 0 1 5 0 0 0 0
From the tables, over the period studied, 6 women and 42 men applied for promotions. Considering the department has 31 women and 112 men, this means that women tend to apply for promotion at half the rate of men.
Studies have shown that women are less likely to put themselves forward for promotion than men possessing the same qualifications. Furthermore, in the 2015 staff culture survey (Survey), 57% of women agreed they understood the promotions process and criteria in the School, compared to 71% of men.
To address this gender disparity in promotion applications, this past year, the SMT conducted an audit of staff to identify those in a reasonable position to apply for
Page 27 / 49 promotion and to work with them in preparing applications. As a result, in 2015- 2016, the same proportion of women and men have applied for promotion. The SAT will monitor the impact of this new policy.
AP 3.7: EECS to maintain proactive identification of candidates for promotion and support for writing promotion applications.
EECS to compare the success rate of women applying for promotion to men applying for promotion to ensure the process is fair.
EECS to monitor success of programme of active promotion candidate identification.
(iii) Impact of activities to support the recruitment of staff – how the department’s recruitment processes ensure that female candidates are attracted to apply, and how the department ensures its short listing, selection processes and criteria comply with the university’s equal opportunities policies
To encourage female candidates to apply to academic and research positions, all new job advertisements issued by the School will now include a sentence encouraging applications from women; the department has started seeking women- centric venues to advertise these positions—see recent example at wes.org.uk/RoboticsLecturerQMUL (shown on the next page) and webapps2.is.qmul.ac.uk/jobs/job.action?jobRef=QMUL7948. The School recently approved the release of funds to add the Athena SWAN logo to future ads posted to jobs.ac.uk; similar arrangements will be made for jobs advertised elsewhere.
AP 3.2: School to maintain Athena SWAN logo or sentence saying EECS has a Bronze Athena SWAN award and is committed to gender equality in all job ads.
EECS to ensure the logo and Athena SWAN- related information, including support for women, is prominently displayed on the website.
EECS to maintain its women in research website and ensure it is up to date.
Page 28 / 49
Senior Lecturer in Robotics Engineering - QMUL7948 Employer: Queen Mary University of London Location: School of Electronic Engineering & Computer Science, QMUL, London Salary: £52,303 to £58,461 per annum (Grade 7) Term: Full time, permanent Job advertised until: 06 March 2016
Job description The School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) is an exciting and dynamic environment with a research portfolio of £42m. In REF2014, 91% of the School's Computer Science submitted outputs were rated 3* or 4*, with 99% for Electronic Engineering. The School has more than 70 research active academic staff, about 60 post- doctoral researchers and about 220 PhD students. Six academics hold presitigious research fellowships from organisations such as EPSRC and the Royal Academy of Engineering. The School is currently looking to recruit a Senior Lecturer to provide teaching and ongoing research in its new and expanding research area of Robotics Engineering. To apply you should have a PhD or equivalent professional experience and have a strong record of research or scholarship in Electronic Engineering or Computer Science. You must be able to demonstrate the ability to teach at any level within the area of expertise, and across a range of subjects at a more introductory level, as well as to demonstrate enthusiasm and commitment in the process of teaching. It is essential that you have substantial experience in intelligent robotics and control systems and you must be able to teach in these areas. Additionally, the ability to teach at least one of the following areas would be an advantage: real time/critical systems; artificial intelligence/intelligent systems. The post is full time and permanent, and is available from August 2016. The successful candidate is expected to start by 1 September 2016. Starting salary will be in the range of £52,303 - £58,461. Benefits include 30 days annual leave, defined benefits pension scheme and an interest-free season ticket loan. At Queen Mary University of London, we are committed to the equality of opportunities and to advancing the careers of all staff. We have policies to support staff returning from long-term absence and for flexible arrangements for staff with parental responsibilities. As part of our commitment to the Athena SWAN principles we strongly encourage applications from women. Candidates must be able to demonstrate their eligibility to work in the UK in acccordance with the Immigration, Asylum, and Nationality Act 2006. Where required this may include entry clearance or continued leave to remain under the Points Based Immigration Scheme. Informal enquiries about the posts should be addressed to Ms Jane Reid at [email protected]. Details about the School can be found at www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk. To apply for this job please click the link below. The closing date for the applications is 6 March 2016. Interviews are expected to be held on Monday 25 April 2016; candidates who are unavailable on this day may not be offered an alternative date. Valuing Diversity & Commited to Equality QMUL is proud to be a Living Wage employer
Page 29 / 49
AP 3.3: EECS to actively identify and reach out to qualified female candidates to encourage them to apply for new academic positions.
EECS to ensure academic jobs are widely circulated, especially to mailing lists targeting female researchers.
To attract female candidates, the School publicly affirms its support for Athena SWAN principles and practices on its website. The EECS website has a section on women in research in EECS (www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/research/women-in-research) that features the School’s female researchers and links to Athena SWAN-related information. The SAT maintains an independent website providing links to news and resources on women in science and academia, women in leadership, and women in the workplace (qmul-eecs-athena-swan.blogspot.com).
AP 2.5: EECS to maintain women in research site and to ensure it is updated with current information.
To promote fair selection, the School strives to have a female member of staff present at all professional and academic interview panels. All staff on interview panels are required to have recruitment and interview skills training. The Director of Teaching, who is female, is a member of all teaching post interview panels; there is often no qualified female assessor present on panels for research and T&R posts, due, in part, to the small numbers of women on research and T&R contracts in EECS.
We will put in place actions to ensure at least one qualified female staff or SAT member is present at research and T&R interview panels. The pool of qualified female staff will be broadened by drawing on our female academic and research staff, making sure senior women in the School are not overloaded, and by involving colleagues in closely related departments and female PDRAs and PDRFs. Involving female research staff will serve the dual purpose of training and recruitment.
AP 3.4: EECS to ensure at least one qualified female staff or SAT member is present at research and T&R interview panels.
To broaden the pool of qualified female staff, apart from drawing on female academic and research staff, making sure senior women in EECS are not overloaded, EECS will involve colleagues in closely
Page 30 / 49 related departments and female PDRAs and PDRFs.
EECS to send female academics and researchers to recruitment and interview skills training so they are eligible to serve on interview panels.
(iv) Impact of activities to support staff at key career transition points – interventions, programmes and activities that support women at the crucial stages, such as personal development training, opportunities for networking, mentoring programmes and leadership training
In 2015-2016, the School also used its own staff development funds to support three female academic staff members’ attendance at the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education’s Aurora programme (www.lfhe.ac.uk/en/programmes- events/you/aurora/index.cfm). EECS significantly increased its originally allocated budget so that there was no financial constraint on attendance.
In addition, the University has a programme of activities targeting female staff (www.hr.qmul.ac.uk/equality/gender), including the Women Into Leadership programme. AP 3.8: EECS to maintain support for leadership training for female staff.
EECS to identify relevant women ready for leadership positions for training programmes and for appropriate roles.
SMT to develop an action plan to proactively diversify the demographic of those in leadership and power. The plan could include shadowing, deputies, development plans and commitments via appraisal to bring women forward.
To ensure the visibility of prominent female role models and to provide networking opportunities, the School has initiated a new Flagship Lecture Series that features a significant proportion of external female speakers.
AP 2.5: School to monitor representation of women on the Flagship Lecture Series.
Page 31 / 49 In addition, WISE@QMUL (Women in Science and Engineering) has a record of sustained activity in support of female researchers (see wiseqml.wordpress.com).
AP 2.6: EECS to maintain support for initiatives to organise events for women (e.g. through WISE and IEEE WIE).
We recently named our meeting rooms after prominent women contributors to EE and CS, and commemorative plaques are being made.
In the Survey, only 36% of respondents agree that EECS has in place an adequate mentoring scheme, with only 29% of women agreeing compared to 43% of men. Thus, women are less likely than men to agree that EECS provides adequate mentoring. The University also runs a mentoring scheme for women (www.hr.qmul.ac.uk/equality/gender/mentoringwomen), but further recruitment to this programme has been suspended in 2015-2016 as a result of staffing issues in HR. We will investigate further the state of mentoring for women staff.
AP 3.5: School to maintain practice of assigning mentors to academic staff; making sure that mentees receive appropriate guidance at various stages of career.
School to ensure that the mentoring process and appraisal process are independent.
Page 32 / 49
5. Career development
(i) Impact of activities to support promotion and career development – appraisal, career development process, promotion criteria.
All QMUL staff undergo an annual appraisal process. Changes to the process encourage conversations over a single tick-box exercise. The Survey revealed that 64% of women, compared to 57% of men agree—i.e. women are more likely to agree than men—that EECS has in place a helpful annual appraisal.
