Equal Opportunity for Women in the WorkplaceAnnual Compliance Report 2010

(1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010)

The University of Western AustraliaEquity and Diversity

October 2010

CONTENTS

Page

I. EXPLANATORY NOTES 1

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

III. UWA GENDER DATA

1. Academic Staff by Function, Classification and Distribution 2005-2010 4Table 1a. Academic Staff by Function & ClassificationTable 1b. Academic Staff Equity IndexFigure 1a. Academic Staff Equity IndexFigures 1b-d. Academic Staff by Classification

2. Professional Staff by Function, Classification and Distribution 2005-2010 7Table 2a. Professional Staff by Function & ClassificationTable 2b. Professional Staff Equity IndexFigure 2a. Professional Staff Equity IndexFigure 2b. Professional Staff by Classification

3. Staff by Classification, Appointment Type and Appointment Status 2005-2010 9Table 3. Staff by Function, Appointment Type and Appointment StatusFigures 3a-d Staff by Appointment Type and Status

4. New Appointments and Separations 2009 12Table 4a. New Appointments and Separations for Academic StaffTable 4b. New Appointments and Separations for Professional Staff

5. Staff by Function, Classification and Age 2010 14Table 5a. Academic Staff by Classification and AgeTable 5b. Professional Staff by Classification and Age

6. Discretionary Allowances 2010 16Table 6a. Academic Staff Discretionary AllowancesTable 6b. Professional Staff Discretionary Allowances

7. Academic Staff Promotion 2005-2009 17Table 7a. Academic Staff Promotion Application and Success Jan-Dec 2005-2009Table 7b. Academic Staff Fast Track Promotions 2000-2009

8. UWA Leadership Roles by Gender 2010 19Table 8. Faculty Leadership Roles by GenderFigure 4. UWA Management Structure Tiers 1-4

I. EXPLANATORY NOTES

1. All data is ‘According to Gender’.

2. Data is for the period 1 April 2009-31 March 2010. 31 March is the University’s annual ‘census date’. Data in Table 7a: ‘Academic Staff Promotion Application and Success’ is for the calendar year 2009.

3. All data excludes casual staff.

4. DEFINITIONS

Employment Type Academic or Professional

Function Academic Teaching & Research, Research Intensive, Teaching Intensive, Other Professional Mainstream Professional, Research Intensive

Classification Academic DVC/PVC; Levels A-EProfessional < HEW 1 – > HEW 10

Appointment Type Ongoing or Fixed Term

Appointment Status Full Time or Part Time

5. Academic Classifications

Function & Level

Teaching & Research / Other

Research Intensive Teaching Intensive

Level A Lecturer Research Associate LecturerLevel B Assistant Professor Research Assistant Professor Assistant ProfessorLevel C Associate Professor Research Associate Professor Associate ProfessorLevel D Professor Research Professor Professor Level E Winthrop Professor Research Winthrop Professor Winthrop ProfessorDVC/PVC Deputy/Pro Vice-Chancellor

1

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview

The 2010 EOWA Compliance Report is an important element in building the overall gender equity picture at UWA. It extends the work of other comprehensive gender equity reports such as the 2008 UWA Pay Equity Report, Merit Relative to Opportunity Paper produced by the Group or Eight Staff Equity Group and the annual Employer of Choice submission. This Report identifies both achievements to date as well as future challenges through the use of targeted data sets to reveal sites of privilege, as well as those of disadvantage and progression. The 2010 annual EOWA Report, while not dissimilar to those in the recent past, reveals both noteworthy achievements as well as historical gender equity ‘gaps’ that have prevailed for most of the last decade. It is worthwhile noting, for the first time, that women now comprise more than half of staff at the most senior professional staff category (Level 10 and above) and that the number of women Directors has more than doubled in the male-dominated portfolios of the Executive Director (Finance and Resources) and Executive Director and Registrar. There are three key areas of concern; namely, the ongoing unequal representation in the Professoriate, the lower Equity Index for women in the Professional staffing stream despite its gender profile and the poor representation of women in the Heads of School category.

