athena swan bronze and silver department award …...diversity), vanessa howe (divisional senior...

1

Athena SWAN Bronze and Silver Department award application Name of institution: University of Oxford Date of application: 30 April 2012 Department: Physics Contact for application: Professor David Marshall Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01865 272099 Departmental website address: www.physics.ox.ac.uk Date of university Bronze SWAN award: 2010 Level of award applied for: Silver Athena SWAN Bronze and Silver Department awards recognise that in addition to university-wide policies the Department is working to promote gender equality and to address challenges particular to the discipline. Not all institutions use the term ‘Department’ and there are many equivalent academic groupings with different names, sizes and compositions. The definition of a ‘Department’ for SWAN purposes can be found on the Athena SWAN website. If in doubt, contact the Athena SWAN Charter Coordinator well in advance to check eligibility. It is essential that the contact person for the application is based in the Department. At the end of each section state the number of words used. Click here for additional guidance on completing this template. 2. Letter of endorsement from the Head of Department – maximum 500

words [497 words] An accompanying letter of endorsement from the Head of Department should explain how the SWAN action plan and activities in the Department 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 application and to endorse and commend any women and SET activities that have made a significant contribution to the achievement of the Departmental mission.

From the Chairman of Physics: Executive Assistant: Yvonne Cavanagh Dr John Wheater Tel: +44 (0) 1865 272253

[email protected] Tel: +44-(0)1865- 282190 Fax: +44-(0)1865-1865 272262 [email protected] www.physics.ox.ac.uk Dear Athena SWAN Panel, It is a pleasure to give my full support to our Athena SWAN Silver application. Physics has long been a male-dominated subject and, despite considerable progress in recent years, remains so. To fulfil the department’s scientific mission, it is vital that we use the full potential of the population and redress that imbalance. The process of preparing this application has been extremely valuable: it has enabled us to develop a coherent approach to identifying the areas where change is needed and a body of people who are committed to bringing it about. We now have a much better understanding of the problems and have made a substantial start in addressing them. Some can be solved by direct action within the department or university. Others, such as the shortfall of girls doing science in the 6th form, are endemic in society and we address those through our outreach efforts to schools and the general public. We have taken measures that represent a definite financial commitment to the aims of Athena SWAN. Since 2011 the department has sponsored six places at university nurseries for staff members and we will bid to increase this number when the opportunity next arises. A problem was identified with the recovery from the Research Councils and others of full costs for post-docs when they take maternity leave; in order to ensure that there is no disincentive for PIs to employ women on grants we have decided that any shortfall will be underwritten from departmental funds. Women have made major contributions to the recent high profile achievements of the department. Professor Julia Yeomans was awarded an ERC Advanced Grant (2011) to pursue research in the theory of soft matter. Dr Joanna Dunkley was awarded an ERC Starting Grant (2010) to pursue research in cosmology. Professor Katherine Blundell was awarded the Rosalind Franklin Medal of the Royal Society (2010); this led to the "Future Science Leadership" workshop, which we plan to make a regular event. Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell served as a role model through her presidency of the Institute of Physics (2009-11). Athena SWAN has now been embedded in the strategy and management structure of the department by creating an Equal Opportunities and Diversity standing committee, reporting directly to our management committee. The responsibilities will be to take forward the work started by the Athena SWAN group; to drive forward and monitor the execution of the action plan; to scrutinize working life in the department and to identify aspects which need improvement and further measures we should take to support women. Initial membership will be drawn from the Athena SWAN group to ensure continuity; I have been a member of the Athena SWAN group and will be a member of the new committee.

In summary this application and the accompanying action plan have my full support and I am committed to ensuring that the department has a working environment which enables women scientists to fulfil their potential.

Yours sincerely,

John Wheater

2

3. The self-assessment process – maximum 1000 words [986 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;

b) an account of the self assessment process: details of the self

assessment team meetings, including any consultation with staff or individuals outside of the university, and how these have fed into the submission;

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 team, established in September 2010, balances roles, experience and gender across the Department. Membership has evolved to respond to actions and balance workload (e.g., one female member was replaced upon being elected to Physics Management Committee). Current membership: Professor David Marshall joined the Department in 2007 and is the Athena SWAN Coordinator. He has supervised and mentored many female graduate students and researchers. He has extensive experience of chairing recruitment panels. He is married with 3 daughters, aged 9, 7 and 5, and regularly schedules work around school drops. Dr John Wheater is Reader in Theoretical Physics and, since 2010, Head of Department (HoD)1. He is married with 2 grown-up daughters and for many years worked flexibly as his wife worked full time. Professor Lesley Gray joined the Department in 2010. She is married with 2 grown-up children and has experienced the challenges of juggling children with 2 full-time careers. Over the past 8 years she has cared for her husband with degenerative brain disease, now in full-time nursing care. She has frequently been the only woman on scientific committees and has first-hand understanding of the barriers that can prevent a person achieving their full potential. She led the action on stress. Professor Nick Jelley is Head of Teaching and chairs the Academic Committee, which organises teaching of undergraduate physics. He has led the team’s actions pertaining to undergraduates. Dr Joanna Dunkley has been a Lecturer and RCUK Fellow since 2007. She was previously a DPhil student at Oxford. She is responsible for a group of PDRAs and graduate students. She is involved with graduate and undergraduate admissions, PDRA hires, and coordinates the undergraduate summer research program in 1 The official University title is “Chairman of Physics”.

3

Astrophysics. She has 2 stepdaughters, aged 9 and 6, and benefits from flexible working when necessary. Dr David Lucas has been a Lecturer since 2009 and was previously a Royal Society Research Fellow. He has supervised several PDRAs and graduate students. One student had a visual impairment: special precautions were necessary for her to work in a laser laboratory. He has 3 children, aged 2, 6 and 9, and frequently takes advantage of flexible working to help with childcare and to attend school events. Malcolm Bradbury is Senior Administrator, responsible for managing the services supporting research and teaching, including finance, buildings, safety and specialist technical services. This role provides a breadth of knowledge of the operation and direction of the Department. At a time of personal difficulty, the Department accommodated a flexible working pattern over several months. John Gillic joined the Department as HR Manager in 2009 following 18 years with the police. He has extensive experience of understanding the needs and promoting the cause of underrepresented groups. He has led local support groups and given diversity training to employment tribunal judges. Commuting, work, home life, volunteer interests and involvement in local government carry constant time pressures, making work-life balance tricky to achieve. Penny Taylor joined the Department in June 2009 as HR Officer, having worked in another male-dominated industry (civil engineering). She does not have childcare responsibilities, but benefits from being able to work flexibly and finds the Department particularly accommodating in allowing people to achieve a work-life balance. Michelle Bosher has been Administration Officer/PA to the Head of Theoretical Physics since 2010. She has 2 children, aged 15 and 10. While full-time, the Department allows her to start late one morning and leave early two afternoons, to accommodate school drops/pickups. Simon Moulder joined the Department in 1979 as Trainee in the mechanical workshop. Since becoming Head of Workshops in 2005, he has managed an all-male staff of 17 technicians, but has worked proactively to make the workshops friendly to women and different cultures. Dr Michelle Hamilton joined the Department in 2009 as a PDRA. She has been involved in undergraduate admissions, through college interviews, and undergraduate laboratory teaching. As an international PDRA, she is aware of issues that can face newcomers to the Department from diverse backgrounds. Dr Ryan Houghton began a DPhil in Astrophysics in 2003, where he is now a PDRA. He and his wife spent 2 years coping with careers in 2 different cities. He represents PDRAs in Astrophysics staff meetings and helps run a seminar series and weekly get-together in his research group. He is an enthusiastic participant in outreach events, frequently running a large telescope on school and public open nights. Gaia Donati is a 2nd year DPhil student. She is involved in a number of Departmental activities including outreach, and recently trained to become a STEM ambassador.

4

Lauren Petrie is a 3rd year undergraduate. She is an active member of the Physics Joint Consultative Committee, liaising between students and senior members of the Department. The team has been assisted by Trudy Coe (University Head of Equality and Diversity), Vanessa Howe (Divisional Senior Personnel Manager), Mark Taylor, Hannah Maslen and Samina Luthfa (Divisional Athena SWAN Research Assistants). The team has met 14 times. An initial staff survey in 2010 obtained 185 responses. We have run focus groups (with PDRAs, graduate students, undergraduates), interviews, and targeted surveys (e.g., to better understand child-care needs). In-depth analysis of the data has led to targeted actions and demonstrable progress. Responsibility for actions has been assigned to members of the team and other individuals. Direct involvement of the HoD has enabled many actions to be fast-tracked and underlines the importance he attaches to Athena SWAN. The Coordinator visited the Physics Department at Imperial College (early 2011) to learn from their experience, and has shared knowledge with Chemistry, Earth Sciences, Mathematics and Zoology at Oxford. The Department has embedded Athena SWAN activities into its management structure by creating an Equal Opportunities and Diversity Standing Committee, reporting directly to Physics Management Committee. This will meet termly, taking responsibility for monitoring and refining the action plan. Initial membership will be drawn from the Athena Swan Group. The HoD will be a full member of the new committee. [986 words] 4. A picture of the Department – maximum 2000 words [2000 words]

a) Provide a pen-picture of the Department to set the context for the application, outlining in particular any significant and relevant features.