Staff responses from the Survey showed that a lower proportion of women agree they are encouraged to represent EECS externally or to take up career development opportunities. 64% of women, compared to 71% of men, agree they are actively encouraged to take up career development opportunities; and, 50% women compared to 69% men agree they are encouraged and given opportunities to represent EECS externally. The SAT will investigate this further and monitor the numbers. AP 3.6: EECS to investigate and monitor if women are encouraged to take on externally visible roles at least as much as men.
More than half of female staff in EECS are on T&S contracts, previously without prospects for career advancement. Since the last application, the University has adapted its promotion system so that T&S staff can be promoted to all grades including Professor, and set a precedent by promoting a staff member to Professor based on teaching and dissemination contributions. In the new scheme, Schools are responsible for determining the value of contributions, which allows diverse contributions to be recognised; staff also have access to better quality feedback. The School invites female staff to participate in the University’s annual series of “Pathways to Promotion” workshops.
In 2015, EECS has created its own internal promotion identification and support system, which addresses the underrepresentation of women in promotion cases. Information about individuals’ contributions are collected at the time of appraisal; the SMT uses this information to identify promotion candidates, and to invite them to apply for promotions—anyone can, of course, put themselves forward. Application drafts are read by HoGs, who give feedback before internal submission; additional feedback is available from the Director for Staff Development and Equality and the HoS. A panel of the School’s Professors reviews the applications and feedback is given on where cases can be improved, and if needed, on application strategy. A final application is then prepared in consultation with the HoG. Informal feedback shows that this extra support is viewed as valuable and sends a positive message about the School’s commitment to help staff develop. The SAT will monitor the impact of this new system as it carries forward into the new term.
Page 33 / 49
AP 3.7: EECS to maintain proactive identification of candidates for promotion and support for writing promotion applications.
EECS to compare the success rate of women applying for promotion to men applying for promotion to ensure the process is fair.
EECS to monitor success of programme of active promotion candidate identification.
The numbers applying for promotion are small, approximately a dozen per year. This year (2016) saw 15 applicants with 4 female, i.e. 27% of applicants being female as against 26% of eligible staff. However, the majority of female applicants (this year 3 out of 4) are making cases based on sustained contributions across areas such as teaching and UG/PGT programme administration, and not primarily research. This is in contrast with male applicants where, in the vast majority of cases, research contribution is the most significant component, albeit often supported by teaching innovation or outreach.
This reflects not only the numbers of female staff on T&S contracts, but also a common view of female academics as being associated with and thus more suitable than men for teaching and programme administration. Such assignments prevent women from building research profiles like the men’s, which disadvantages women when it comes to external visibility and promotions. Non research-led applications bear a greater burden of proof either in terms of higher level of delivery or period over which it is sustained. For higher (Reader/Professor) levels, where external assessments are sought, lack of external visibility can lead to lukewarm letters, which are fatal. This then impacts on the number of women whose applications are successful.
AP 4.3: SAT to study the implementation of EECS’s work allocation model to determine if women and men are assigned the different kinds of work in the same proportions.
EECS to conduct focus group with female staff to determine possible sources of unfairness in work allocation.
AP 3.6: EECS to investigate and monitor if women are encouraged to take on externally visible roles at least as much as men.
Page 34 / 49
(ii) Impact of activities to support induction and training – support provided to new staff at all levels, and any gender equality training
Upon joining QMUL, all new members of staff are invited to an induction event, which is run three times a year, and includes presentations from senior members of the University and an information fair with central service departments and union representatives. Staff with less than three years’ full-time lecturer experience are required to take the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) course— four 15-credit modules (level 7) over the course of two years—the successful completion of which leads to Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy. Further courses are offered by the Researcher Development Team, which is part of the Centre for Academic and Professional Development (CAPD).
The beginning of an ongoing process, the School has a mentoring programme. Every new staff member has a mentor and gets an individual induction with EECS’ local HR specialist. AP 3.5: EECS to maintain practice of assigning mentors to academic staff; making sure that mentees receive appropriate guidance at various stages of career.
EECS to ensure that the mentoring process and appraisal process are independent.
QMUL requires fair selection training for all staff who will be on a job interview panel. The training scheme operates regularly across the University, including EECS.
AP 3.4: EECS to send female academics and researchers to recruitment and interview skills training so they are eligible to serve on interview panels.
In the Survey, only 22.6% of staff agree they have undertaken training in understanding unconscious bias. To remedy this, EECS will run an unconscious bias training session at the Fall 2016 School Away Day so all those who are involved in recruitment and promotion decisions will receive training. The SAT will monitor training and its impact. AP 4.6: Unconscious bias training to be incorporated into the Autumn 2016 School Away Day.
EECS to create regular opportunities for new staff, those who missed the training, or those who would like a refresher to undergo unconscious bias training.
Page 35 / 49
(iii) Impact of activities that support female students – support (formal and informal) provided for female students to enable them to make the transition to a sustainable academic career, particularly from postgraduate to researcher, such as mentoring, seminars and pastoral support and the right to request a female personal tutor.
The school supports a variety of activities that support the career progress of all women (described in Section 3) including WISE seminar support and a local section of IEEE WIE group dedicated to inspiring women to follow academic careers.
AP 2.6: EECS to maintain support for initiatives to organise events for women (e.g. through WISE and IEEE WIE).
The current system of PGR pastoral support for women has been identified as an area that does not currently support female students well, as evidenced by the drop in female representation between PGR and RA stages. Support for the transition is currently left to the supervisory team and general programmes. Each student has a primary and a second supervisor, sometimes also a third. Choice of supervisors is up to the individual, who is free to opt for a female academic on their supervisory team; a mechanism for changing supervisors is also in place. The department has a PhD senior tutor (currently male) who acts as a secondary point of contact for more difficult academic and personal issues, and is available to support students where needed, though no explicit referral process currently exists for students.
AP 2.4: School to put in place formal career mentoring provisions for PGR students.
School to inform PGR students about fellowship opportunities (especially those targeting women) and career options in EE and CS.
School to put in place mentoring for fellowship applications for PGR students.
At the postdoctoral level a mentoring process is in place as part of the annual appraisal, with investigators responsible for mentoring their RA teams. It is possible for RAs to challenge their appraiser for serious reasons, and a request for a female appraiser/mentor would be treated sympathetically in this case. Again, nothing is currently in place to specifically support women as part of this infrastructure.
Page 36 / 49
AP 3.1 EECS to analyse and identify reasons for low female research staff numbers.
School to develop and implement a PDRA development in response to findings.
An area of concern is that female PGR students may not view the life of a researcher as being compatible with family life, and thus shy away from choosing a life in research. This requires further investigation and monitoring.
AP 2.3: School to administer focus group to investigate why female students tend not to choose research careers.
School to monitor PGR and PDRA/PDRF numbers.
Page 37 / 49
6. Organisation and culture
(i) Male and female representation on committees – provide a breakdown by committee.
The School’s committees are comprised of a mixture of academic and non-academic staff, and students where appropriate. Some committees, such as the Joint Ventures Committee also include staff from other departments and/or central services.
Table 6.1 EECS male and female representation on committees in 2015/16
Female Female(%) Male
Senior Management Team 3 33% 6
Research Committee 4 22% 14
Student Teaching Learning & Assessment Committee 5 29% 12
Joint Ventures Committee 10 43% 13
Communications and Admissions Committee 6 38% 10
Equality Committee 2 50% 2
Health and Safety Committee 5 33% 10
Infrastructure Committee 1 14% 6
Quality Committee 3 30% 7
(ii) Female:male ratio of academic and research staff on fixed-term contracts and open- ended (permanent) contracts.
The School uses fixed-term contracts (FTCs) to manage posts that are grant-funded. In general, research staff make up the majority of FTCs while academic staff make up the majority of permanent contracts. This can be seen in the breakdown by pay grade, where Grades 4 and 5 are typically for research staff positions and academic staff typically appointed at Grade 6 and above. Fixed-term Grade 6 contracts include grant-funded teaching replacement posts for academics on fellowships.
The Survey showed that men are more likely than women to work full time; and the vast majority of those who work part-time in EECS are women. Women were significantly more likely to be on FTCs than their male counterparts. Only 32% of
Page 38 / 49 respondent agree those who work part time are offered the same career development opportunities as those who work full time; this suggests that women may be disproportionately affected by lack of career development opportunities offered to part-time staff.