Key Achievements

The overall representation (%) and distribution (Equity Index scores) of female academic staff employed at the University of Western Australia has continued to increase in a positive direction. Women now comprise 39.3% of all academic staff, an improvement of 14.3% over the decade since the 25% representation noted in 2000.Teaching and Research positions at Levels A and B are equitably distributed between male and female staff, with female representation at a healthy 54.5% in Level A, and 49.8% at Level B. Representation at Levels C and D in the research intensive category has increased, with Level D now at 33.3%, showing a marked improvement from the 21.7% reported in 2004. Women currently comprise 66% of all professional staff at UWA, and the majority at every level of the professional staffing stream except for the penultimate (Level 10) and the lowest (Level 1). There has been a significant increase in the representation of women in the most senior level of professional staff (HEW 10 and above) in the last two years - 52% in the current reporting period from 41.9% in 2008, and a healthy increase from the 2004 representation of only 33.3%. Women comprised 43.3% of all teaching and research academics promoted, with 22 successful applicants out of 26. This figure represents a significant increase (up from 34% in 2009) in the percentage of academic women successfully gaining promotion through the academic ranks at UWA. Of all the University leadership categories, the position of Dean of Faculty continues a consistent longitudinal trend in gender equity performance. In 2010, four of the ten Deans of Faculty1 were women. Women have now consolidated their positions in Faculty management, with female Faculty and School Managers at 64% and 63% respectively. The greatest achievement in the current reporting period has been the significant improvement in the gender equity performance within the portfolios of the Executive Director (Finance and Resources), and Executive Director and Registrar. After many years of poor performance (from 2006-2008, women held only two Director positions, increasing to three in 2009), senior women now hold five of the 19 Director positions within these Divisions.

1 This figure includes the Dean of the School of Indigenous Studies.

2

Ongoing challenges

Notwithstanding the significant increase in the numbers of academic women over the past decade, their representation has remained static (39%) across the past two reporting periods. The pattern of equitable distribution in the ‘teaching and research’ category at Levels A and B tapers off in favour of men beyond these levels: women now comprise just over a third of staff at Level C (40%), a quarter at Level D (24.8%), and less than a fifth at Level E (17.2%). The percentage of Female Research Intensive staff remains fairly static at 44.2%, showing little overall change since 2004 (45.7%). Representation at Level B in this category (46.8%) has continued to decrease slightly over the last five years, down to 47.5% from 50.4% in 2004. Women are still having difficulty attaining the most senior positions in this category, where men comprise 91.9% of staff at Level E. Men’s predominance at Levels 10 and 10+ also needs to be addressed since it is this over representation at the higher levels that accounts for the professional staff Equity Index scores (measures of distribution). Although women comprise 66% of the professional staff, their EI score is only 88 indicating an over representation of women into lower classification levels. The male EI score for professional staff is 127 indicating that these 35.6% of staff are over represented at the more senior classification levels. An EI score of 100 indicates equitable distribution of staff. Despite yearly fluctuations in academic promotion rates, when the data is examined longitudinally from 2003-2007, academic women have a consistently lower application, but higher or equal success rate to men (80.6% and 78.5% respectively in 2009, and 84.6% and 85.2% respectively in 2010). While women appear to have consolidated their positions in Faculty management (Faculty and School manager positions), it is worthwhile monitoring the significant 10% reduction in representation at the more senior Faculty Manager level since the last reporting period (women comprised 74% in 2009). Gains in representation and distribution of women across more senior occupational categories are often tenuous, and the male ‘creep’ often emerges.The consistent trend of poor representation of women in the ‘Heads of School’ category continues (20% in 2010). This represents a significant concern, not only because it is a feeder category for more senior levels of academic leadership such as Dean and Pro Vice-Chancellor, but also because women are choosing not to take on the role.The over-representation of men in both the most senior ranks of professional staff and Heads of School category remains an ongoing concern. Gender diversity in leadership encourages new perspectives and female leaders improve the situation for women below. Gender-based research in the academic staffing arena consistently underscores the importance of visible female leadership as a powerful agent of cultural change, thereby improving both their employment outcomes and working conditions.

3

1. Academic Staff by Function, Classification and Distribution 2005-2010

All Staff Number

Male Staff Number

Female Staff

Number% Female 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

DVC/PVC 1 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 50.0% 66.7% 66.7%LEVEL E 221 183 38 17.2% 16.7% 15.6% 15.8% 13.1% 11.0%LEVEL D 186 140 46 24.7% 24.9% 24.3% 23.1% 21.8% 16.9%LEVEL C 294 176 118 40.1% 39.6% 40.9% 35.5% 36.0% 33.2%LEVEL B 220 113 107 48.6% 49.8% 53.8% 48.3% 51.4% 55.0%LEVEL A 59 26 33 55.9% 54.5% 47.4% 50.6% 46.4% 43.8%

Total 981 639 342 34.9% 34.8% 36.4% 33.3% 33.8% 32.3%LEVEL E 22 20 2 9.1% 4.3% 6.3% 11.8% 6.3% 7.1%LEVEL D 30 20 10 33.3% 34.6% 29.0% 26.9% 24.0% 21.7%LEVEL C 71 43 28 39.4% 33.3% 28.3% 22.0% 26.2% 27.0%LEVEL B 205 109 96 46.8% 47.5% 49.5% 48.0% 49.7% 52.8%LEVEL A 267 140 127 47.6% 51.7% 46.9% 49.2% 41.9% 48.8%