Oxford is one of the largest Physics Departments in Europe (£36M turnover) and strives to reach the very highest levels in research and teaching. The Department consists of 120 members of academic staff, 188 research staff, 331 postgraduate students, 133 support staff, and 670 undergraduate students, making a total community of 1442. The Department is centrally managed by a Physics Management Committee and a number of subordinate committees. All academic staff have a voice in decision making through regular Research Forum and Teaching Faculty meetings. Day-to-day management is devolved to 6 administrative subdepartments2: Atomic and Laser Physics, Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Astrophysics, Condensed Matter Physics (includes Biophysics), Particle Physics and Theoretical Physics. Many staff collaborate across subdepartmental, Departmental and institutional boundaries. The Department is located in four buildings on two sites, separated by a busy road: this geographical distance reinforces cultural differences, e.g., each site has its own 2 Equivalent to “research groups” in other Physics Departments (e.g., Imperial College).

5

Common Room. The Department’s goal is to consolidate its operations and the first phase of this, a new building on its Clarendon site, has been granted planning permission. Oxford Physics is one of 10 Departments within the Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences Division. Though the Department coordinates admissions, Physics undergraduates are admitted to one of 28 self-governing Colleges. The Colleges provide tutorial teaching, library and IT facilities, accommodation and welfare support, while students attend lectures and practicals within the Department. Most academic staff hold joint appointments with a College. [239 words]

b) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning.

Student data (i) Numbers of males and females on access or foundation courses –

comment on the data and describe any initiatives taken to attract women to the courses.

The Department does not provide access or foundation courses. However, we attract women to our undergraduate courses through female-friendly open days, gender-neutral brochures, and numerous outreach events. Results of exit surveys have been used to make our open days more attractive to women. We actively participate in the Divisional project on women in science and the outreach and residential programme to encourage girls into science. The long-term solution to attracting women nationally, rather than trading women between Departments (Imperial increased their numbers at our expense when they adopted JUNO/Athena SWAN) is to enthuse girls at an early age. The Department of Physics has a dedicated Schools Access Officer to stimulate interest and learning in Physics and help to inspire the next generation of scientists. There are regular events such as Telescope visits, and c. 200 outreach events p.a., reaching c. 8500 schoolchildren (mostly pre-A-level, roughly equal gender split). A recent “Stargazing Oxford” event was attended by 1200 (99% good/excellent feedback) and created a special buzz, notably amongst young schoolchildren. A female Professor received the 2010 Rosalind Franklin Award of the Royal Society to develop an online teaching resource, fund a “Future Science Leadership” workshop, www.physics.ox.ac.uk/FutureScienceLeaders, attendance at which was conditional on committing to giving two outreach school talks. Other women have encouraged young scientists of the future through television and radio appearances, books, and presidency of the Institute of Physics (IoP). [231 words]

6

(ii) Undergraduate male and female numbers – full and part-time – comment on the female:male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the impact to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.

The overall fraction of female students on the 3-year BA and 4-year MPhys is 22%, although this number fluctuates from year-to-year (Fig. 1). This is in line with the national average for Physics (21%) and percentage taking A-level Physics (22%). The long-term solution to increasing this fraction lies with enthusing schoolgirls and this is a major driver for our outreach work.

Figure 1: A summary of the undergraduate female fractions (BA and MPhys courses) for the last 9 years, by year of entry. The most significant aspect of the data is the higher fraction of females on the 3-year BA (31%) versus 4-year MPhys (19%), a bias that is reflected nationally (IoP). To identify the causes, we held a targeted survey of female and male students (2011) and focus group of female students (2012) which identified three possible explanations: (i) some females expressed a desire to graduate quickly to maximise their time in the work-place prior to starting a family; (ii) some indicated their female friends in colleges mostly study humanities and leave after 3 years and they wish to do likewise; (iii) some found the lack of an option to downgrade to the BA a

7

disincentive to enrol on the MPhys. The latter disincentive has now been removed for future cohorts. We will continue to monitor these data, take a survey of all 3rd year students and rerun the focus group in 2014. An additional action is to make more information about the 4th year available to students, and for tutors to encourage qualified females to continue to the 4th year when appropriate. [242 words] (iii) Postgraduate male and female numbers completing taught

courses – full and part-time – comment on the female:male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.

We do not offer taught postgraduate courses. [7 words] (iv) Postgraduate male and female numbers on research degrees – full

and part-time – comment on the female:male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.

Figure 2: Fraction of students that are female embarking on DPhils since 2003. The final row shows the total over the entire period. Over the past 9 years, 21% of our DPhil students have been female (Fig. 2), in line with the proportion for undergraduates. This ratio fluctuates from year to year due to the small numbers involved and there is no significant trend. The national average is slightly higher (25%; 2008-10) but may be explained by gender differences across different branches of Physics and the very low number of female DPhil students in Theoretical Physics at Oxford–see section (v). [78 words]

8

(v) Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender

for undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research degrees – comment on the differences between male and female application and success rates and describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and their effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.

Figure 3: Proportion of female undergraduate applications and offers between 2008-10. All undergraduate applicants take the Physics Aptitude Test (PAT). They are selected for interview on the basis of performance in the PAT and assessment against selection criteria published on the Physics website. Students are admitted by a single College, based on an assessment of their application form, references, past and predicted examination performance, performance in the PAT, and performance in three interviews, one of which is at a different College. All students under consideration are considered at a meeting of representative Physics tutors from all Colleges to ensure the best students are offered places irrespective of the College applied to. The PAT paper is vetted in advance by external IoP-approved teachers and reviewed by Physics teaching staff to ensure all applicants are treated fairly. The Department monitors the outcomes each year. Despite our proportion of female students being in line with national averages for Physics A-Level and Degrees, over the most recent 3 years for which we have data (2008-10) the fraction of applications from females (24%) has been higher than the fraction of offers made to females (20%); the latter is in line with acceptances over the same years (21%). In 2009/10, we found female applicants were attaining lower PAT marks, leading to fewer being short-listed for interview. Further investigation indicated some students, particularly female candidates from the maintained sector, had spent too long on the maths and multiple-choice parts of the paper, and not enough time on the long question at the end accounting for 20% of the marks. As a result it was decided to give clear guidelines on time allocation in the 2010/11 PAT, and in the 2010/11 Admissions round, the mean mark in the PAT was higher. Although female

9

candidates achieved a mean mark 6 marks below that of the male candidates, fewer failed to attempt all the questions and the Department short-listed more female candidates. For the 2012/13 PAT, the number of multiple-choice questions will be slightly reduced, to further emphasise quality rather than quantity of recorded answers. The Department annually correlates PAT and interview scores against performance in subsequent exams, both by gender and school-type. This data has shown significant variation year-on-year, but no overall pattern relating to gender. The first cohort to take the PAT in its present form entered in 2007 so it will be some time before we have reliable statistics on the correlation between the PAT and final degree result.

Figure 4: Proportions of female DPhil applications, offers and acceptances between 2008-10. The data for DPhils (Fig. 4) shows a slight reduction between the female proportion of applications (21%), offers (19%) and acceptances (18%), but these are not significant and show large fluctuations from year-to-year due to the small numbers involved (while analysed applications/offer data for 2011 is not yet available, 26% of our admitted DPhil students were female). We further analysed the data by subdepartment back to 2005. Discrepancies between applications, offers and acceptances are insignificant, except possibly for Theoretical Physics, which, out of 75 female applicants, made 8 offers and 2 accepted. The low number of offers can be explained by the low number of females achieving the top 10 MPhys marks over the previous 5 years (3/50), from which the majority of DPhils in Theoretical Physics are admitted. However, this does not explain the (marginally-significant) low acceptance rate. We believe this might be due to the tough selection interview putting off women. Theoretical Physics issued clearer guidelines to applicants in 2011 on what to expect in the interview and this led to immediate results: 3 females were offered and accepted places (1 deferred until 2012), more than over the preceding 6 years combined; we will continue to monitor these data. [602 words]

10

Figure 5: Proportions of female applications, offers and acceptances for DPhil places from 2005-2010 by subdepartment. (vi) Degree classification by gender – comment on any differences in

degree attainment between males and females and describe what actions are being taken to address any imbalance.

The fraction of women obtaining a first on the 4-year MPhys (34%) is below that of men (45%); there is no significant gender difference on the 3-year BA (Fig. 6). However, the difference between the overall fraction of firsts across the MPhys and BA is significant (27% of women, 38% of men). This is in contrast to national data collated by the IoP that shows no gender bias in degree performance, despite the gender difference in the fraction opting for 4-year versus 3-year degrees. To further investigate this imbalance, we compare (Table 1) the number of women appearing in the top 100 students as ranked at entry by combined PAT/interview score (19%) with the fraction of firsts obtained by women (19%). There is no significant difference indicating that the proportion of firsts obtained by women is consistent with the numbers of women near the top of the class on entry, i.e., the combined PAT/interview score is a good predictor of fraction of firsts. We will continue to monitor performance by gender throughout the degree to determine which factors are important and how these might affect our course structure and methods of assessment. Other departments at Oxford have identified that females have less confidence in their academic attainment and fewer women than men state they are aiming for a first; we plan to consult our undergraduates on this issue. We will also continue to scrutinise our admissions procedures for any gender bias.