Table 6.2 EECS male and female representation on committees in 2015/16
2011 2012 2013 2014 EECS Pay Grade FTC PERM FTC % FTC PERM FTC % FTC PERM FTC % FTC PERM FTC % Women 11.9 9.8 54.7% 14.4 11.8 55.0% 12.0 14.0 46.2% 11.5 20.8 35.6% 4 6.9 1.0 87.3% 8.4 100.0% 8.5 100.0% 6.5 100.0%
5 4.0 0 100.0% 5.0 100.0% 1.5 100.0% 3.0 2.0 60.0%
6 1.0 5.0 16.7% 1.0 7.0 12.5% 2.0 8.0 20.0% 2.0 13.8 12.7% 7 2.8 0.0% 2.8 0.0% 4.0 0.0% 4.0 0.0%
8 1.0 0.0% 2.0 0.0% 2.0 0.0% 1.0 0.0%
Men 56.6 49.9 53.2% 54.8 55.7 49.6% 34.8 58.5 37.3% 47.6 58.8 44.8% 4 38.6 2.0 95.1% 31.9 1.0 97.0% 15.3 1.0 93.8% 25.1 100.0%
5 13.4 100.0% 16.4 1.0 94.3% 15.0 2.0 88.2% 16.8 3.0 84.8%
6 4.6 19.0 19.6% 6.5 22.2 22.6% 4.5 23.0 16.4% 4.8 22.0 17.9% 7 13.0 0.0% 13.8 0.0% 14.0 0.0% 15.0 0.0%
8 15.9 0.0% 17.7 0.0% 18.5 0.0% 1.0 18.8 5.1%
The data in Table 6.2 shows that the female:male ratio is consistent between fixed and permanent positions across the year 2011-2014. There is a slight shift in the ratio for permanent positions between 2011 (1:5.1) and 2014 (1:2.8). This is due to a steep increase in the number of women on permanent contracts, most likely because JP teaching staff were moved to T&S permanent contracts.
(iii) Representation on decision-making committees – evidence of gender equality in the mechanism for selecting representatives
The mechanism for selecting representatives on committees is largely based on appointed School roles, with the exception of the Quality Committee which takes volunteers, the Health & Safety Committee which has agreed areas for volunteers, and the Joint Ventures Committee which is composed of members of the school that have direct links with or relevant to joint ventures. The Student Teaching Learning and Assessment Committee is primarily role-based with two voluntary positions.
The ratio of women on committees is approximately 1 in 3, which compares favourably against the female:male staff ratio. However, the only women in appointed School roles are the School Manager, the School Services Manager, the Director of Teaching, and the Director of the JP. The result is that women in research are excluded from committees comprising of appointed School roles, and thus a significant number of decision-making committees.
Page 39 / 49 The SMT will investigate ways to make decision-making committees more inclusive, and to ensure that female academic and research staff are included on all decision- making committees. AP 4.2: EECS to actively monitor female representation in decision-making committees.
EECS to review selection criteria for decision- making committees and, where necessary, broaden the criteria to include more women.
EECS to actively identify female candidates for appropriate leadership roles.
(iv) Workload model – describe the systems in place to ensure that workload allocations, including pastoral and administrative responsibilities (including the responsibility for work on women and science) are transparent, fairly applied and are taken into account at appraisal and in promotion criteria.
The School used an informal, quantified workload model for a number of years; this has been replaced by an online system used across the University (SCORM). This system calculates workload on the basis of a notional number of hours. It accounts for teaching and formal research commitments (PhD supervision, research grant commitments), and administrative tasks (e.g. committee memberships). The numbers attached are inevitably somewhat arbitrary, though they are adjusted to include the difference between, say, developing and delivering a module. Uncategorised tasks can be added by the School Manager. The School uses the system as a guide when equalising workload. Workload for each staff member is audited at appraisal, and at an annual meeting with the Director of Teaching.
The Survey showed that women were less likely than men (36% vs. 49%) to agree that work is allocated in a clear and transparent manner; and, women are less likely than men (36% vs. 83%) to agree that work is allocated on a fair basis irrespective of gender. The SAT will investigate this further, and monitor the work allocation process. AP 4.3: SAT to study the implementation of EECS’s work allocation model to determine if women and men are assigned the different kinds of work in the same proportions.
EECS to conduct focus group with female staff to determine possible sources of unfairness in work allocation.
Page 40 / 49 (v) Timing of departmental meetings and social gatherings – evidence of consideration for those with family responsibilities, for example what the department considers to be core hours and whether there is a more flexible system in place.
The School’s Policy is for meetings to not to be held outside core hours, and this is generally true for research group meetings, departmental meetings, and departmental research seminars.
An exception is our Flagship Public Lectures, which are outside core hours as they are aimed at members of the public. For this, the School provides crèche facilities for parents of young children. Another is the annual School Away Day, which requires a full day. The School Away Day is advertised 8 months in advance to ensure people have time to make arrangements and staff are allowed to miss part of the meeting.
The School meetings are recorded so that staff who cannot attend meetings can still access them. In the Survey, 87% of all respondents agree that meetings in EECS are completed within core hours to enable those with caring responsibilities to attend. None disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 7.5% slightly disagreed.
AP 4.4: HoS to articulate policy for holding meetings within core hours once a year at an EECS meeting; EECS to monitor if meeting times are during core hours.
EECS to maintain childcare support for Flagship Lectures, and to find ways to offer similar support for part-time staff needing to come in to work on a non-work day.
(vi) Culture – demonstrate how the department is female-friendly and inclusive and ensures visibility of women, for example external speakers. ‘Culture’ refers to the language, behaviours and other informal interactions that characterise the atmosphere of the department, and includes all staff (academic, technical and support) and students.
The School is commendably free of unsupportive language and behaviour on the part of individuals. The Survey showed that majority of staff (74%) agree that the attitude of their colleagues makes clear that unsupportive language and behaviour are not acceptable. 81% agreed that inappropriate images are not tolerated by colleagues, and 83% agreed that work-related social activities in EECS are likely to be welcoming to both women and men.
However, the Survey showed that proportionately more women than men (36% vs. 14%) disagree that staff were treated on their merits irrespective of gender. This is likely tied to more women working part-time than men, and consequently having less access to informal social networks. The SAT will monitor the School’s actions to make processes fairer and less dependent on informal networks.
Page 41 / 49
The new Flagship Lecture Series features internationally leading external female speakers, one of whom spoke on Ada Lovelace. The lectures are run outside core hours to attract public attendance, the series runs a crèche for attendees with young children. AP 4.4: EECS to maintain childcare support for Flagship Lectures, and to find ways to offer similar support for part-time staff needing to come in to work on a non-work day.
The School ensures that its governance structure is transparent—the membership of all committees, and the times of their meetings, are now available on the intranet. Unconscious bias training is also integrated into the next School Away Day. HoS is clear about his support for Athena SWAN at School meetings.
AP 5.1: EECS to maintain Athena SWAN presence in School meetings.
Athena SWAN to become a regular item on the SMT agenda, to be scheduled for discussions at least once a month.
AP 4.6: Unconscious bias training to be incorporated into the Autumn 2016 School Away Day.
EECS to create regular opportunities for new staff, those who missed the training, or those who would like a refresher to undergo unconscious bias training.
(vii) Outreach activities – level of participation by female and male staff in outreach activities with schools and colleges and other centres, and how the department ensures that this is recognised and rewarded (e.g. in appraisal and promotion).
The School runs major outreach programmes of international repute in schools and colleges with an explicit aim of attracting female students. The activities go beyond outreach to engage the general public as well as other stakeholders with our research, and extend to music and other forms of performance, and activities at science festivals. The interdisciplinary nature of our work means that our activities project a broad non-stereotypical view of the subjects that is more attractive to female students.
Page 42 / 49
AP 1.1 EECS to sustain links with schools through outreach talks, and to monitor impact of outreach programmes, for example, through after-event surveys.
EECS involves both female and male staff in outreach programmes. A new Outreach Team was recruited in 2015. AP 1.2: Integrate new Outreach Team into EECS activities and give them opportunities to initiate events.
EECS ensures female role models are involved and are visibly included in outreach events.
The outreach programmes include:
1) Talks and workshops at schools and on campus. This includes female staff leading talks, including giving talks on women in computing. EECS’ publicity officer who administers outreach activity is a female computer scientist. Overall, three out of ten of the core outreach team members are women.
We work with organisations such as the IEEE (e.g. Lego league) and the Royal Institution (masterclasses/workshops including for primary school children). We attend a range of science and technology outreach festivals each year including TeenTech, Microsoft’s Think DIgital, the Brighton Science Festival, as well as a range of smaller initiatives many of which have specific aims to involve girls in the subject.
2) Computer Science for Fun, an internationally recognised programme based around magazines, booklets, and a webzine that aims to excite students and the general public about interdisciplinary computer science. We previously experimented with magazines on electronic engineering and audio engineering, but resource limitations have led to our focussing on CS4FN alone, given it includes electronic engineering and audio engineering topics.