Total 595 332 263 44.2% 45.5% 43.7% 43.4% 40.7% 45.0%LEVEL D 100.0%LEVEL C 21 9 12 57.1% 63.6%LEVEL B 16 6 10 62.5% 42.9%LEVEL A 26 7 17 65.4% 46.2%

Total 63 24 39 61.9% 50.0%VC 1 1 0 0.0% 0.0%LEVEL E 3 2 1 33.3% 57.1%LEVEL D 6 4 2 33.3% 100.0%LEVEL C 2 0 2 100.0% 100.0%LEVEL B 1 1 0 0.0% 66.7%LEVEL A 3 1 2 66.7% 100.0%

Total 16 9 7 43.8% 57.9%1655 1004 651 39.3% 39.3%

Table 1a: Academic Staff by Function and Classification 2005-2010

Other

TOTAL

% Female2010

ClassificationFunction

Teaching Intensive

Research Intensive

Teaching & Research

* Note: Level E in the ‘Other’ category includes the DVC (Research) & two PVCs (Research and Education)

Male 131 125 126 127 126 125Female 56 63 63 65 66 67

200720062005

Table 1b: Academic Staff Equity Index

201020092008

Figure 1a. Equity Index Academic Staff

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Year

Equi

ty In

dex

MaleFemaleAim

4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Pe

rcen

tage

(%)

LEVEL A

LEVEL B

LEVEL C

LEVEL D

LEVEL E

DVC/PVC VC

Classification

Figure 1b. Academic Staff (All) - Classification by Gender 2010

FemalesMales

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

LEVEL A

LEVEL B

LEVEL C

LEVEL D

LEVEL E

DVC/PVC VC

Classification

Figure 1c. Teaching and Research Academic Staff - Classification by Gender 2010

FemalesMales

5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

LEVEL A

LEVEL B

LEVEL C

LEVEL D

LEVEL E

DVC/PVC VC

Classification

Figure 1d. Reaserch Intensive Academic Staff - Classification by Gender 2010

FemalesMales

6

The overall representation (%) and distribution (Equity Index scores) of female academic staff employed at the University of Western Australia has remained fairly constant over the past three years. Women now comprise 39.3% of all academic staff, an improvement of 14.3% over the last decade since the 25% representation noted in 2000.Similarly, the percentage of women in the category of Teaching and Research staff has also remained fairly constant across 2006-2010 i.e. hovering just above one-third (33.3%). Teaching and Research positions at Levels A and B are fairly equitably distributed between male and female staff, with female representation at a healthy 55.9% in Level A, and 48.6% at Level B. Women comprise the majority of staff (61.9%) in the new ‘Teaching Intensive and Other Functions’ category. However, this pattern tapers off in favour of men beyond these levels: women now comprise well in excess of a third of staff at Level C (40%), a mere quarter at Level D (24.7%) and less than a fifth at Level E (17.2%).The pattern of decreasing numbers of female Teaching and Research staff as they progress through the academic ranks remains a cause for concern, with the most substantial attrition occurring between Level C and Level D (from 40.1% to 24.7%). In 2010, female representation decreased from 55.9% at Level A to 17.2% at Level E. In contrast, male representation increases in the movement upwards: from 46.1% at Level A to 82.8% at Level E. The percentage of Female Research Intensive staff remains fairly static at 44.2%, showing little overall change since 2004 (45.7%). Representation at Level B in this category has continued to decrease slightly over the last five years, down to 46.8% from 50.4% in 2004. In contrast, representation at Levels C and D has increased, with Level D now at 33.3%, showing a marked improvement from the 21.7% reported in 2004. Women are still having difficulty attaining the most senior positions in this category, where men comprise 90.9% of staff at Level E. This trend is consistent with national data which shows a marked absence of senior women researchers across the whole sector.While the ‘Other’ category is a cohort of only 16, these academic staff members hold leadership roles and/or positions of service to the University (for example, in higher education development) in the UWA Executive and Vice-Chancellery and the Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning (CATL). Of these 16 positions, nine are held by women and this is significant in terms of potential career progression for academic women and diversity in an important leadership role. Separation of this cohort into its own function reveals that there are alternative routes to positions of University leadership, a pathway previously obscured by their inclusion in the Teaching and Research category.