11

Figure 6: Undergraduate degree classification by year of entry, degree and gender. Note that the MPhys students entering in 2008 have yet to graduate. Note that the numbers in some categories are extremely small (e.g., the breakdown by degree classification in 2007 for BA women is 0/2/2/1). year of entry Number of women in

top 100 at entrance Percentage of firsts obtained by women

Percentage of women in cohort

2003 24 25 21 2004 23 17 25 2005 17 20 25 2006 18 20 25 2007 11 15 20

average 19 19 23 Table 1: Comparison of number of women ranked in the top 100 at entrance versus the fraction of firsts obtained by women and the percentage of women in each year (BA/MPhys combined). For graduate students, we analysed the fraction completing their DPhil within 4 years by gender (Fig. 7). While slightly fewer women complete within 4 years and slightly fewer women discontinue, these differences are insignificant given the small sample size. We will continue to monitor these data and analyse any emergent discrepancies. [292 words]

12

Figure 7: Fraction of graduate students taking longer than 4 years to complete their DPhil. Staff data (vii) Female:male ratio of academic staff and research staff –

researcher, lecturer, senior lecturer, reader, professor (or equivalent). comment on any differences in numbers between males and females and say what action is being taken to address any underrepresentation at particular grades/levels

There are two main categories of academic staff at Oxford: Professor and Lecturer; there are a few Readers, but this category is being phased out. In addition, some recent academic appointments have been made to research grades, some in conjunction with RCUK or Royal Society Fellowships, but for all practical purposes with the same job description as a conventional academic post; the Department uses the term “Effective Academic” for such posts. These are particularly important in the Athena SWAN context in that they provide greater flexibility of career path: 10 of the 31 Effective Academics in Physics are women, including both Case Studies. A recent action has been to provide Effective Academics with the same benefits (e.g., sabbaticals) as other academic staff; throughout the remainder of this document, no distinction is made between these categories. Currently 14% (8/58) of Professors and 15% (9/62) of Lecturers/Readers are women, compared with 8% (3/42) of Professors and 15% (11/71) of Lecturers/Readers in 2008. Thus the overall proportion of women in academic posts has increased (14% from 12%), disproportionately amongst Professors. Amongst research staff, 19% are female, in line with the undergraduate and graduate student proportions, and up from 17% in 2008. Actions taken to address underrepresentation, other than use of Effective Academic grades to provide greater variety and flexibility of career path, are those described throughout this document. Our female academics are very clear in their opposition to special treatment: our strategy is to create a culture that attracts and retains outstanding academics of both genders. [253 words]

13

Figure 8: Female staff by category in 2008 and 2012.

(viii) Turnover by grade and gender – comment on any differences between men and women in turnover and say what is being done to address this. Where the number of staff leaving is small, comment on the reasons why particular individuals left.

Turnover of academic staff is modest: 9 since 2008, including 1 woman (retired). It is impossible to draw any conclusions but the flexibility offered by Effective Academic grades has been a valuable retention tool for both genders. There is no significant gender difference in turnover of research staff: 24% for women and 27% for men (2008-2011). [56 words] Supporting and advancing women’s careers – maximum 5000 words [4945 words] 4. Key career transition points

a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning.

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

on any differences in recruitment between men and women at any level and say what action is being taken to address this.

The proportion of women applying for, shortlisted, and subsequently appointed to academic posts since 2005 is shown in Fig. 9; the data is taken back over 6 years since the overall number of women is small. The fraction appointed (18%, 6/34) is higher than the fraction applying (11%) and shortlisted (11%), although the difference is not significant, corresponding to just 6 female appointments. Interestingly, 2 of these were to the 4 advertised RCUK Fellowships (an Effective Academic grade). We also note that these data do not include several Effective Academic appointments (e.g., Fellowships obtained independently by the appointee). A striking statistic is that there were no female applicants (out of 30) for the 2 Statutory Professorships appointed over this period. The Athena SWAN Group has considered possible

14

sources of bias in the recruitment processes and actions are described in section 4b)(i). Despite our best efforts, we have been unable to obtain reliable long-term statistics for recruitment of Research Staff. Since autumn 2011 a new electronic system has been introduced that makes monitoring of gender balance more straightforward at all levels of appointments. Analysis of this data is a high priority action. [191 words]

Figure 9: Female candidates for academic posts, 2005-11. (ii) Applications for promotion and success rates by gender and

grade – comment on whether these differ for men and women and if they do explain what action may be taken. Where the number of women is small applicants may comment on specific examples of where women have been through the promotion process. Explain how potential candidates are identified.

The University does not run academic staff promotions, from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, Reader and Professor, such as take place in other universities. Instead, initial appointments to academic teaching posts are mostly on the University Lecturer scale, a joint appointment with an Oxford College, the salary for which is significantly higher than most other universities (roughly equivalent to Senior Lecturer elsewhere). The university does not distinguish between junior and senior lecturers; all those appointed proceed automatically to the top of the scale, which compares favourably with junior professorial salaries elsewhere. Hence, there is no transition point within the Lecturer scale, as often the case elsewhere, which, while having some disadvantages, does ensure that those that take family leave can continue to progress to senior levels without passing over regular promotion hurdles. The biennial "Recognition of Distinction" exercise invites academic staff to put their names forward for the award of the title of Professor (and until recently Reader, now being phased out). The award of a title is accompanied by neither a change in duties nor increased remuneration. All academic staff are informed of the process by email from the central administration. They may, if they wish, discuss whether to apply with the HoD who is able to provide advice but is not allowed by the university's rules to approach individual members of staff or to put names forward. The HoD is not on the evaluating committee. In the three most recent exercises, women have achieved a 100% success rate versus 71% for men. While this might suggest that insufficient women have put themselves forward, the number of candidates is broadly in line with

15

the proportion of female academic staff. While the numbers are small, we believe these figures reflect the quality of our female faculty and the effectiveness of the recognition of distinction awards for promoting women’s scientific careers. We will continue to monitor these data.

Male Female Title applied for Applications Outcome Applications Outcome Professor 6 5 Professor 0

Reader or Professor 14 3 Professor 10 Reader

1 1 Reader

2006

Reader 0 0 Professor 10 7 Professor 2 2 Professor

Reader or Professor 8 2 Professor 6 Reader

2 1 Professor 1 Reader

2008

Reader 1 1 Reader 0 2010 Professor 16 5 Professor 2 2 Professor Overall

success

55

39 (71%)

7

7 (100%) Table 2: Promotion applications and outcomes by gender for academic staff in recent “Recognition of Distinction” rounds. For Research Staff, promotion to the next grade can occur through a variety of ways including: re-grading where responsibility has increased in post; applying to advertised posts at a higher grade; obtaining a research council or Royal Society Fellowship, or a more senior post as a named researcher on a grant. Occasionally, for career progression or retention reasons, an individual can be appointed to a higher graded post without advertising after carefully reviewing impact on colleagues. In 2012 we introduced a formal career review for all fixed-term PDRAs proposing to continue on a new research contract. We anticipate an ongoing review of successive fixed-term contracts leading to around 8 individuals migrating to open-ended contracts. Many of our research staff move to permanent academic posts, both within Oxford and elsewhere (e.g., one woman joined the Department in 2008 as a PDRA and progressed to an advertised Lectureship in 2010). Such opportunities are discussed in Staff Development Discussions (section 5a)(i)). An action is to organise an annual event for research staff to communicate career/professional development, including paths to faculty positions. [495 words]

b) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the Department, what steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed.

(i) Recruitment of staff – comment on how the Department’s recruitment

processes ensure that female candidates are attracted to apply, and

16

how the Department ensures its short listing, selection processes and criteria comply with the university’s equal opportunities policies

The Department follows the University’s “Integrated Equality Policy” which includes a code of practice to remove discrimination at all points in the recruitment process. Chairs of selection panels must complete an online course run by the Oxford Learning Institute, involving a number of role-plays and exercises; the Personnel Committee monitors compliance. The Department has arranged for refresher briefings on recruitment and selection to take place in April-June 2012. The Personnel Committee monitors the number of trained chairs and is acting to increase this number. Since March 2011, all advertisements for academic posts have included a diversity statement and, since March 2012, displayed the University’s Bronze Athena SWAN Award. Wherever possible, both genders are represented on selection panels, although achieving full compliance has proved difficult given the small numbers of women in the Department, and the need to manage their administrative burdens. Of 91 selection procedures over the past 3 years, 69 have achieved gender balance. Of the 22 panels failing to achieve gender balance, 12 were in Atomic and Laser Physics which has no female academic staff. The Personnel Committee has taken responsibility for monitoring and resolving this issue, with the aim of achieving 100% compliance as soon as possible. In order to attract both women and men with family responsibilities to apply for posts, the Athena SWAN Group has produced a factsheet for parents, inspired by a similar document produced by Zoology as part of their Athena SWAN Action Plan. The factsheet is available for download from our Athena SWAN webpage (www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/athena-swan) and will be mentioned in the further particulars for future posts. [264 words] (ii) Support for staff at key career transition points – having identified

key areas of attrition of female staff in the Department, comment on any interventions, programmes and activities that support women at the crucial stages, such as personal development training, opportunities for networking, mentoring programmes and leadership training. Identify which have been found to work best at the different career stages.