CS4FN has an established and strong readership in schools. Produced biannually, the magazine aims to always provide female role models, including stories about the research of interdisciplinary female computer scientists. The most recent issue celebrated the bicentennial of Ada Lovelace’s birth, following the success of our previous 60-page special on women in CS and EE. The print run was over 20,000 copies with 18,000 going to school subscribers across the UK. We continue to give out our popular CS4FN poster on women in CS to teachers for use in schools and at events.
Page 43 / 49 The team that writes and edits the magazine has been expanded in 2015 to include more female writers; previous issues were predominantly written by men, though often about the work of women. We now credit the authors of articles explicitly to further emphasise the female authorship. Imagery in the magazine aims to be balanced and mainly gender neutral. The school has waived the fees for a female PhD student in return for her contributing to future issues of the magazine.
Through CS4FN we supported the Oxford University Conference celebrating the 200th Anniversary of Ada Lovelace, and as part of this sponsored and helped advertise a national competition for girls run by the National Museum of Computing about Ada. We are also, through CS4FN, partners on the BBC’s National Make It DIgital programme, which has a core aim of getting girls into computing.
3) Teacher CPD Programme - The English school ICT curriculum was recently scrapped in favour of a more rigorous computing curriculum, resulting in a critical national need to retrain ICT teachers. The Greater London Assembly awarded us a contract to provide CPD and resources to support London teachers. As a result of this work, jointly with King’s College we were awarded the Department for Education funded contract to run the Computing at School regional centre for London. This means we now play a major role in teaching computing to a large body of female teachers, contributing to the number of women in CS who will become role models for students in computing.
This is supported by other activities, including a CPD workshop to the Girls' School Association, Computing Cluster Meeting, Queen’s College London, and keynotes about our approach in the UK and internationally. We are also making a series of videos illustrating activities for teachers. These have featured women. The presenter is male, however, and we hope in future to find a female presenter for future videos.
We have introduced a new module on teaching computing to encourage undergraduates to consider teaching as a career. It involves students spending time in schools. This attracts a high proportion of females, 43% in 2015. We have also been involved in training teachers to use Make It Digital MicroBits, the BBC wearable computers given to all year 7 students in 2016.
Page 44 / 49
AP 1.5: EECS to refine the support delivered through the CPD network so that it scales, training and supporting Master teachers to support others.
EECS to sustain activity of developing resources to support teachers.
EECS to continue activity supporting teacher CPD.
EECS to maintain running of education module to encourage students to consider teaching.
Outreach activity feeds in to the workload model; each staff involved is allocated hours that count against other activities. A new procedure has been developed for staff to report their activities to feed into the workload model and departmental planning; explicit questions ask about outreach activities. The promotion procedure and forms for academics has now been adapted, with the University taking up an approach developed by EECS, to put greater weight on non-research activities, making clear that other activities such as public engagement are fully accounted for in promotion decisions.
AP 1.4 School to evaluate success of including outreach activities as part of promotion / appraisal reviews
Page 45 / 49
7. Flexibility and managing career breaks
(i) Maternity return rate
For the period under consideration, maternity uptake has varied from 0 to two per year out of a female staff count of around 25, and the return rate in the current academic period is 100%. Tables 7.1 and 7.2 summarise the figures for maternity uptake and return across Pay Grades 4-7. As shown in Table 7.2, maternity return is 100% for Grades 6 and 7, and the one Grade 4 staff member who went on maternity leave did not return for unknown reasons.
Table 7.1. Maternity uptake for QMUL EECS by year and across Pay Grades 4-7 over the period 2011- 2014 (we do not yet have data for 2015).
Pay Grade 2011 2012 2013 2014
4 1
5
6 1 1 1
7 1
Table 7.2. Maternity return for QMUL EECS across 2011-2014 and across Pay Grades 4-7 totalled over the period 2011-2014 (we do not yet have data for 2015).
Number taking Pay Grade maternity leave Non returner % return rate % in post after 6 months
4 1 1 0.0 0.0
6 3 0 100.0 100.0
7 1 0 100.0 100.0
(ii) Paternity, adoption and parental leave uptake
As shown in Table 7.3, annual paternity uptake has varied from one to four out of a male staff count of approximately 100, for the period 2011-2014. Table 7.3 suggests an upward trend in the number of parents taking paternity leave, although the population size is too small to make a definitive claim.
Page 46 / 49 Table 7.3. Paternity uptake for QMUL EECS by year and across Pay Grades 4-7 over the period 2011- 2014 (we do not yet have data for 2015).
Pay Grade 2011 2012 2013 2014
4
5 1
6 1 1 2 3
7 1
8 1
(iii) Numbers of applications and success rates for flexible working by gender and grade
As shown in Table 7.7, the numbers involved in flexible working applications are small, and applications by both genders have 100% success rates. The data show a difference in uptake by gender, 12 women vs. 2 men total in 2011-2015: based on approximately FTE numbers (about 25 female and 100 male), proportionally far more women (48%) apply for flexible working than men (2%).
Table 7.7 Flexible working application and approval figures for women and men over the period 2011- 2015 Pay 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Grade Applie Approved Applied Approved Applied Approved Applied Approved Applied Approved d
W M W M W M W M W M W M W M W M W M W M
4 2 2 2 2
5
6 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
7 1 1 2 2 1 1
(iv) Flexible working – numbers of staff working flexibly and their grades and gender, whether there is a formal or informal system, the support and training provided for managers in promoting and managing flexible working arrangements, and how the department raises awareness of the options available.
All staff have the right to request flexible working at QMUL, a process that considerably predates its introduction into law. EECS practice has always allowed for flexible working such as reduced hours. The School’s open support of informal arrangements including flexible hours and working from home has led to low numbers of staff in formal flexible working arrangements. School support includes efforts to timetable teaching commitments such as lectures around time constraints
Page 47 / 49 such as caring commitments for small children, and a formal request for such constraints is sent around at the start of the timetabling round.
Flexible working policies are available on the intranet. However, the Survey showed that 57% of staff did not know if the School proactively adjusts workloads for people who work part time and 48% did not know if it would support their decision to move to part-time work. In the future, the SMT and/or HR will give a presentation of flexible working options to staff at a School meeting once a year.
When the Survey revealed that 79% of staff did not know if they could return from part-time to full-time work when needed, the SMT responded by approving a new policy whereby new flexible working agreements are explicitly set with a time limit, giving staff a contractual default of returning to full time / non-flexible working when the time expires. Sadly, HR has not allowed us to implement this; it takes the view that contractual changes should be permanent. We are currently seeking other solutions. AP 4.5: EECS to give presentation on flexible working options to staff at a School meeting once a year.
EECS to monitor impact of time-limited flexible working contracts.
(v) Cover for maternity and adoption leave and support on return – what the department does, beyond the university maternity policy package, to support female staff before they go on maternity leave, arrangements for covering work during absence, and to help them achieve a suitable work-life balance on their return.
The School has adopted the following practices to assist maternity leave: where practical, appointing a temporary direct replacement for the staff member’s core duties, allowing them to return to the same duties or the same teaching assignments; where possible, including an overlap period at the start and end of maternity leave, particularly crucial for support staff; enabling staff to taper back in after leave, for example with reduced teaching loads during the first semester after return.
We are aware that best practice in other S&E departments at QMUL take the form of PDRA support for T&R staff on or returning from maternity leave. The SMT has not agreed to the same kind of support because of the significant number of female junior academic staff on T&S contracts in EECS. Initial attempts to draft a flexible policy covering T&S and T&R staff are on hold due to leadership and University maternity cover policy changes. As a result, T&R staff on or returning from maternity leave in EECS currently lack support to sustain their research apart from tapering of their return to teaching, with impact on the pipeline for female promotion from T&R senior lecturer to reader and professor.
Page 48 / 49 The School is eager to resume actions to enhance the maternity leave support offered by the University, and to clarify the level of support possible. The SAT will monitor progress. AP 3.9: EECS to plan and implement additional support and formal policies for women returning from maternity leave.
EECS to ensure staff going on and returning from maternity leave receive appropriate mentoring, remain connected, and are aware of support available to them.
School to monitor maternity uptake and return numbers.
4400 words
8. Any other comments – maximum 500 words
Please comment here on any other elements which are relevant to the application, e.g. other SET-specific initiatives of special interest implemented since the original application that have not been covered in the previous sections.
9. Action plan
Provide a new action plan as an appendix. An action plan template is available on the Athena SWAN website.
The Action Plan should be a table or a spreadsheet comprising actions to address the priorities identified by the analysis of relevant data presented in this application, success/outcome measures, the post holder responsible for each action and a timeline for completion. The Plan should cover current initiatives and your aspirations for the next three years.