7

2. Professional Staff by Function, Classification and Distribution 2005-2010

Classification All Staff Number

Male Staff Number

Female Staff

Number% Female 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

HEW 10 > 61 29 32 52.5% 45.5% 41.9% 60.0% 42.9% 42.9%HEW 10 43 23 20 46.5% 47.5% 50.0% 35.1% 39.0% 38.6%HEW 9 99 45 54 54.5% 53.8% 54.5% 57.1% 54.9% 58.7%HEW 8 179 71 108 60.3% 58.2% 59.5% 58.4% 61.2% 52.8%HEW 7 271 118 153 56.5% 57.1% 54.2% 57.0% 52.2% 48.4%HEW 6 394 152 242 61.4% 61.0% 57.3% 56.6% 53.1% 53.0%HEW 5 434 119 315 72.6% 72.6% 75.2% 73.6% 72.0% 69.3%HEW 4 333 85 248 74.5% 73.1% 71.2% 72.4% 76.0% 74.9%HEW 3 178 57 121 68.0% 68.4% 71.1% 74.6% 75.9% 77.9%HEW 2 47 10 37 78.7% 78.0% 77.3% 66.7% 61.0% 56.7%HEW 1 42 13 29 69.0% 70.7% 66.7% 77.5% 77.5% 77.8%< HEW 1 18 11 7 38.9% 42.1% 61.5% 63.6% 64.3% 56.3%

Total 2099 733 1366 65.1% 64.8% 64.7% 65.3% 64.7% 63.9%HEW 9 1 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%HEW 8 19 5 14 73.7% 66.7% 60.0% 30.0% 75.0% 62.5%HEW 7 23 10 13 56.5% 63.6% 58.8% 61.9% 58.3% 48.0%HEW 6 55 11 42 76.4% 80.8% 78.0% 73.8% 73.2% 77.6%HEW 5 112 25 87 77.7% 81.1% 77.2% 81.2% 76.8% 71.0%HEW 4 52 18 34 65.4% 70.0% 72.1% 62.9% 67.9% 62.5%HEW 3 2 0 2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 66.7%

Total 264 72 192 72.7% 76.8% 74.1% 73.4% 73.3% 68.9%2363 805 1558 65.9% 66.0% 65.7% 66.2% 65.8% 64.5%

Research Intensive

Mainstream Professional

TOTAL

Table 2a: Professional Staff by Function and Classification 2005-2010

Function

2009 % Female

Men 138 139 138 132 126 127Women 82 82 83 85 88 88

Table 2b: Professional Staff Equity Index

200720062005 201020092008

Figure 2a. Equity Index Professional Staff

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Year

Equi

ty In

dex

MenWomenAim

8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

< HEW 1HEW 1

HEW 2HEW 3

HEW 4HEW 5

HEW 6HEW 7

HEW 8HEW 9

HEW 10

HEW 10 >

Classification

Figure 2b. Mainstream Professional Staff - Classification by Gender 2010

Female

Male

Professional women staff currently comprise 65.9% of all staff at UWA. Growth in female Professional staff numbers has been slight, up from 63.9% in 2005 to 65.9% in 2010. Women now comprise the majority at every level of the professional staffing stream except for the penultimate (Levels 10) and the lowest (<Level 1). The high concentration of women in the lower to middle classification levels is a persistent factor contributing to the gender imbalance of the professional staffing stream. Men’s predominance at Levels 10 and 10+ also needs to be monitored since it is this over representation at the higher levels that accounts for the professional staff Equity Index scores (measures of distribution). Although women comprise 65.9% of the professional staff, their EI score is only 88 indicating an over representation of women into lower classification levels. The male EI score for professional staff is 127 indicating that these 35.5% of staff are over represented at the more senior classification levels. An EI score of 100 indicates equitable distribution of staff. There has been a healthy increase in the representation of women in the most senior level of professional staff (HEW 10 and above) in the last two years - 52% in the current reporting period from 41.9% in 2008, and a healthy increase from the 2004 representation of only 33.3%.

9

3. Staff by Function, Appointment Type and Appointment Status 2005-2010

All Staff Number

Male Staff Number

Female Staff Number % Female 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Full-Time 480 349 131 27.3% 27.0% 29.3% 26.6% 26.8% 24.9%Part-Time 70 39 31 44.3% 43.3% 43.1% 43.8% 47.5% 46.7%Full-Time 282 180 102 36.2% 39.6% 41.7% 37.9% 39.7% 40.7%Part-Time 149 71 78 52.3% 48.2% 48.4% 50.0% 47.7% 45.3%

981 639 342 34.9% 34.8% 36.4% 33.3% 33.8% 32.3%Full-Time 22 17 5 22.7% 16.7% 10.0% 13.0% 16.7% 26.1%Part-Time 6 3 3 50.0% 40.0% 60.0% 40.0% 66.7% 50.0%Full-Time 439 272 167 38.0% 39.8% 38.0% 36.8% 34.7% 39.3%Part-Time 128 40 88 68.8% 70.2% 70.4% 73.1% 67.8% 67.8%