The proportion of female staff at each career stage is shown in Fig. 11. The key points of attrition are from: (a) undergraduate applications to offers; (b) DPhil offer to acceptance; (c) Researcher to Lecturer. A previous point of attrition from Lecturer to Professor has largely been removed over the past 4 years. As previously noted, the fraction of undergraduate offers to females is consistent with the fraction taking A-level Physics and performance at admissions (which determines which offers are made) is consistent with performance in Finals. We therefore believe that the prime aim should be to increase the number of girls studying Physics at schools nationally and this is a key driver for our extensive outreach work described in section 6b)(v).

17

The possible discrepancy between DPhil offer and acceptance has been discussed in section 3b)(v) and specific actions have already been taken, with encouraging results to date. The proportion of female academic staff has been rising for several years and we expect the actions described in this document to increase this proportion further. In particular, we highlight the “Future Science Leadership” workshop (section 5a)(iii)), for which the Department is seeking long-term financial support to offer biennially, allowing all UK female Physics graduate students to attend. We also highlight the actions described in section 7, including sponsoring of multiple nursery places and the provision of specific resources such as the parents’ factsheet to make the Department attractive to those with family responsibilities. There are a number of additional programmes available to support women. These include: Springboard, a women’s development programme aimed at encouraging women to set and achieve career goals and develop networking skills; Ad Feminam, a pilot mentoring scheme run by the Oxford Learning Institute that addresses under-representation of women in academic and administrative leadership positions at Oxford by encouraging women to explore their leadership potential within academic life or within an administrative career; OxFEST, a society that offers information and resources for women in science, formal and informal social events with prominent members of the scientific community, a support network of role models, mentors and peers, and networking opportunities for career development; a Divisional scheme to give small grants to women returning from maternity leave, to which all staff were encouraged to apply (one PDRA in Physics received a grant). Information about each of these is included in the Departmental induction programme being rolled out in May 2012 and will be separately communicated to existing staff. [408 words]

Figure 11: Fraction of women at each career stage.

18

5. Career development

a) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the Department, what steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed.

(i) Promotion and career development – comment on the appraisal and

career development process, and promotion criteria and whether these take into consideration responsibilities for teaching, research, administration, pastoral work and outreach work; is quality of work emphasised over quantity of work?

The University's Appraisal Scheme requires academic staff to record annually their activities and any difficulties encountered in a simple form. This is passed to their Appraiser (usually head of subdepartment) who provides written comments, which must be agreed by the staff member. A discussion may be held at the request of the staff member but is compulsory only every five years; the Department believes this is inadequate and encourages (but has no authority to require) more frequent discussions. University Lecturers in their first 5 years have two major reviews which include extensive self- and peer-assessment and external validation so that individuals receive a great deal of constructive feedback. Since taking up post in 2010, the HoD has met all academic staff on a rotating basis to discuss what is going well, any concerns, and how the Department can best support them in their work; while a major commitment, this has proved invaluable in flagging major issues. The Department has run “Staff Development Discussions” (SDD) with all non-academic staff for a number of years but these have not been uniformly applied: the 2010 survey indicated only 57% of staff participated in an SDD in 2010. As one of its first actions, the Athena SWAN Group reviewed the SDD scheme and recommended revisions to the Personnel Committee and PMC. The revised scheme was rolled out to all staff in 2011 and further changes were made for 2012. These include:

• Removing the opt-out option; there is now an expectation that every qualifying member of staff will take part in an SDD.

• Adding a question on work-related stress (section 8). • Encouraging managers to specifically comment on performance, attendance,

and retirement where appropriate. • Encouraging managers to set SMART objectives.

Briefings have been run for staff and supervisors and widely advertised across the Department. Participation data are collected and any generic issues identified in the discussions are raised with heads of subdepartments and discussed annually by Physics Management Committee. Both Academic Staff Appraisals and SDDs are expected to include discussion of teaching, research, administration, pastoral and outreach work (as appropriate), and progress towards promotion, with quality of work being the primary measure of success. The Department has recently introduced a formal career review for PDRAs when they move to a new fixed term contract, to ensure the new contract is in their best interests and to recommend re-grading and appointment to an open-ended contract where appropriate. [404 words]

19

(ii) Induction and training – describe the support provided to new staff at

all levels, as well as details of any gender equality training. To what extent are good employment practices in the institution, such as opportunities for networking, the flexible working policy, and professional and personal development opportunities promoted to staff from the outset?

Prior to the Athena SWAN Group, induction had been handled by subdepartments. In the survey, only 40% of staff indicated they had received a full induction to the Department and 43% an induction to their subdepartment. In response, the Department has developed a centralised Induction Programme for all staff from May 2012, led by the HR Manager. This will involve monthly face-to-face briefings, supplemented by online materials and checklists, signposting to the University’s induction materials, and signposting to the University’s online induction course, including a diversity and equality module and termly briefings on the history and structure of the University. Good employment practices are promoted within the new Induction Programme, and the biannual “State of the Nation” addresses by the HoD to the Department. There are numerous opportunities for Academics and Researchers to network across the University and many take these up. For graduate students, Colleges provide an outstanding opportunity to network. The formal flexible working policy will be specifically highlighted in the new department-wide induction programme, but the culture of Oxford Physics quickly leads to understanding and adoption of informal flexible working practices. The University provides many professional and personal development courses and opportunities, a discussion of which is included in Graduate Student reports and reviews, SDDs and Appraisals. The Athena SWAN Group has an action to better signpost Physics staff and students to professional and personal development opportunities, in particular where it is clear that increased uptake would lead to significant benefits. Career-specific training for research staff is largely provided by a Divisional training team within the objectives of implementing and embedding the Research Concordat. They produce a “skills training bulletin”, sent fortnightly to Departments, giving information on skills courses/other events available to graduate students and staff. The Oxford Learning Institute also send a variety of email communications to researchers. The Athena SWAN Group has identified a need to streamline and improve communications to staff (especially PDRAs) about training and career development. [324 words] (iii) Support for female students – describe the 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. Comment on

20

whether these activities are run by female staff and how this work is formally recognised by the Department.

Formal support for undergraduates interested in research is provided through College tutors, departmental talks and the University Careers Service. Formal arrangements for mentoring of graduate students are recognised as one of the University’s strengths. DPhil supervisors routinely mentor their students, provide career development advice, and suggest appropriate training, both informally and in response to the specific question on the termly Graduate Supervision System report (completed online by both student and supervisor, and reviewed by the Director of Graduate Studies). In addition, every graduate student is assigned a College Advisor, usually independent of their subfield of work and always independent of the immediate research group: this person acts in a personal mentoring and advisory role. It can be difficult to assign a female advisor due to the small numbers of female Physicists in any given College. Students are formally reviewed by two independent assessors at the end of the first and second year; these reviews often include discussion of skills training and career plans. The Athena SWAN Group has developed a factsheet addressing generic concerns felt by all new graduate students, drawing on a similar document produced by students in Zoology. This is downloadable from the Physics Athena SWAN webpage and will be publicised to new and existing graduate students. We will also ensure that students are made aware of the University’s programmes to support women (section 4b)(ii)) as part of the graduate induction programme. In September 2011, a female Professor organised a “Future Science Leadership” workshop (www.physics.ox.ac.uk/FutureScienceLeaders) through her 2010 Rosalind Franklin Award, attracting over 100, largely early-career, scientists from across the UK (80% female). Feedback included: “Thank you for organising this incredible meeting. It is by far one of the most useful meetings I have attended. I have already started implementing some of the tips and advice … Interacting with the speakers left me with new-found confidence in my research and approach to life. Your response to question about failure in science is still resonating in my head. The experience … is tremendously valuable and will no doubt have a long term and profound impact on me.” The HoD is leading an Athena SWAN action to seek long-term funding to repeat this event every two years, which would allow every female Physics graduate student across the country to attend. [380 words] 6. Organisation and culture


(i) Male and female representation on committees – provide a

breakdown by committee and explain any differences between male and female representation. Explain how potential members are identified.