Page 49 / 49 QMUL EECS Bronze Department Renewal: 2016 Action Plan Issue and Area of for Action identified Actions taken and outcome as of April 2016 Further Actions Planned Time frame Responsible Success Measures 1. Outreach Activities to Schools 1.1 EE & CS subject area not seen as We have run local and national campaigns EECS to sustain links with Yearly in Spring EECS Links to schools maintained, with on average appropriate for girls so few girls choose for over 10 years promoting the subject schools through outreach Outreach at least 6 outreach talks covering female role to study subjects at school and/or including the CS4FN magazine, a massive talks, and to monitor Team models given per year. university outreach talk programme in schools, and impact of outreach science festivals such as the Royal Society programmes, for Female school students who would consider Summer Exhibition (x3). example, through after- EE / CS careers increase by an average of 5% event surveys. per year. All the above aim to be attractive to both genders. Specifically focusing on women, we EECS to look into ways to EECS has in place a plan to sustain publishing have created and sent to schools across the sustain the publishing and and distribution of CS4FN. UK a 60 page CS4FN booklet and A2 poster distribution of CS4FN. on women in CS & EE, and a CS4FN magazine issue on pioneer Ada Lovelace.
We have also created and delivered a highly popular Women in Computing talk.
1.2 EE & CS subject area not seen as New EECS Outreach Team was recruited in Integrate new Outreach Yearly in Spring EECS Each new Outreach Team member to have appropriate for girls so few girls choose 2015. Team into EECS activities Outreach initiated or led at least one event per year. to study subjects at school and/or and give them Team university Three of the core Outreach Team members opportunities to initiate Female staff/students involved in outreach are female. events. activities increases by 10% per year.
EECS ensures female role models are involved and are visibly included in outreach events.
1.3 Female students in schools have few EECS’s promotional brochures have included EECS to ensure there is Annual, before EECS EECS’ publicity and outreach material to have role models in EE & CS 50% or higher representation of female staff 50% or higher printing Publicity on average 50% or higher representation of and students, except for the 2016 PG representation of women publicity Officer female staff and students each year. brochure. on publicity material, material including promotional We renamed our meeting rooms, used by brochures. students, after prominent contributors to EE and CS; commemorative plaques are being made.
QMUL EECS 2016 Action Plan Page 1 of 13 Issue and Area of for Action identified Actions taken and outcome as of April 2016 Further Actions Planned Time frame Responsible Success Measures 1.4 EECS has included contributions to outreach EECS to evaluate success Annual, after SAT Staff who contribute to outreach and public EE & CS subject area not seen as and public engagement as criteria for of including outreach appraisal engagement are recognised in promotion appropriate for girls so few girls choose promotion / appraisal reviews. activities as part of and appraisal reviews. to study the subjects at school and/or promotion / appraisal university reviews. 1.5 Few schoolteachers have the skills and We have created a range of CPD courses and EECS to refine the support Ongoing EECS Increased number of CAS London Hubs. knowledge to teach CS / EE well, leading workshops for teachers. As a large delivered through the Outreach to problems in creating the pipeline of proportion of teachers involve are female, CPD network so that it Team Increased numbers of teachers engaging with female students choosing the subject. this is helping female teachers to become scales, training and our support network. role models. supporting Master teachers to support Proportion of females on the Teaching We set up the others. Computing module continues to be at least Teaching London as representative of cohort. Computing website providing free resources EECS to sustain activity of for teachers, which is now internationally developing resources to recognised. support teachers.
We run CAS London, the national regional EECS to continue activity centre for supporting computing Master supporting teacher CPD. teachers to support other teachers. EECS to maintain running We created a module on teaching computing of education module to taken by 10-20 students per year. encourage students to consider teaching. Evaluation has shown our activities with teachers increase their confidence as well as subject knowledge.
QMUL EECS 2016 Action Plan Page 2 of 13 Issue and Area of for Action identified Actions taken and outcome as of April 2016 Further Actions Planned Time frame Responsible Success Measures 2. Support for female students 2.1 EE & CS subject area not seen as Increasing proportion of female applicants to EECS to monitor UG and Yearly in Spring EECS Above national average recruitment of UG appropriate for female students so few our UG programmes have received offers as PG student applicant, Admissions and PGT/PGR students to CS and EE choose EE or CS as subjects at university a result of our efforts to attract women. offer, and accept numbers Team sustained. by gender. Proportion of female applicants to PGT programmes receiving offers has been EECS to examine why PGR slightly higher than that for male applicants. numbers dipped then Positive trend also seen in offer-to- rose sharply in past two acceptance figures. years. Corrective action to be taken where possible. PGR numbers has had a volatile two years, dipping then rising sharply, with female numbers increasing proportionally much more than male numbers.
2.2 Female students tend to lack Female students and researchers have EECS to maintain support Ongoing SAT PhD EECS supports on average at least two events professional networking opportunities created support and network groups such as for at least two events per student annually and helps publicise events on and guidance on how to develop their G.Hack, WISE@QMUL, and IEEE WIE. year led by professional member campus that support female students. career. networking groups EECS supports QMUL IEEE WIE Affinity targeting women. Support on average at least two students to Group, which organises events for technical attend national (or higher) level professional skill development and networking. EECS to provide travel networking events each year. awards for female PhD students to attend national or international professional networking activities.
2.3 Few female PGR students choose to go The EECS pipeline shows a sharp decline in EECS to administer focus In place by SAT PhD Issues are identified for why PGR students on to become research assistants or the female ratio for Research Staff despite group to investigate why Spring 2017 Student are holding back from PDRA and PDRF research fellows the relatively good female PGR ratios. female students tend not Representati careers. to choose research ve(s) careers.
EECS to monitor PGR and PDRA/PDRF numbers.
QMUL EECS 2016 Action Plan Page 3 of 13 Issue and Area of for Action identified Actions taken and outcome as of April 2016 Further Actions Planned Time frame Responsible Success Measures 2.4 Few female PGR students choose to go PGR pastoral support is provided by the EECS to put in place In place by Senior PhD Host information event at least once a year on to become research assistants or supervisory team. formal career mentoring Spring 2017 Tutor and informing PGR students of fellowship research fellows provisions for PGR Research opportunities, including those for women. students. Students Coordinator Number of female PGR students applying for EECS to inform PGR research fellowships increases. students about fellowship opportunities (especially those targeting women) and career options in EE and CS.
EECS to put in place mentoring for fellowship applications for PGR students.
2.5 Female students lack visible role models EECS’s Flagship Lecture Series features EECS to monitor Annual, in SAT Web On average, at least 50% of speakers on for careers in research and engineering notable women in EECS and related fields. representation of women Spring Liaison Flagship Lecture Series are female. on the Flagship Lecture EECS’s website includes a section on women Series. EECS women in research website is up to in research in EECS, with profiles of female date with current information on female researchers and their work EECS to maintain women researchers and their work. in research site and to ensure it is updated with current information.
2.6 Female students lack visible role models WISE@QMUL, G.Hack, and IEEE WIE have EECS to maintain support Ongoing SAT PhD EECS supports an event by WISE or IEEE WIE for careers in research and engineering organized a series of events around panel for initiatives to organise Student at least twice a year. discussions on career issues and for technical events for women (e.g. Representati skills training. through WISE and IEEE ve WIE).
QMUL EECS 2016 Action Plan Page 4 of 13 Issue and Area of for Action identified Actions taken and outcome as of April 2016 Further Actions Planned Time frame Responsible Success Measures 3. Staff key career transition points 3.1 Female research staff numbers are low, Proportion of women in Research Staff EECS to analyse and Annual in SMT & SAT Increase the numbers and proportion of and decrease with pay grade. positions has been identified as an area for identify reasons for low Spring female research staff. improvement in the EECS pipeline. female research staff numbers. EECS female research staff ratios meets or exceeds sector average. School to develop and implement a PDRA development in response to findings.
3.2 Female academic staff numbers are low, From 2016, academic position School to maintain Ongoing SAT Web 100% of academic job ads contain Athena even more so for academics in T&R, and advertisements carry the Athena SWAN logo Athena SWAN logo or Liaison and SWAN logo or sentence saying EECS has a especially for women in senior ranks. and contain text encouraging women to sentence saying EECS has all recruiting Bronze Athena SWAN award and is apply. a Bronze Athena SWAN staff committed to gender equality. award and is committed EECS website now includes a section on to gender equality in all At least two new female researcher profiles women in research highlighting the female job ads. or stories added to EECS’s women in research academics in the School and their work. website each semester. EECS to ensure the logo and Athena SWAN-related information, including support for women, is prominently displayed on the website.