595 332 263 44.2% 45.5% 43.7% 43.4% 40.7% 45.0%Full-Time 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%Part-Time 0.0% 0.0%Full-Time 9 5 4 44.4% 25.0% 35.7%Part-Time 54 19 35 64.8% 52.5% 44.0%

63 24 39 61.9% 50.0% 100.0% 40.5%Full-Time 3 0 3 100.0% 100.0% 16.7%Part-Time 1 0 1 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%Full-Time 9 7 2 22.2% 36.4% 37.9%Part-Time 3 2 1 33.3% 66.7% 45.5%

16 9 7 43.8% 57.9% 39.1%1655 1004 651 39.3% 39.3% 39.0% 36.8% 36.0% 36.2%

Full-Time 1026 462 564 55.0% 54.9% 54.3% 52.7% 53.6% 54.5%Part-Time 357 45 312 87.4% 89.0% 89.1% 92.0% 92.7% 90.9%Full-Time 471 176 295 62.6% 59.6% 63.8% 65.5% 62.5% 58.7%Part-Time 245 50 195 79.6% 80.2% 77.4% 82.1% 78.7% 81.4%

2099 733 1366 65.1% 64.8% 64.7% 65.3% 64.7% 63.9%Full-Time 15 7 8 53.3% 50.0% 33.3% 46.7% 43.8% 42.9%Part-Time 2 1 1 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Full-Time 154 50 104 67.5% 72.9% 73.0% 71.9% 72.3% 62.4%Part-Time 93 14 79 84.9% 86.7% 81.5% 80.0% 80.0% 81.5%

264 72 192 72.7% 76.8% 74.1% 73.4% 73.3% 68.9%2363 805 1558 65.9% 66.0% 65.7% 66.2% 65.8% 64.5%4018 1809 2209 55.0% 55.2% 54.6% 54.1% 53.5% 52.8%TOTAL

Fixed Term

Ongoing

Total

Professional

Mainstream Professional

Total

PROFESSIONAL TOTAL

% Female

Total

Total

Total

Fixed Term

Ongoing

Fixed Term

Fixed Term

Appointment Type

Teaching & Research

Fixed Term

Ongoing

Fixed Term

ACADEMIC TOTAL

Teaching Intensive

Research Intensive

Other

Research Intensive

Table 3: Staff by Function, Appointment Type and Appointment Status 2005-2010

2009

Ongoing

Ongoing

Employment Type Function Appointment

Status

AcademicOngoing

Total

10

Figure 3a: Academic Females by Employment Status

Ongoing Full-Time21%

Ongoing Part-Time5%

Fixed Term Full-Time43%

Fixed Term Part-Time31%

Figure 3b: Academic Males by Employment Status

Ongoing Full-Time36%

Ongoing Part-Time4%

Fixed Term Full-Time47%

Fixed Term Part-Time13%

Figure 3c: Professional Females by Employment Status

Ongoing Full-Time36%

Ongoing Part-Time20%

Fixed Term Full-Time26%

Fixed Term Part-Time18%

Figure 3d: Professional Males by Employment Status

Ongoing Full-Time58%

Ongoing Part-Time6%

Fixed Term Full-Time28%

Fixed Term Part-Time8%

11

In 2010, the overall picture (Table 3) shows a fairly equitable distribution of male and female staff holding ongoing positions (46.9% of female staff and 53.1% of male). The figures are also comparable in the gender breakdown of staff on fixed term contracts (56.7% of female staff and 43.3% of male staff).

Further breakdown of these figures, however, begins to reveal a different picture, with 62.6% of female staff working full-time compared to 84.3% of male staff. Of all part-time staff, 36.1% were female, as compared to 15.6% of male staff.

In the academic staffing stream, 26.7% of female staff held ongoing employment, compared to 41.4% of male staff; 73.3% were employed on fixed term contracts, compared to 59.4% of male staff. Again, the majority of full-time academic positions were held by men at 82%. The breakdown of part-time positions also follows the overall trend with 33.4% of academic women working part-time, compared to 17.3% of men. The low incidence of ongoing part-time work options above Level C continues to remain an issue of concern particularly in the context of UWA’s Life Balance Agenda.