21

2010 2012 M F M F

Research Forum - - 103 17 Teaching Faculty* 101 15 103 17 Physics Management Committee (PMC) 12 1 11 2 PMC standing committee: Finance 6 1 6 1 PMC standing committee: Personnel 4 4 4 3 PMC standing committee: Safety - - 5 0 PMC standing committee: New Clarendon Planning Group (formerly Space Committee)

5 0 5 0

Advisory Committee for Cost Recovered Services - - 5 0 Advisory Committee for Non-Cost Recovered Services 5 0 5 0 Academic Committee 12 1 12 1 Athena SWAN Working Group - - 8 7 Practical Course Committee 14 2 14 2 Access and Publicity Committee 6 4 6 4 Physics Joint Consultative Committee (PJCC) 11 6 10 7 Post-Graduate Joint Consultative Committee (PGJCC) 10 3 10 3

Table 3: Representation on main Departmental committees in spring 2010 and 2012. (*Research Staff that act as tutors can also ask/be invited to attend). The Research Forum (2-3 times termly; created October 2010) and Teaching Faculty (termly) are the main fora for Academic Staff to discuss Department-wide research and teaching, and have been moved to lunchtimes to enable those with child-caring responsibilities to attend. Membership of all eligible staff ensures a strong voice in these core Departmental activities for all faculty including women. Physics Management Committee (9 times p.a.) includes 2 elected posts (1 female). Membership of remaining committees is determined by considering the need to balance gender and geographical sites/constituencies with workload. The Department operates a formal policy of minimising committee work within the first 5 years of academic appointments. Given the number of women falling under the latter category, this leads to under- or non-representation on some committees, although women do have a presence on those of highest strategic importance. The relatively large number of women on the Access and Publicity Committee represents the number of women interested in that area, which, in turn, has a positive impact on recruitment of more women. Student/PDRA membership of the PJCC (representing Undergraduates) and PGJCC (representing Graduate Students and PDRAs) is self-nominated and elected. [189 words] (ii) Female:male ratio of academic and research staff on fixed-term

contracts and open-ended (permanent) contracts – comment on any differences between male and female staff representation on fixed-term contracts and say what is being done to address them.

All academic staff are on permanent/open-ended contracts, whereas a relatively small fraction of research staff are on permanent/open-ended contracts, rising from 8 (0 female) in 2008 to 10 (1 female) in 2012. This modest rise will accelerate with

22

around 8 staff migrating from fixed-term to open-ended contracts as part of a catch-up review (section 4a)(ii)). While there is no significant gender gap, numerous actions described in this document should help increase the number of women on permanent/open-ended contracts. In particular, the Department has been very proactive in organising events to support the career development of women, such as the “Future Science Leadership” workshop described in section 5a)(iii) and is seeking funding to continue this event biennially, allowing all UK female Physics graduate students to participate. [125 words]


(i) Representation on decision-making committees – comment on

evidence of gender equality in the mechanism for selecting representatives. What evidence is there that women are encouraged to sit on a range of influential committees inside and outside the Department? How is the issue of ‘committee overload’ addressed where there are small numbers of female staff?

Firstly, the introduction of the faculty-wide Research Forum (October 2010) in addition to the existing Teaching Faculty, ensures that all men and women have a voice on key research and teaching matters in the Department. A recent example of balancing the representation of women on influential committees against “committee overload” is the election in 2011 of a woman to Physics Management Committee, compensated by rotating her off the Personnel Committee and Athena SWAN Group. The issue of committee overload is critical, in particular with a large fraction of female faculty being within their first 5 years of appointment for which we have a policy of reduced administrative burden. This, coupled with the small numbers of female staff, inevitably means that women are not represented on all committees, although they are on those of highest strategic importance. The Department recognises the need for staff, men and women, to sit on influential external committees, where appropriate to the career stage. An example of female representation at the very highest level is the appointment of a female Professor as President of the Institute of Physics. An example at junior level, following encouragement from her mentor, is the appointment of a new female Lecturer to the NERC Peer Review College, a role that should increase her success with research funding applications. [217 words] (ii) 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

23

science) are taken into account at appraisal and in promotion criteria. Comment on the rotation of responsibilities e.g. responsibilities with a heavy workload and those that are seen as good for an individual’s career.

An issue that emerged repeatedly in responses to the staff survey, and in our analysis of how to respond to related issues, was the absence of a proper workload allocation database and model. Consequently, the Department has devoted considerable resource, including a working group led by the HoD, to establish a system that monitors and records work allocation. This will document details of all teaching, research, administration, pastoral work and outreach work, as well as wider University and external commitments (panel memberships, external examining, etc), and will guide the allocation of any additional workload. The prototype database has been tested on a small sample of academic staff, and will be rolled out department-wide from September 2012. Staff will be asked to populate their workload data over the summer months. Clear guidance will be issued to minimise gender bias (men tend to be less modest in describing their workload). The workload allocation model will be profiled over the summer months with a view to going live from academic year 2012/13. The database will be extended to research staff as phase 2 of this development. [183 words] (iii) Timing of Departmental meetings and social gatherings – provide

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 2010 staff survey showed that 79% of respondents felt that meetings and seminars were scheduled in ways that took family/caring responsibilities into account. Nevertheless the Athena SWAN Group has acted to move several key Department meetings to more family-friendly times, e.g., the Teaching Faculty meetings were moved from 1630 on Fridays to lunchtimes at the request of the Athena SWAN Group, and the HoD also scheduled the Research Forum at lunchtimes. The Department holds a biannual “State of the Nation” event, open to all staff (academic and support), followed by a social event, during regular school hours. While it has proved impossible to reschedule all seminars due to timetabling constraints, changes have been made in response to specific needs, e.g., the AOPP seminars have been moved from 1615 to 1130 in response to individuals needing to pick up children from school at 1500, and the Astrophysics seminars from 1615 to 1415. The main outstanding action, for which the HoD is taking direct responsibility, is the timing of Departmental Colloquia, currently 1615 on Fridays: our aim is to move this to a family-friendly slot during the next academic year. [189 words] (iv) Culture –demonstrate how the Department is female-friendly and

inclusive. ‘Culture’ refers to the language, behaviours and other informal interactions that characterise the atmosphere of the Department, and includes all staff and students.

24

While Athena SWAN nominally concerns women in academic careers, good working practice benefits everyone in the Department. For this reason, we decided that our Athena SWAN group should include representatives from all corners of the Department. To illustrate how the Department is female-friendly and inclusive, we cite the specific and particularly challenging example of the traditionally male-dominated workshops. Since his appointment in 2005, the Head of Workshops (a member of the Athena SWAN Group) has adopted a formal policy of making the workshops women-friendly, achieved by a concentrated effort by the all-male staff to be more aware and understanding when dealing with female staff. The success of this initiative is reflected in that 13% of PDRAs/students using the workshops over the past 3 years were female (121/907), from a base of virtually none in the recent past. We will continue to monitor this data. There are common rooms, providing high-quality cooked meals, snacks and drinks, on both of the main sites. These serve as social and networking hubs for staff and students and are vital in making the Department more cohesive. Social events are held throughout the year, both across the Department and within subdepartments. Following flagship seminars, receptions are held in the lobby outside the lecture theatre and are widely attended. Nevertheless consultations with research staff in 2012 revealed that in spite of the common rooms and social events, some research staff feel isolated either within their research groups or geographically. We have an action to enable social and professional networking, both electronically and through events and meetings. The group identified a specific issue with the male-dominated black-and-white photographs of leading former staff throughout the Department. One of our actions is to obtain funding for a fixed-term post to create professional displays of the Department’s history as well as leading contemporary staff, both men and women. Some action has already been taken, e.g., in Astrophysics prominent photographs are displayed of our internationally renowned male and female professors, with captions detailing their contributions. [333 words] (v) Outreach activities – comment on the level of participation by female

and male staff in outreach activities with schools and colleges and other centres. Describe who the programmes are aimed at, and how this activity is formally recognised as part of the workload model and in appraisal and promotion processes.

The Department runs a highly regarded programme of outreach activities, described as “exemplary” in its most recent review by the Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences Division. We run more than 200 activities each year, including school visits and talks, UNIQ sponsored events for pupils and teachers, master-classes, and telescope open nights. Our events reach c. 8500 schoolchildren (mostly pre-A-level). The recent “Oxford Stargazing” attracted over 1200 participants including roughly equal numbers of girls and boys. We have developed events designed to give school students a taste of contemporary particle physics and astrophysics. We host the Climate.Prediction.net project, in which the public run climate models on their home computers and in schools, and the Galaxy Zoo project, now part of Zooinverse, and we administer the British Physics Olympiad competitions. The Department recently

25

hosted a training session to become a STEM Ambassador, attended by several of our DPhil students including a member of the Athena SWAN group who described it as inspiring. Involvement in outreach activities is formally recognised in SSDs and promotion processes, and is being included in the new staff workload allocation database and model. We do not have accurate data on male and female participation, but female participation is high. The new workload database will record such information for academic and research staff. [214 words] 7. Flexibility and managing career breaks


(i) Maternity return rate – comment on whether maternity return rate in

the Department has improved or deteriorated and any plans for further improvement. If the Department is unable to provide a maternity return rate, please explain why.

The University offers one of the most generous maternity leave schemes in the HE sector. We have calculated maternity return rates for female academic and research staff in the Department. The numbers for Physics are too low to draw conclusions, though female members of staff taking maternity leave generally return to work; the one non-returner resigned mid-leave to accept a more senior post in another university. In interviews, women have spoken highly of the Department’s support. We will continue to monitor this data. [83 words]

Year Maternity leave Non-returners Returners 2008 4 0 4 (1PT) 2009 3 1 2 (1PT) 2010 4 0 4 (2PT) 2011 4 0 4

Table 4: Maternity leave and return rates. (ii) Paternity, adoption and parental leave uptake – comment on the

uptake of paternity leave by grade and parental and adoption leave by gender and grade. Has this improved or deteriorated and what plans are there to improve further.