EECS to maintain its women in research website and ensure it is up to date.
QMUL EECS 2016 Action Plan Page 5 of 13 Issue and Area of for Action identified Actions taken and outcome as of April 2016 Further Actions Planned Time frame Responsible Success Measures 3.3 Female academic staff numbers are low, Most recent job announcement for a senior EECS to actively identify For every new SMT & SAT Every new academic job is not only even more so for academics in T&R, and lecturer in robotics was advertised not only and reach out to qualified job post advertised on jobs.ac.uk, but also circulated especially for women in senior ranks. on jobs.ac.uk, but also on the Women’s female candidates to widely through professional mailing lists, Engineering Society website, wes.org.uk. encourage them to apply especially those targeting women. for new academic positions.
EECS to ensure academic jobs are widely circulated, especially to mailing lists targeting female researchers.
3.4 Female academic staff numbers are low, Where possible, a female member of staff is EECS to ensure at least In place by SMT & SAT 80% of female academics and researchers even more so for academics in T&R, and present at academic interview panels. The one qualified female staff Autumn 2017 have received recruitment and interview especially for women in senior ranks. Director of Teaching is a member of all or SAT member is present skills training. teaching post interview panels; there is often at research and T&R no qualified female assessor for research and interview panels. 100% of academic research staff interview T&R posts. panels have at least one female T&R To broaden the pool of academic or researcher, or a SAT member. All staff on interview panels are required to qualified female staff, have recruitment and interview skills apart from drawing on training. female academic and research staff, making sure senior women in EECS are not overloaded, EECS will involve colleagues in closely related departments and female PDRAs and PDRFs.
EECS to send female academics and researchers to recruitment and interview skills training so they are eligible to serve on interview panels.
QMUL EECS 2016 Action Plan Page 6 of 13 Issue and Area of for Action identified Actions taken and outcome as of April 2016 Further Actions Planned Time frame Responsible Success Measures 3.5 Women receive less mentoring for All new members of academic staff are EECS to maintain practice Ongoing SMT & SAT 100% of staff who wish to have a mentor career advancement than men. assigned a mentor. of assigning mentors to have one; the mentor is normally different academic staff; making from the appraiser. Female staff are more likely to agree that sure that mentees receive EECS has a helpful appraisal process than appropriate guidance at men. various stages of career.
EECS funded four female staff to attend the EECS to ensure that the Aurora leadership training programme. mentoring process and appraisal process are independent.
3.6 Women are less often given or N/A EECS to investigate and Ongoing SMT & SAT Investigation has been completed and an encouraged to take on externally visible monitor if women are action plan to address any necessary issues is roles that better enhance their careers. encouraged to take on in place by early 2017. externally visible roles at least as much as men. 3.7 Women are less likely to apply for A new process is in place for SMT to audit EECS to maintain Annual, after SMT & SAT Increase the proportion of women who apply promotion than men, thus contributing and identify individuals for promotion, with proactive identification of appraisal for promotion. to few female academic staff in senior guidance provided for preparing candidates for promotion ranks. applications. and support for writing 100% of female academic staff are evaluated promotion applications. for promotion during the mentorship Since setting up the proactive identification process. process, the proportion of female staff who EECS to compare the apply for promotion is now comparable to success rate of women that of men. applying for promotion to men applying for promotion to ensure the process is fair.
EECS to monitor success of programme of active promotion candidate identification.
QMUL EECS 2016 Action Plan Page 7 of 13 Issue and Area of for Action identified Actions taken and outcome as of April 2016 Further Actions Planned Time frame Responsible Success Measures 3.8 Few female academic and research staff Several women academics and female EECS to maintain support Ongoing SMT & SAT All eligible women are identified and invited hold positions of leadership and power administrative staff have participated in for leadership training for to participate in leadership training in the department. QMUL leadership training courses. female staff. programmes; at least 80% of women invited have attended at least one leadership In addition, the School has sponsored EECS to identify relevant training programme by 2019. training for all female staff who chose to take women ready for up the Aurora leadership training course. leadership positions for A plan is in place to diversify the training programmes and demographic of those in leadership and for appropriate roles. power.
SMT to develop an action plan to proactively diversify the demographic of those in leadership and power. The plan could include shadowing, deputies, development plans and commitments via appraisal to bring women forward.
QMUL EECS 2016 Action Plan Page 8 of 13 Issue and Area of for Action identified Actions taken and outcome as of April 2016 Further Actions Planned Time frame Responsible Success Measures 3.9 Female staff going on and returning Culture survey covering issues of maternity EECS to plan and In place by SMT & SAT 100% of women going on and returning from from maternity leave receive no return was conducted in July 2015. implement additional 2017 maternity leave are provided with pre- and mentoring nor additional School support support and formal post-leave mentoring. beyond University policies, resulting in policies for women challenging transitions at both ends. returning from maternity Additional support and formal policies are in leave. place for women returning from maternity leave. EECS to ensure staff going on and returning from maternity leave receive appropriate mentoring, remain connected, and are aware of support available to them.
School to monitor maternity uptake and return numbers.
3.10 EECS is losing T&R women at a high rate Central HR does not yet have official exit EECS to investigate why Annual, in SMT & SAT 100% of staff who leave, if any, will have due in part to small numbers. interviews, but EECS’ HoS had informal staff are leaving, monitor Spring been interviewed. interviews with two female academics who trends, and take action recently left. where necessary.
EECS to work with HR to conduct exit interviews when staff leave.
QMUL EECS 2016 Action Plan Page 9 of 13 Issue and Area of for Action identified Actions taken and outcome as of April 2016 Further Actions Planned Time frame Responsible Success Measures 4. Organisation and Culture 4.1 EECS culture and trends can be hard to The SAT created and administered a culture EECS to ensure culture Annual, by SAT A culture survey is administered annually and measure and track. survey (Survey) in July 2015, that proved to survey is administered Summer results analysed and reported to staff. Staff be extremely informative. annually either through are involved in actions that come out of the an internal survey or the survey. College-wide survey. 4.2 Few women occupy positions of The ratio of women in decision-making EECS to actively monitor Annual, in SMT & SAT Female academic and research staff are leadership and influence; women are committees is 1 in 3, which compares female representation in Spring represented in all decision-making underrepresented on decision-making favorably with the academic and research decision-making committees. committees. staff ratio. However, these numbers are committees. misleading since the decision-making committees include female professional EECS to review selection services staff. criteria for decision- making committees and, The mechanism for selecting committee where necessary, broaden membership is through appointed EECS the criteria to include roles, and there are currently no women in more women. research in appointed School roles. EECS to actively identify female candidates for appropriate leadership roles.
4.3 Women are less likely to be assigned The Survey shows that women are less likely SAT to study the In place by SAT Qualitative and quantitative information is work that promote their external than men to agree that work is assigned in a implementation of EECS’s Autumn 2017 found to substantiate whether work is visibility and advance their careers fair and transparent manner irrespective of work allocation model to allocated fairly irrespective of gender. gender. determine if women and men are assigned the different kinds of work in the same proportions.
EECS to conduct focus group with female staff to determine possible sources of unfairness in work allocation.
QMUL EECS 2016 Action Plan Page 10 of 13 Issue and Area of for Action identified Actions taken and outcome as of April 2016 Further Actions Planned Time frame Responsible Success Measures 4.4 Timing of meetings outside of core EECS policy is for meetings not to be held HoS to articulate policy Yearly at SAT EECS policy for holding meetings within core hours disproportionately affects staff outside core hours; this is generally true for for holding meetings release of hours is shared with staff at an EECS meeting with family and other caring departmental meetings, research group within core hours once a results of once a year. responsibilities (often women), who meetings, and departmental research year at an EECS meeting; Culture Survey need to make alternate (usually costly) seminars. EECS to monitor if EECS maintains childcare support for Flagship caring arrangements. meeting times are during Lectures, and has plan in place for similar The Flagship Lecture series is held outside core hours. support for part-time staff needing to come core hours, but provides childcare on site for in to work on a non-work day. staff with young children. EECS to maintain childcare support for Survey showed that a large proportion of Flagship Lectures, and to staff who work part-time are women, and find ways to offer similar that part-timers are unduly disadvantaged by support for part-time staff having less access to informal networks. needing to come in to work on a non-work day.
4.5 Flexible working arrangements are not All EECS staff have the right to request for EECS to give presentation Yearly SMT & HR Annual presentation on flexible working well known. flexible working arrangement, and there is on flexible working option takes place at EECS meeting. open support for informal flexible work options to staff at a arrangements. School meeting once a Actions improve knowledge about flexible year. working. Flexible work policies are available on the intranet but about half of staff do not know if EECS to monitor impact of EECS proactively adjusts workloads for part- time-limited flexible timers, nor if EECS will support their decision working contracts. to move to part-time work.