In the professional staffing stream, 56.8% of women held ongoing employment and 63.9% of men; 43.1% were on fixed term contracts and 36% of men. 66.9% were in full-time employment and 86.3% of men, and 37.6% of women were part-time, compared to 13.6% of men. The majority (95.6%) of research-intensive (academic and professional) staff continue to be on a fixed term contract. This employment option is precarious as it is derived from ‘soft’ money. Women comprise slightly more than half (53.6%) of all fixed-term research-intensive staff (academic and professional). 28.8% of all academic staff are women are on a fixed-term contract. More than two-thirds (69.7%) of professional fixed-term research staff were women. 23.3% of fixed-term professional staff were women.

In the current reporting period, 26.9% of all staff were part-time and, of these, 74.4% were women. Women working in a part-time capacity comprised 19.6% of all staff at UWA. Only 24.8% of academic staff were part-time, comprising 22.4% of teaching and research staff and 22.5% of research only staff. Women now comprise more than half of all part-time academic staff (57.6 %).

12

4. New Appointments and Separations 2010

Total Appointments Male Female % Female Total

Separations Male Female % Female

PVC/DVC 1 1 0 0.0%LEVEL E 14 10 4 28.6% 14 11 3 21.4%LEVEL D 5 5 0 0.0% 17 14 3 17.6%LEVEL C 17 7 10 58.8% 16 6 10 62.5%LEVEL B 27 11 16 59.3% 15 4 11 73.3%LEVEL A 18 6 12 66.7% 16 11 5 31.3%

Total 81 39 42 51.9% 79 47 32 40.5%LEVEL E 4 4 0 0.0% 1 1 0 0.0%LEVEL D 8 7 1 12.5% 4 3 1 25.0%LEVEL C 11 7 4 36.4% 5 2 3 60.0%LEVEL B 46 27 19 41.3% 42 22 20 47.6%LEVEL A 98 58 40 40.8% 61 29 32 52.5%

Total 167 103 64 38.3% 113 57 56 49.6%LEVEL E 1 0 1 100.0%LEVEL C 10 5 5 50.0% 3 2 1 33.3%LEVEL B 11 4 7 63.6% 2 1 1 50.0%LEVEL A 20 7 13 65.0% 14 5 9 64.3%

Total 41 16 25 61.0% 20 8 12 60.0%LEVEL D 2 0 2 100.0%LEVEL C 1 1 0 0.0% 1 0 1 100.0%LEVEL A 1 0 1 100.0%

Total 1 1 0 0.0% 4 0 4 100.0%290 159 131 45.2% 216 112 104 48.1%

Other

Table 4a: New Appointments and Separations for Academic Staff 2010

TOTAL

Function Classification

Teaching intensive

New Appointments

Research Intensive

Teaching & Research

Separations

As is consistent with their representation overall (Table 1), women comprise 52% of all new Teaching and Research appointments, and 38% of Research Intensive appointments. In 2010, the strongest performance was at Level A (67%) and B (59%) in the Teaching and Research category, and represented a significant increase from the previous reporting period (37.5% and 35.7% at Level A and B respectively). There has been a corresponding decrease in the gender equity performance at Level D in the same category (0% in 2010 from 27.3% in the previous reporting period). Male representation at Level E continues to be disproportionate with almost three quarter (72%) of new appointments being awarded to men.It is encouraging to note that the retention rate (52%) for women across all spheres and tiers of academic employment was higher than that for men.

13

Total Appointments Male Female % Female Total

Separations Male Female % Female

HEW 10 > 6 1 5 83.3% 8 6 2 25.0%HEW 10 3 1 2 66.7% 5 3 2 40.0%HEW 9 17 9 8 47.1% 16 8 8 50.0%HEW 8 21 5 16 76.2% 21 7 14 66.7%HEW 7 45 19 26 57.8% 35 14 21 60.0%HEW 6 46 13 33 71.7% 46 13 33 71.7%HEW 5 69 16 53 76.8% 51 8 43 84.3%HEW 4 78 16 62 79.5% 60 13 47 78.3%HEW 3 27 10 17 63.0% 34 11 23 67.6%HEW 2 9 0 9 100.0% 10 2 8 80.0%HEW 1 10 2 8 80.0% 8 1 7 87.5%< HEW 1 4 3 1 25.0% 2 2 0 0.0%

Total 335 95 240 71.6% 296 88 208 70.3%HEW 8 5 2 3 60.0%HEW 7 2 1 1 50.0% 4 0 4 100.0%HEW 6 11 5 6 54.5% 7 1 6 85.7%HEW 5 40 9 31 77.5% 48 9 39 81.3%HEW 4 25 7 18 72.0% 14 4 10 71.4%HEW 3 1 0 1 100.0% 1 0 1 100.0%