Paternity leave uptake is shown in Table 5. Since it is not mandatory to advise the Department of new fatherhood it is difficult to know if the dramatic increase in 2011 is due to increased awareness or otherwise. A specific example is a Lecturer and primary carer for three children whose wife holds a Statutory Chair in the Medical Sciences at Oxford. The Department allowed

26

him to take extended paternity leave and to work flexibly on his return. Despite his paternity leave and flexible working, he was able to maintain a high-profile academic career and was recently appointed to a Statutory Chair in Geography while retaining a 35% appointment in Physics. We have not received any requests for adoption leave but they would undoubtedly have been met in full. Parental leave is normally covered by the flexible working practices discussed below (evidenced by the Athena SWAN Group’s biographies and case study) and there are no plans to monitor it centrally. In the 2010 survey, 94% of staff felt maternity and paternity polices were consistently applied. [175 words]

Year Paternity leave 2008 5 2009 3 2010 4 2011 12

Table 5: Paternity leave, 2008-2011, comprising of 3 academic, 15 research and 6 support staff. (iii) Numbers of applications and success rates for flexible working by

gender and grade – comment on any disparities. Where the number of women in the Department is small applicants may wish to comment on specific examples.

Academic staff at Oxford, including in Physics, work on a flexible basis informally, dividing their time between Department and college commitments. The Department operates the University Flexible Working Policy, but there are more occasions where temporary or longer-term flexible working is agreed locally with managers: see the case studies for specific examples. The number of women and men working part-time has increased since 2009 (Fig. 6), with a higher proportion of women on part-time contracts. We will continue to monitor these data. ![82 words]

!

Figure 12: Take-up of part-time working (on 31 July) since 2009. !

27

!!


(i) Flexible working – comment on the 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.

Flexible working is encouraged both from the perspective of a right to request flexible working to a positive response to such requests. While many staff work flexible hours, this is often done on an informal basis for which we do not have data. Academic and research staff are not required to work particular hours, although they are required to teach at specific times, fulfil administrative duties and are monitored on research output. Central University guidance on flexible working is provided to ensure a transparent approach. Informal conversations with research staff working flexibly indicate that the arrangements are advantageous in allowing women and men to maintain a research programme whilst assuming major childcare responsibilities. The new induction programme will stress availability of flexible working and maternity/paternity leave provisions. [127 words]

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

University policy requires pregnant staff to inform their managers of their expected confinement, followed by completion of a Maternity Leave Plan. In Physics, the expectant mother is invited to a meeting with the HR Manager to explore individual circumstances and any changes needed in the work place, entitlement to benefits, impact on work, any thoughts about returning to work, and any general advice/assistance. Care needs to be taken over contract type and length and this is discussed with the interests of the expectant mother as the priority. Research staff often wish to work for as long as possible before the baby is born. The Department has a small bed available should pregnant women need to rest. Since most teaching duties are undertaken for individual Colleges, it is difficult for Departments to provide consistent relief from teaching for those returning to work after maternity leave (such staff have a separate contract with their College). However, the Department does what it can to be accommodating – an extreme example in response to tragic circumstances is detailed in the second case study.

28

While Oxford’s policies on maternity leave are amongst the most generous in the HE sector, the Athena SWAN Group identified 2 major shortcomings in its surveys and these have led to 3 major enhancements beyond the University’s standard provision:

1. While the Research Councils reimburse the University for the costs of maternity leave, minor accounting issues (e.g., due to pay awards) can result in small shortfalls on such grants, making maternity difficult to manage for PIs. The Athena SWAN Group proposed and the HoD has agreed that the Department will underwrite such shortfalls in future.

2. The overwhelming issue for returning parents and appointees with children is provision of nursery places. Although the University provides the largest number of subsidised nursery places in the HE sector, there is still a long waiting list. In 2010, all Departments were invited to sponsor one place, to be allocated to an employee of the Department. Motivated by the size of the Department, and to underline the level of demand, the Athena SWAN Group bid for six places. These were all granted and allocated between 13 applicants (female and male) through needs-based criteria. In 2011 we surveyed all staff and postgraduate students to assess the level of need for additional nursery provision and 35 expressed interest in such places; the HoD has agreed to bid for additional places when the opportunity next arises.

3. Development of a “Factsheet for Parents”, detailing the leave and flexible working options available to parents, assistance with returning to work, childcare, schools, and information about living in Oxford with children. This factsheet was inspired by a similar document produced by Zoology as part of their Athena SWAN Action Plan. The factsheet is available for download from our Athena SWAN webpage (www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/athena-swan), and will be handed out as part of the Induction package.

Women have told us that returning from maternity leave and getting a research career back up to speed is a challenge. To this end, the Division launched an experimental grant scheme in 2011/12 for women returning from maternity leave to apply for up to £10,000 for items such as conference attendance, teaching buyouts, research assistance, training and travel. One applicant from Physics obtained a grant this year and it is hoped that the scheme will be run again in the future. [562 words] 8. Any other comments – maximum 500 words [412 words] Please comment here on any other elements which are relevant to the application, e.g. other SET-specific initiatives of special interest that have not been covered in the previous sections. Include any other relevant data (e.g. results from staff surveys), provide a commentary on it and indicate how it is planned to address any gender disparities identified. The 2010 staff survey showed a strong positive response to working in the Department: 88% of respondents would recommend Oxford Physics to a friend, 80% felt happy with their work-life balance, 86% felt part of a team working towards a common goal, and 77% believed there is a strong sense of teamwork.

29

However, the survey raised a particular concern over stress in the workplace. In answer to the question “How often do you experience a level of work-related stress that you view as unreasonable?” 47% reported an unreasonable level of work-related stress at least some of the time. There was no significant difference in the responses of men and women, but the Athena SWAN committee recognised that this response represented a risk to both individuals and the Department. Analysis of the survey suggested the main issues were workloads/patterns, level of support (encouragement, training, line management) and clarity of role. In addition to implementation of the new workload-allocation database and model, the Athena SWAN Group prepared a report on stress-related issues arising from the survey, submitted to Physics Management Committee in autumn 2011. It noted that while stress cannot be eliminated from the working environment and indeed is positively beneficial in many circumstances, the Department should work towards reducing unreasonable stress. It also noted the importance of recognising and addressing stress-related problems and illnesses as early as possible. As a result a series of briefings on Managing Stress has been implemented, starting with Physics Management Committee and rolling out (so far) to 5 subdepartmental meetings of managers and staff. This includes a comprehensive guide to the support available at Oxford through Occupational Health and the Oxford Learning Institute. An additional action is to review the appointment and training of Harassment Officers; we have spoken with a Harassment Officer in Earth Sciences to learn from their good practice. The Department has found the process of preparing for this Athena SWAN submission extremely valuable. It has helped us develop a coherent approach to improving the work environment for all our staff. We have identified simple measures which have already made a real difference, for example the sponsored nursery places. Some other problems, such as the lack of a systematic workload allocation mechanism, will take a little longer to fully resolve but we are making good progress. The work of our Athena SWAN group has benefited greatly from the direct involvement of the HoD and his personal commitment to ensuring that words are transformed into reality. [412 words] 9. Action plan Provide an 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. The action plan does not need to cover all areas at Bronze; however the expectation is that the Department will have the organisational structure to move forward, including collecting the necessary data.

1

Action'Plan'!Identified'priority'! Relevant'

sections'''

Completed'actions'' Description'of'actions'required!

Measures'of'success'

Responsible'person/group!

Timeline'!

1.!Grow!the!number!of!girls!interested!in!Physics!through!communicating!with!and!enthusing!them!at!an!early!age.!!!!

3a)(i)!3b)(ii)!6b)(v)!

1.1!Around!200!outreach!events!held!each!year,!reaching!around!8500!schoolchildren!(roughly!4000!schoolgirls).!!!1.2!“Stargazing!Oxford”!(January!2012)!attracted!over!1200,!including!equal!numbers!of!boys!and!girls.!!

1.3!Continue!to!offer!a!wideNranging!programme!of!outreach!events!attractive!to!girls.!!!!1.4!Monitor!success!by!getting!feedback!from!girls!attending!outreach!activities!and!keeping!track!of!gender!split.!!

1.3!Outreach!programme!offered!and!rated!“exemplary”!by!external!review!of!Physics.!!!1.4!Reach!a!large!number!of!girls!and!achieve!positive!feedback;!longNterm,!increase!number!of!girls!opting!to!study!Physics.!!!

Schools!Liaison!Officer!!!!!!Schools!Liaison!Officer;!Head!of!Teaching!

Ongoing!!!!!!!After!each!event!!!

2.!Motivate!women!to!follow!careers!and!develop!leadership!roles!in!Physics.!!!