Survey revealed that 4 out of 5 staff do not know if they are able to return to full time work after a period of part time work.
As a result, all new flexible working agreements are set with a time limit, giving staff a contractual default of returning to full time / non-flexible working when the time expires.
QMUL EECS 2016 Action Plan Page 11 of 13 Issue and Area of for Action identified Actions taken and outcome as of April 2016 Further Actions Planned Time frame Responsible Success Measures 4.6 Unconscious bias holds women back The Survey showed that over ¾ of EECS staff Unconscious bias training Training to be SMT & SAT 80% of staff have undergone unconscious from career advancement opportunities have not undertaken unconscious bias to be incorporated into initiated in bias training. training. the Autumn 2016 School Autumn 2016 Away Day. and held once a 100% of HoGs have taken unconscious bias year therafter. training. EECS to create regular opportunities for new 100% of staff involved in recruiting have staff, those who missed taken unconscious bias training. the training, or those who would like a refresher to undergo unconscious bias training.
4.7 Women are disproportionately Culture survey reveals that more than half of EECS to monitor salaries Before 2019 Chair of A greater percentage of staff know whether disadvantaged by the gender wage gap staff do not know if they receive equal pay of staff by rank and by Equality there is a gender wage gap. for the same work irrespective of gender. gender, with focus on Committee particular issues: grades There is demonstrably no gender wage gap A UCU survey showed Queen Mary as doing and salary points for by 2019. well with regard to gender wage gap. research staff, staff stuck at tops of grades (as opposed to promotion), and salaries at the professorial level.
EECS to demonstrate there is equality for same work irrespective of gender, reporting results in EECS’ meeting.
QMUL EECS 2016 Action Plan Page 12 of 13 Issue and Area of for Action identified Actions taken and outcome as of April 2016 Further Actions Planned Time frame Responsible Success Measures 5. Other Activities 5.1 Athena SWAN agendas may not receive HoS has made clear to staff his support of EECS to maintain Athena Ongoing HoS and SMT Athena SWAN is standing item in EECS full support in the School Athena SWAN efforts. SWAN presence in School meetings and SMT agenda. meetings, and the sharing Athena SWAN updates are a standing item of SAT minutes with all SAT minutes are shared with to all staff. on EECS meetings’ agendas. staff. Progress on the Athena SWAN Action Plan is Athena SWAN to become formally reviewed by SMT each year. a regular item on the SMT agenda, to be scheduled for discussions at least once a month.
KEY CAS London Computing at School, London CS Computer Science CS4FN Computer Science for Fun (magazine) EE Electronic Engineering EECS School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science EE4FN Electronic Engineering for Fun (magazine) G.Hack Girls who Hack HoS Head of School IEEE WIE Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers: Women in Engineering PDRA Postdoctoral Research Assistant PDRF Postdoctoral Research Fellow PG Postgraduate PGT Postgraduate Taught PGR Postgraduate Research QMUL Queen Mary University of London SAT Self-assessment Team School School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) SMT Senior Management Team Survey 2015 EECS Staff Culture Survey T&R Teaching and Research T&S Teaching and Scholarship UCU University and College Union UG Undergraduate
QMUL EECS 2016 Action Plan Page 13 of 13 PREVIOUS (2012) Action Plan with Outcomes No. Action Development Success Criteria Lead Time frame Progress - Outcome in 2016 RAG 1. Promoting positive role models, attracting and supporting female students 1.1 School to monitor student UG and PG The school remains above national Planning Unit + Yearly in Spring Green Achieved. School is above national average numbers, especially in regard to PG taught average for recruitment of UG and PG EECS Athena SWAN for recruitment of UG nad PG students. numbers to ensure the school remains above students SAT the national average 1.2 School to continue public engagement The school remains above national Student Support Ongoing Green Partially achieved. CS4Fun has continued to activities that target female applicants to average for recruitment of UG and PG Officer be published, and public engagement EECS students activities have been continuing until recent leaving/graduation of outreach team members. New members of team have been recruited and activities are ramping up. 1.3 School to ensure female role models are The school remains above national Student Support Ongoing Green Achieved. School above national average for included during public engagement events average for recruitment of UG and PG Officer recruitment of UG and PG students. and school open days (both staff and students; staff understand the value Prominent women attend open days and students) and that participation in these of participating in these activities and other School initiatives; female ambassadors events is incorporated in are rewarded for doing so are involved with School promotional promotion/appraisal reviews activities. The new promotions criteria for S&E include Engagement with Society/Impact as one of the headings where evidence of contribution is sought. Outreach activities are reported under this and contribute to an academic’s case. 1.4 School to liaise with Queen Mary Centre for Reduction in EPSRC funding is Student Support Winter 2013 Amber Achieved. Public engagement activities Public Engagement to ensure public addressed and public engagement Officer + VP remain at similar level. engagement activities at school and faculty activities remain at similar level or External level are funded and coordinated increase year on year Engagement 1.5 School and Faculty continue to support and G-Hack and WISE activities are G.Hack Chair + Ongoing Green Achieved. G-Hack and WISE activities are promote G.Hack and WISE initiatives to its ongoing and are promoted to all WISE Chair + ongoing and are promoted to all students to students and in public engagement student to ensure female students Development ensure female students and postdocs have presentations and open days. Female and postdocs have the opportunity to Adviser for the opportunity to attend and feel better students have opportunities to network and attend and feel better supported at Research Staff + supported at Queen Mary. G.Hack to find out how to develop their career Queen Mary Learning Institute (ghack.eecs.qmul.ac.uk) activities have been supported by funds from QMUL and the School.
QMUL EECS 2012 Action Plan (Annotated) Page 1 of 6 No. Action Development Success Criteria Lead Time frame Progress - Outcome in 2016 RAG 1.6 Any new publications produced will include Target achieved EECS Publicity Ongoing Green Partially achieved. Student recruitment an equal representation of women where officer material has included profiles of female appropriate; the School to aim for 50% students and staff. The 2014 and 2015 representation across all material as they are prospectus featured 50% or higher profiles of updated female staff and students, the latest UG material is also fine. The 2016 PG brochure features more male academic profiles due to maternity cover for the post who did not know about the policy. This was a transient occurrence and the proportions will be back to normal next year. 1.7 School continue to produced and Magazines are disseminated around Head of School Yearly in Spring Green Partially achieved, goal changed to obtain disseminate CS4Fun and to increase the the world, increasing the profile of the continuing funding for CS4Fun which has profile of EE4Fun School been produced every year and disseminated widely. A separate publication focusing on women in electronic engineering was not produced since articles on women in electronic engineering are included in CS4Fun There has not been the same demand for EE4Fun as for CS4Fun which justifies using CS4Fun as our primary vehicle for this work. Continuation of CS4Fun publication and distribution activities is addressed in 2016 AP 1.1 1.8 School to produce an issue of EE4Fun Issue published and disseminated Head of School 2014-12-01 Green Partially achieved but through a different magazine on women in Electronic mechanism. Articles on women in electronic Engineering on the model of the CS4Fun engineering are included in CS4Fun example 1.9 School to monitor the number of PG taught No pattern in the decrease in female Postgraduate Yearly in Spring Green Achieved, see 2012 Action 1.1. student by gender and to review its PGT participation in taught course. officer portfolio where appropriate. Programme modified if necessary 1.10 School to take part in the implementation of Positive initiatives are implemented in Head of School + Ongoing Green Achieved. Queen Mary’s policy is to include the Concordat for Research staff that line with the College plan Development the Principles of the Concordat in the specifically aims at supporting early career Adviser for development of all relevant strategies and researchers Research Staff, policies, rather than have a specific policy Learning Institute which would inevitably cut across a large number of others. An EECS positive initiative is our role in the development of College support for staff applying for individual fellowships.