Total 84 24 60 71.4% 74 14 60 81.1%419 119 300 71.6% 370 102 268 72.4%

Mainstream Professional

Research Intensive

Grand Total

Table 4b: New Appointments and Separations for Professional Staff 2010

Function ClassificationNew Appointments Separations

In 2010, women represented between 60% and 100% of new appointments at most levels except Level 9 and the lowest. The performance at Level 10 and above continued to remain strong and this trend has been steady for the last three years. However there has been a significant decrease in the number of women at Level 9 since the last reporting period (currently 47%, down from 77% in 2009). If further data ‘unpacking’ does not reveal these women have, in fact, been promoted then trend should be monitored as it does not augur particularly well for women holding greater numbers of senior positions in the professional staffing stream. The increased representation of women in the research intensive category, where women comprise 71.4% of all new appointments through all the levels, is positive and this trend has been consistent over the previous five reporting periods. Notwithstanding movement in a positive gender equity direction, this trend should be monitored. The separation data shows that that greater numbers of professional staff women left the University than men in 2009, and this also occurs at every level. However, for the most part, the percentage of separations compared to new appointments is fairly equitable. In addition, in some senior categories of professional staff, female separations were lower than their representation at that level. For example, women comprise 54.5% of staff at Level 9, yet the separations were equal to those of male professional staff at this level.

14

5. Staff by Classification and Age 2010

Classification Gender 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 >65 Grand Total

Level E F 1 1 8 11 10 4 2 37M 1 3 7 24 48 47 37 25 192

1 4 8 32 59 57 41 27 229Level D F 1 10 17 18 10 6 1 63

M 1 2 10 21 31 35 36 18 7 1611 2 11 31 48 53 46 24 8 224

Level C F 1 9 30 31 45 33 10 4 2 165M 9 28 49 39 49 30 19 12 235

1 18 58 80 84 82 40 23 14 400Level B F 10 33 47 36 36 26 19 10 3 220

M 6 52 68 38 33 17 13 1 3 23116 85 115 74 69 43 32 11 6 451

Level A F 6 48 61 21 18 9 9 6 3 181M 2 55 51 39 19 7 1 4 1 179

8 103 112 60 37 16 10 10 4 3608 121 218 248 230 249 247 185 103 55 1,664

Level B Total

Level A TotalGrand Total

Table 5a: Academic Staff by Classification and Age 2010

Level E Total

Level D Total

Level C Total

The data, consistent over the past two years, support research into Australian university demographic workforce trends which shows that the sector is characterised by ‘age heaping’, with a significant proportion of academic staff concentrated in the older age groups.

National figures estimate that between 20-33% of academics are due to retire over the next ten years, the majority of whom are males at Levels D and E. The age profile of UWA’s workforce shows the same concentration of academic staff in the older age groups. Assuming a retirement age of 65, this means that 9.5% of academic staff are currently over 60, and 20.6% over 55, and are due to retire in the next five to ten years. Because these staff comprise 43.5% of staff at Levels D and E combined, a departure of senior academic staff on this scale can have very serious consequences if left unaddressed. While this figure is at the low end of the expected retirement rate and, with healthy, equitable numbers of male and female academic staff at Levels A and B, UWA is well positioned to minimise any staff shortages through the implementation of effective development and retention strategies which address issues of gender equity.

With 49.5% of all UWA academic staff under 45, and reasonably equitable, healthy numbers of both men and women positioned between Level A and Level C, UWA is well positioned to fill the anticipated shortfall from within its own academic workforce. The issue, however, is one of retention. The substantial attrition of female staff as they move up the hierarchy is something that needs to be addressed, particularly the drop in numbers that occurs between Levels C and D (see Table 1a).

15

Classification Gender >20 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 >65 Grand Total