3b)(i)!4b)(ii)!5a)(iii)!6a)(ii)!

2.1!“Future!Science!Leadership!Seminars!at!Oxford”!event!held,!September!2011;!attendees!required!to!give!two!talks!to!girls!in!schools.!!

2.2!Seek!longNterm!funding!to!repeat!this!event!on!a!biennial!basis.!!!!!

2.2!Funding!obtained;!events!repeated!biennially!and!attended!by!majority!of!UK!female!Physics!graduate!students.!!!

Head!of!Department!

September!2013,!or!as!soon!as!possible!thereafter;!biennially!thereafter.!!

3.!Identify!and!counteract!causes!of!women!opting!to!take!3Nyear!BA!rather!than!4Nyear!MPhys.!!

3b)(ii)! 3.1!Focus!groups!held!(March!2012)!and!some!causes!identified.!!!!3.2!Removed!barrier!to!students!enrolled!on!MPhys!downgrading!to!BA.!!!3.3!Discussed!issue!with!Athena!SWAN!Coordinator!in!Mathematics!(where!similar!problem!identified).!!

3.4!Repeat!focus!group!and!survey!students.!!!3.5!Develop!further!actions!to!alleviate!attrition!of!female!students,!including!providing!more!information!about!the!4th!year!and!ensuring!tutors!encourage!women!to!remain!for!the!4th!year!where!appropriate.!!!3.6!Implement!series!of!talks!from!former!students!on!career!options!and!obtain!feedback.!!!

3.3!Focus!group!and!survey!held;!data!analysed.!!!3.5!Reduction!in!gender!difference!of!numbers!remaining!for!4th!year.!!!!!!!!!3.6!Talks!implemented!and!positive!feedback!received.!!!

Schools!Liaison!officer!!!Head!of!Teaching!!!!!!!!!!!!Head!of!Teaching!

Annual!!!!October!2012!and!annually!thereafter!!!!!!!!!!!April!2013!!!

4.!Identify!and!eliminate!any!attrition!of!women!due!to!Physics!Aptitude!Test!(PAT)!employed!for!undergraduate!admissions.!!

3b)(v)! 4.1!PAT!data!collected!since!2006!and!correlated!with!subsequent!degree!performance.!!!!

4.2!Reduce!number!of!multiple!choice!questions!in!response!to!evidence!more!females!not!completing!test.!!!4.3!Continue!to!monitor!PAT!data!and!refine!PAT!accordingly;!continue!to!correlate!with!performance!in!first!year!and!finals.!!!!!

4.2!No!gender!bias!in!numbers!completing!test.!!!!!!4.3!Further!reduction!in!gender!difference!in!PAT!scores,!tending!towards!elimination!of!differences.!

Head!of!Teaching!!!!!!Head!of!Teaching!/!Academic!Administrator!!!

Autumn!2012!!!!!!!Annual!!

2

Identified'priority'! Relevant'sections'''




Timeline'!

5.!Identify!and!eliminate!any!gender!bias!in!graduate!admissions.!!

3b)(v)! 5.1!Identified!loss!of!women!between!offers!and!acceptances!in!Theoretical!Physics;!clearer!guidelines!issued!to!candidates!on!format!of!interviews!(3!women!accepted!places!in!2011,!compared!with!2!between!2006N10).!!!

5.2!Continue!to!monitor!data!and!get!feedback!from!graduate!students!to!assess!the!application!and!assessment!procedures;!refine!procedures!where!necessary.!!

5.2!No!gender!bias!in!graduate!admissions!across!all!subdepartments.!!!

Director!of!Graduate!Studies!

Annual!

6.!Improve!representation!of!women!in!departmental!literature,!website,!wall!displays.!!!

3b)(v)!4b)(i)!6b)(iv)!

6.1!Website!and!undergraduate!brochures!include!students!of!both!genders,!from!a!range!of!ethnic!backgrounds.!!!6.2!Large!photographs!of!successful!female!academics!displayed!in!Astrophysics,!with!captions!detailing!their!contributions.!!!

6.3!Seek!funding!for!individual!to!work!on!updating!photographic!and!other!displays!in!rest!of!department,!including!photograph!celebrating!success!stories!(both!male!and!female,!contemporary!and!historical).!!!

6.3!Funding!obtained!and!new!displays!installed.!!

Head!of!Department!

April!2012N2015!

7.Monitor!and!improve!academic!confidence!of!female!undergraduates.!

3b)(vi)!3b)(ii)!

7.1!Discussion!with!Athena!SWAN!Coordinator!in!Mathematics!identified!that!females!have!less!confidence!in!their!academic!attainment!and!fewer!aim!for!a!1st!in!other!departments.!!!

7.2!Hold!focus!group!and!short!survey!and!determine!if!similar!issues!arise!in!Physics.!!!7.3!Develop!appropriate!actions.!!!

7.2!Development!of!appropriate!actions.!!!!7.3!Reduced!gender!difference!in!academic!ambitions!and!attainment!

Head!of!Teaching!!!!!Head!of!Teaching!

Spring!2013!!

!!!April!2013!N!2014!

8.!Introduce!same!departmental!benefits!(e.g.,!sabbaticals)!for!“effective!academic”!grades.!!

3b)(vii)! 8.1!Same!benefits!rolledNout.!!!!!

8.2!Communicate!the!benefits!to!those!affected!and!monitor!takeNup!to!ensure!equality!between!substantive!and!effective!academics.!!!!!!!

8.2!Equal!takeNup!between!substantive!and!effective!academics.!!

HR!Manager! Ongoing!

9.!Ensure!research!staff!are!aware!of!career!/professional!development!options.!!

4a)(ii)! 9.1!Held!discussions!with!PDRAs!about!career!paths!in!Physics!(April!2012).!!

9.2!Organise!annual!event!for!PDRAs!!to!illustrate!career!options!and!support!at!Oxford!and!provide!an!opportunity!for!networking.!!!

9.2!PDRAs!more!aware!of!different!career!paths!open!to!them;!uptake!of!career!support!and!training!increased.!!

Athena!SWAN!Coordinator!

Spring!2013!and!annually!thereafter!

3





Timeline'!

10.!Introduce!compulsory!career!review!for!PDRAs!extending!employment!on!fixedNterm!contracts.!!

4a)(ii)!5a)(i)!6a)(ii)!

10.1!New!form!introduced!when!reNappointing!to!ensure!this!is!done;!new!procedure!communicated!to!research!staff!and!line!managers.!!

10.2!CatchNup!review!of!those!on!successive!fixedNterm!contracts.!!!!!10.3!Reviews!held!(e.g.,!6!months)!before!end!of!contract;!monitor!outcomes.!!!!!!10.4!Solicit!feedback!from!PDRAs!in!each!subdepartment.!!!

10.2!Migrate!PDRAs!to!openNended!contracts!where!appropriate.!!!10.3!Appropriate!use!of!repeated!contracts!and!migration!to!openNend!contract!where!appropriate.!!!10.4!PDRAs!!satisfied!with!procedures;!procedures!!modified!if!appropriate.!!!

HR!Manager!!!!!!Line!Manager;!monitored!by!HR!Manager!!!!!!HR!Manager!!!

Ongoing!!!!!!As!appropriate!!!!!!!!October!2013!

11.!Ensure!there!are!sufficient!qualified!chairs!for!interview!panels.!!

4b)(i)! 11.1!Recruitment!and!selection!refresher!courses!approved!by!Oxford!Learning!Institute.!!

11.2!Refresher!courses!provided!and!attended!by!wide!range!of!staff;!number!of!qualified!chairs!monitored!annually.!!!

11.2!Increased!pool!of!qualified!panel!chairs.!!

MPLS!Senior!Personnel!Manager!

Summer!2012;!monitored!annually.!!

12.!Improve!gender!balance!of!recruitment!panels!!

4b)(i)! 12.1!Memo!sent!to!PIs!and!Administrators!noting!that!women!on!panels!need!not!be!faculty,!while!balancing!against!need!to!not!!overload!women.!!!

12.2!Continue!to!monitor!and!improve!gender!balance!on!recruitment!panels.!!!!!!

12.2!100%!of!panels!genderNbalanced!(at!least!one!woman)!without!negatively!impacting!on!workload!of!women.!!!

HR!Manager!!!!!!!!

Annual!!!!!!!!

13.!Develop!Athena!SWAN!webpage.!!!

4b)(i)!5a)(iii)!7b)(ii)!

13.1!Implement!initial!webpage.!!!!

13.2!Maintain!webpage!content.!!

13.2!Webpage!up!to!date!each!year!and!being!accessed!by!staff!(assessed!by!“hits”).!!!


Review!annually!

14.!Improve!information!available!to!parents!!

4b)(i)! 14.1!Produced!parents!factsheet!and!made!available!from!Athena!SWAN!webpage.!!!

14.2!Update!annually!or!as!appropriate.!!

14.2!Information!upNtoNdate.!!

HR!Manager! Annual!

15.!Publicise programmes to support women‘s career development!

4b)(ii)! ! 15.1!Publicise!Springboard,!Ad!Feminam,!OxFEST!and!Divisional!and!external!grants!to!support!returning!women!in!Induction!Programme!and!more!widely.!!!15.2!Monitor!uptake.!!