QMUL EECS 2012 Action Plan (Annotated) Page 2 of 6 No. Action Development Success Criteria Lead Time frame Progress - Outcome in 2016 RAG 2. Offering appropriate support to female staff in their career 2.1 School to publicise and target relevant Female staff attend and have better Head of School Spring 2012 and Green Achieved. These workshops, run by CAPD women to attend faculty Pathways to information about the promotion yearly with videos made available on QMPlus, are Academic Promotion workshop process and academic career thereafter advertised by the HoS. Since 2016, the School now has an annual process by which the SMT actively identifies candidates for promotion and provides guidance for preparing promotion applications. 2.2 School to take part in Faculties/College Mentoring scheme in place Take up Head of School + Spring 2013 Red Achieved. The School has sent 4 women to mentoring scheme to support female staff at by female staff monitored as well as Head of the Aurora Leadership Development all level when launched feedback Management and Programme. Two of these women Leadership subsequently applied for promotion; the Development, resultsare pending. Learning Institute 2.3 School to keep monitoring promotion data Data is monitored Action are taken Planning Unit EECS Yearly in Spring Green Achieved. Two female staff have been by gender where necessary Athena SWAN SAT identified as candidates for promotion, and both have applied. Another female staff member was identified as a mentor for an applicant. Application results are pending. 2.4 School to ensure staff to attend appraisal Managers know how to effectively School Manager Ongoing Green Partially achieved. Appraisal training is in training carry out appraisals place and nearly 100% of managers have attended appraisal training. 2.5 School to implement new workload model School is clearer about staff Head of School 2012-2013 Green Partially achieved. A new web-based when successfully piloted. Staff are clearer contribution and their workload workload model, SWARM, has been about their workload. Contributions are implemented College-wide. Teaching and rewarded research, and all administrative tasks are recorded on the workload. However, the School's culture survey revealed concern over lack of workload transparency. See 2016 AP 4.3. 2.6 School to keep monitoring representation of Committees have a good gender Head of School Ongoing Green Partially achieved. The ratio of women in female/male staff on main committees and balance Senior women are not School Manager decision- making committees is 1 in 3, which to aim to have a gender balance on overburdened compares favorably with the academic and committee without overburdening senior research staff ratio. However, these numbers women are misleading since the decision- making committees include female professional services staff. See 2016 AP 4.2. 2.7 School to publicise and target relevant Female staff within the school take Head of School Winter 2013 Green Achieved. Two senior women in the School women to take part in the College ‘Women part in the programme and annually attended the Women Into Leadership into Leadership’ programme programme.
QMUL EECS 2012 Action Plan (Annotated) Page 3 of 6 No. Action Development Success Criteria Lead Time frame Progress - Outcome in 2016 RAG 2.8 the College to refurbish the Engineering Refurbishment completed Female VP and Executive 2015 Amber Partially achieved. The re-furbishment is building to ensure that facilities which are staff have access to better facilities Dean, Science and underway and scheduled for completion in female friendly are included in the new Engineering Estates 2018. design. department
2.9 School to finalised and implement teaching Teaching fellows have access to a Head of School + 2013 Green Achieved. All teaching fellows except one fellow career pathway access to promotion clear career pathway and have Vice Principal and have been converted to teaching and Executive Dean, scholarship staff, and have a clear path to Science & promotion. The remaining teaching fellow Engineering chose to remain as a teaching fellow. There is also a pathway for teaching fellows and teaching & scholarship staff to transition to teaching & research staff. 3. Promotion of good work/life balance 3.1 School meetings to remain on Wednesday Staff who cannot attend meetings can School Manager Ongoing Green Achieved but access to meeting content afternoon where there is no teaching and to access them through recordings changed. Meetings remain on Wednesday remain recorded afternoons and staff who are unable to attend can access the minutes, handouts and presentations which are posted on the School website after the meeting. 3.2 School to survey staff about their work- life Qualitative data is collected within the School Manager Spring 2013 Amber Achieved. The SAT conducted a staff culture balance and their flexible working practices; school Athena SWAN SAT to discuss EECS Athena SWAN survey in summer 2015. Results revealed School to analyse College staff attitude results with Head of School; Results SAT disparities between the experiences of survey results for EECS on relevant questions analysed, action taken where relevant women and men in the department, between part-time and full time, and between fixed term and permanent staff. The SAT and HoS are discussing various actions to be taken in response to these findings. See 2016 Action Plan. 3.3 School to promote flexible working practice Staff members are aware of flexible School Manager Yearly in Spring Green Partially achieved. Communication of flexible and explain how to apply for them once a working opportunities and how to working opportunities and how to apply for year at school meeting Monitoring of apply for them them is scheduled for an upcoming School applications and outcomes meeting. See also 2016 AP 4.5 for continuing action.
QMUL EECS 2012 Action Plan (Annotated) Page 4 of 6 No. Action Development Success Criteria Lead Time frame Progress - Outcome in 2016 RAG 3.4 School to work with EPSRC project on Feedback is gathered. Appropriate VP Research + Ongoing Green Not achieved. We were unable to find “Diversifying the Workforce” to collect support is designed at College level Development information on this EPSRC project mentioned qualitative feedback from women Adviser for in our 2012 Athena SWAN submission. The going/returning from maternity leave Research Staff, College has a Code of Practice on Maternity Learning Institute and Other Family Leave. See 2016 AP 3.9 for School specific actions.
3.5 School to take part in the College pre/post- Female staff (and men who took a School manager 2014 Green Not achieved. The College has a Code of maternity leave mentorship (also include substantial paternity leave) feel more Head of School + Practice on Maternity and Other Family adoption leave and substantial paternity supported before/during/after their Development Leave. A new School policy for maternity leave); Number of staff who took part are parental leave Adviser for leave returnis currently being drafted monitored Research Staff, following best practice at other departments. Learning Institute See 2016 AP 3.9. 3.6 School to adopt a core-hours policy for Policy in place All staff are able to Head of School Ongoing Green Achieved. Core hour policy is in place; special meetings and to organise more lunch time attend meeting Events organised School Manager arrangements (e.g. creche at the new social/academic events Flagship Lecture Series) are provided when necessary. 4. Representation of female staff within the school 4.1 School to continue monitoring staff Data is monitored and reported on at Planning Unit Yearly in Spring Green Partially achieved. Following a gap since the representation at all grades, and School Manager School SAT and 2012 submission, the current data and FTC/Permanent College Athena SWAN Committee analyses for the 2016 submission has been shared with members of the College Athena SWAN Committee. 4.2 School monitor and ensure that all staff who Data is monitored, staff are booked School Manager Ongoing Green Achieved. All staff who sit on interview sit on interview panel have attended the on course when appropriate panels have been trained in fair selection appropriate fair selection training procedures. 4.3 School to ensure that female staff are Positive role models are promoted School Manager Ongoing Green Achieved. There is female representation represented on interview panels where without overburdening senior women (professional and academic) on interview possible panels wherever possible. The School has so few women that it is not always possible to achieve this for research posts. The Director of Teaching, who is female, sits on all lecturer interview panels. See 2016 AP 3.4 for follow up action to ensure ther are women on all interview panels for research posts.
4.4 School to include Athena SWAN logo on Logo is present on recruitment School Manager HR Autumn 2012 Green Achieved. School logo or sentence saying the recruitment documentation to show the materials recruitment team School has a Bronze Athena SWAN award school commitment to gender equality to and is committed to gender equality is on all applicants recruitment materials.
QMUL EECS 2012 Action Plan (Annotated) Page 5 of 6 No. Action Development Success Criteria Lead Time frame Progress - Outcome in 2016 RAG 4.5 School to improve recruitment data quality Data quality is improved and can be School Manager + Autumn 2012 Green Partially achieved. The School uses Igrasp, by taking part in the online recruitment reported on HR recruitment the College's web-based recruitment system. system team 4.6 School to carry out exit interviews to find out Feedback collected and analysed. Head of School Ongoing Green Achieved. Since 2014, HoS conducts exit why staff are leaving Action taken where necessary interviews for all non-retirees. See 2016 AP 3.10. 5. SAT Process 5.1 SAT to meet 3 times a year to monitor SAT meets, action plan updated and EECS Athena SWAN 3 times a year Green Achieved. The School SAT has met monthly progress on action plan and data reported to College Athena SWAN SAT Chair since Autumn 2014. Prior to that, the SAT Committee was meeting regularly until the School Athena SWAN Champion left, and both the School and College senior management changed.The new School SAT has been monitoring the data and action plan on a regular basis. The School's new Athena SWAN Champion is a member of the College Athena SWAN SAT and reports regularly on the School's Athena SWAN actions. 5.2 SAT to review data on a yearly basis Data is analysed, appropriate EECS Athena SWAN Yearly in Spring Green Achieved. The Schools SAT collects and recommendations are made to the SAT Chair Planning analyses eecs SWAN data. The HoS is a Head of School/Athena SWAN Unit member of the SAT and attends SAT Committee where necessary meetings regularly. He is therefore up to date with all School SWAN activities.
KEY College Queen Mary, University of London (QMUL) CAPD Centre for Academic and Professional Development, QMUL CPE Centre for Public Engagement, QMUL EECS School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science FTC Fixed Term Contract HoS Head of School PG, PGT, PGR Postgraduate student, Taught, Research QMPlus QMUL on-line learning environment School School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) SMT Senior Management Team S&E Science and Engineering UG Undergraduate student
QMUL EECS 2012 Action Plan (Annotated) Page 6 of 6