15.1!Women!are!aware!of!these!programmes.!!!!!!!!15.2!Uptake!increases.!!!!

HR!Manager!!!!!!!!!HR!Manager!

May!2012,!review!annually!!!!!!!Review!annually!!

4





Timeline'!

16.!Increase!number!of!sponsored!nursery!places.!!

4b)(ii)!7b)(ii)!

16.1!Successful!bid!for!6!sponsored!nursery!places.!!!16.2!Survey!staff!to!determine!ongoing!need.!!!

16.3!Bid!for!additional!sponsored!nursery!places!when!opportunity!next!arises.!!!16.4!Solicit!and!review!feedback!on!allocation!procedures.!!!16.5!Continue!to!monitor!need.!!!

16.3!Additional!nursery!places!provided.!!!!!16.4!Satisfaction!with!allocation!procedure.!!!16.5!Awareness!of!demand!for!additional!places.!!!

HR!Manager!!!!!!HR!Manager!!!!HR!Manager!!

Next!call!!!!!!!As!places!become!available.!!!January!2014!and!biennially!thereafter.!!!

17.!Implement!compulsory!annual!staff!review!for!research!staff!

5a)(i)! 17.1!Annual!review!scheme!developed!and!implemented.!!!

17.2!Monitor!compliance!and!satisfaction,!and!respond!to!generic!issues!arising.!!!

17.2!100%!compliance!and!satisfaction!with!scheme!

Senior!Administrator!!

Annual!!!

18.!Ensure!staff!and!students!are!aware!of!professional!and!personal!development!opportunities.!!

5a)(ii)!5a)(iii)!

! 18.1!Consider!how!signposting!can!be!best!achieved!and!implement!resultant!actions.!!!!!!18.2!Streamline!and!improve!communication!to!PDRAs.!!!

18.1!Staff!and!students!are!aware!of!available!opportunities!assessed!in!the!2014!surveys.!!!!!18.2!Communication!is!efficient!and!effective.!!

Equal!Opportunities!and!Diversity!Committee,!HR!Manager,!Director!of!Graduate!Studies!!Equal!Opportunities!and!Diversity!Committee!

Summer!2012,!assess!in!2014!staff!and!student!surveys.!!!!!!Summer!2012!

19.!Provide!information!on!life!as!a!graduate!student.!!!

5a)(iii)! 19.1!Produced!factsheet!and!posted!on!Athena!SWAN!webpage.!

19.2!Monitor!hits!and!solicit!feedback.!!

19.2!Factsheet!is!being!read!and!well!received.!!


April!2013!

20.!Increase!the!voice!of!graduate!students!in!Departmental!governance.!!

5a)(iii)! ! 20.1!Contact!all!graduate!students!to!advise!of!the!Physics!Joint!Consultative!Committee!!(PGJCC).!!!!!!!!!

20.1!Increased!awareness!of!PGJCC!in!graduate!student!survey.!!

Director!of!Graduate!Studies!

May!2012!

21!Improve!induction!programme!so!that!all!new!staff!are!aware!of!benefits!and!opportunities,!including!professional!development!opportunities!!!

5b)(ii)! 21.1!Staff!induction!programme!implemented.!!!!!!!

21.2!Review!annually.!! 21.2!Satisfaction!with!induction!programme!and!increased!awareness!of!resources!available!in!2014!staff!survey.!!

HR!Manager!!!

Annual!!!!

5





Timeline'!

22.Ensure!accurate!record!and!equitable!distribution!of!workload.!!

6b)(ii)! 22.1!Develop!pilot!database.!!

22.2!Pilot!and!refine!database!on!small!sample!of!staff.!!!!22.3!General!roll!out!of!database.!!!!22.4!Develop,!refine!and!implement!work!allocation!model.!!!

22.2!Pilot!database!rolled!out.!!!22.3!Database!recording!all!workload.!!!22.4!Model!used!in!allocation!of!workload.!!

Senior!Administrator!/!Bernard!West!!Senior!Administrator!/!Bernard!West!!Head!of!Department!

AprilNSeptember!2012!!!October!2012!–!September!2013!!October!2013!–!September!2014!

23.!Move!key!meetings!to!core!hours!to!enable!attendance!by!those!with!family!responsibilities.!!!

6b)(iii)! 23.1!Teaching!Faculty!Committee!moved!from!1630!on!Fridays!to!1300!on!Tuesdays.!!!23.2!Research!Forum!held!at!1300!on!Tuesdays.!!!23.3!Some!seminar!series!(e.g.,!AOPP,!Astrophysics)!moved!to!core!hours!where!specific!need!identified.!!!

23.4!Review!timing!of!departmental!colloquium.!!!23.5!Monitor!meetings!and!seminars!scheduled!outside!core!hours,!and!explore!options!for!rescheduling!where!specific!needs!arise.!!!

23.4!Colloquium!at!familyNfriendly!time!!23.5!Satisfaction!with!timings!in!2014!staff!survey!

Head!of!Department!!!Athena!SWAN!Coordinator!

April!2013!!!!!Ongoing;!review!annually!

24.!Increase!usage!of!workshops!by!women.!!!

6b)(iv)!! ! 24.1!Ongoing!action!to!make!the!workshop!environment!more!womenNfriendly!and!monitor!usage!by!women.!!!

24.1!No!gender!bias!in!usage!statistics.!!

Workshop!Manager!

Review!annually!

25.!Enable!social!and!professional!networking,!in!particular!for!Research!Staff.!!

7b)(iv)! 25.1!Research!Staff!meetings!held!to!identify!issues!and!desired!actions.!!

25.2!Hold!regular!lunchtime!events!for!Research!Staff,!including!presentations!on!career!development!options!inside!and!outside!academia.!!!25.3!Develop!Departmental!social!networking!pages!on!Facebook!and!Twitter.!!

25.2!Research!staff!report!feeling!better!integrated,!and!better!aware!of!career!options,!in!2014!survey.!!!!25.3!Increased!knowledge!of!opportunities!and!integration!into!Department.!!!

Director!of!Graduate!Studies,!reviewed!by!Equal!Opportunities!and!Diversity!Committee.'''25.3!Alumni!Officer!(due!to!overlap!with!existing!Alumni!actions)!

Autumn!2012,!reviewed!annually.!!!!!!!!Autumn!2012,!reviewed!annually.!!

26.!Improve!administration!of!maternity!leave!on!research!contracts.!!

7b)(ii)! 26.1!Agreement!that!department!will!underwrite!shortfall!on!grants!arising!directly!from!maternity!leave!and!money!claimed!back!from!research!council!not!fully!covering!this.!!!

26.2!Implement!formal!policy!for!improved!administrative!support!of!grants!with!maternity!leave!and!provide!clear!guidelines!for!PIs,!and!survey!PIs!and!staff!involved!postNleave.!!!

26.2!Staff!and!PIs!report!seamless!support!for!entire!maternity!leave!process.!!

Senior!Administrator!!!!

December!2012!!!!

6

Note: The Athena SWAN Group is being embedded into the Departmental Management Structure as the “Equal Opportunities and Diversity Committee”, with initial membership being drawn from the Athena SWAN Group for continuity. The “Athena SWAN Coordinator” will retain this title but become a member of the new Standing Committee, along with the HoD.





Timeline'!

27.!Develop!and!implement!formal!policy!on!dealing!with!stress!in!the!workplace.!!

8! 27.1!Formal!policy!developed!by!Athena!SWAN!subgroup!and!implemented!by!Physics!Management!Committee.!!!27.2!Programme!of!seminars!on!managing!stress!given!to!subdepartments!and!other!groups!(7!given!to!date).!!!

27.3!Continue!to!offer!seminars!to!relevant!staff!and!student!units.!!!!27.4!Further!analysis!of!survey!data!on!stress!in!the!workplace!!!

27.3!Seminars!given!to!all!units.!!!!!27.4!Reduced!staff!stress!levels.!!

Athena!SWAN!Coordinator!!!!Athena!SWAN!Coordinator!!

Annual!!!!!April!2014N2015!

28.!Harassment!Officers!

8! 28.1!Email!circulated!inviting!volunteers!to!act!as!Harassment!Officers.!!

28.2!Appointment!of!2!new!Harassment!Officers.!!!28.3!Publicise!identity!of!Harassment!Officers!

28.2!Harassment!officers!in!post.!!!!28.3!Most!staff!and!graduate!students!aware!of!Harassment!Officers!in!2014!surveys.!!!

Senior!Administrator!!!Senior!Administrator!!

July!2012!!!!July!2012!

29.!Staff!and!student!survey.!!

Most!sections! ! 29.1!Rerun!survey!of!staff!and!survey!graduate!students!!29.2!Analyse!results!!

29.1!Benchmark!progress!of!actions.!!29.2!Updated!action!plan!

Athena!SWAN!Coordinator!!!Athena!SWAN!Coordinator!!

April!2014!!!!April!2014!N!2015!!

athena swan bronze and silver department award …...diversity), vanessa howe (divisional senior...

Documents