HEW 10> F 1 1 1 1 4M 1 2 3

1 1 2 2 1 7HEW 10 F 1 1 6 8 10 13 4 43

M 2 2 2 14 8 9 4 1 423 3 8 22 18 22 8 1 85

HEW 9 F 1 6 8 10 7 9 9 2 1 53M 2 1 10 8 6 4 5 3 2 41

3 7 18 18 13 13 14 5 3 94HEW 8 F 5 12 20 20 15 24 15 7 118

M 1 3 7 10 11 15 10 10 9 4 801 8 19 30 31 30 34 25 16 4 198

HEW 7 F 3 9 33 29 23 16 19 20 7 2 161M 11 17 20 13 22 25 8 7 3 126

3 20 50 49 36 38 44 28 14 5 287HEW 6 F 3 30 33 38 37 37 46 31 18 2 275

M 5 20 24 18 19 15 32 20 7 5 1658 50 57 56 56 52 78 51 25 7 440

HEW 5 F 26 75 64 48 40 43 46 40 32 8 422M 14 23 23 10 12 11 12 19 15 5 144

40 98 87 58 52 54 58 59 47 13 566HEW 4 F 37 52 42 31 25 27 41 25 24 6 310

M 16 22 11 13 11 13 13 6 5 4 11453 74 53 44 36 40 54 31 29 10 424

HEW 3 F 2 6 8 10 12 13 25 26 20 15 4 141M 4 3 6 7 11 9 11 6 2 59

2 10 11 16 12 20 36 35 31 21 6 200HEW 2 F 2 8 1 3 5 3 7 4 3 2 38

M 1 1 2 1 2 2 92 8 1 4 5 4 9 5 5 4 47

HEW 1 F 4 5 1 5 2 2 1 4 4 3 31M 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 13

5 8 2 5 3 1 3 3 4 6 4 44< HEW 1 F 0

M 6 1 1 1 1 106 1 1 1 1 10

15 132 268 301 279 263 298 344 273 176 53 2,402

Table 5b: Professional Staff by Classification and Age 2010

HEW 1 Total

< HEW 1 TotalGrand Total

HEW 8 Total

HEW 10> Total

HEW 10 Total

HEW 9 Total

HEW 4 Total

HEW 3 Total

HEW 2 Total

HEW 7 Total

HEW 6 Total

HEW 5 Total

With regard to the retirement ages of professional staff, only 21% are due to retire in the next ten years and this should not significantly affect the gender profile. The retiring over 55 cohort of 33.1% male and 67.9% female is in accord with their overall representation in this staffing stream.

16

6. Discretionary Allowances 2010

Table 6a: Academic Staff Discretionary Allowances 2010

classification

market allowance

attraction retention allowance

merit allowance

distinction allowance

additional responsibilities

allowancetotals

M F M F M F M F M F M FLevel E 8 2 33 7 5 1 8 1 7 1 61 12Level D 5 1 8 3 1 16 2Level C 3 2 8 9 4 2 15 13Level B 7 4 13 6 3 23 10Level A 4 4 3 2 7 6

Total 23 9 66 26 5 1 8 1 20 6 122 43

Table 6b: Professional Staff Discretionary Allowances 2010

classification

market allowance

attraction retention allowance

merit allowance

distinction allowance

additional responsibilities

allowancetotals

M F M F M F M F M F M F

HEW 10 > 5 2 2 1 11 4 19 6HEW 10 3 1 28 18 2 1 33 20HEW 9 1 14 14 2 16 15HEW 8/9 2 1 2 1HEW 8 2 1 19 17 2 1 2 24 20HEW 7 2 2 23 28 1 1 2 26 33HEW 6 1 2 14 20 2 15 24HEW 5/6 3 6 2 3 8HEW 5 21 2 14 27 1 1 36 30HEW 4 5 3 12 1 1 9 13HEW 3 2 42 2 42HEW 2 34 1 0 35

Total 34 9 127 221 5 1 1 0 18 16 185 247

While the gender equity picture in this area has historically tended to favour men (38.4% of all staff in receipt of discretionary allowances in 2008), there has been a significant increase (48.5%) in a positive direction in the past two years. Notwithstanding this positive figure, women are still significantly under-represented in all schemes except in the professional staff ‘attraction and retention allowance’ category. Women comprise less than a quarter of recipients in the more lucrative market allowance scheme and the merit and distinction allowance schemes (a mere 24% and 16% respectively).

17

7. Academic Staff Promotion 2005-2009

Table 7a. Academic Staff Promotion Application and Success (including Accelerated Promotion) Jan-Dec 2005-2009

    Female Male

Year LevelNumber of

Female Staff

No. Applications

No. Successful

Application Rate

Success Rate

Number of Male Staff

No. Applications

No. Successful

Application Rate

Success Rate

2009 D - E 61 4 3 6.5% 75% 165 8 5 4.8% 62.5%C - D 142 7 6 4.9% 85.7% 216 11 10 5.1% 90.9%B - C 209 13 11 6.2% 84.6% 220 13 12 5.9% 92.3%A - B 168 2 2 1.2% 100% 156 2 2 1.3% 100%

2009 Total 580 26 22 4.5% 84.6% 757 34 29 4.5% 85.3%2008 D - E 52 5 4 9.6% 80% 156 15 6 9.6% 40%

C - D 136 12 8 8.8% 66.6% 213 12 9 5.6% 75%B - D 213 2 0 0.9% 0% 198 1 1 0.5% 100%B - C 213 16 10 7.5% 62.5% 198 15 14 7.6% 93.3%A - B 160 3 3 1.9% 100% 180 4 3 2.2% 75%

2008 Total 561 38 25 6.8% 65.8% 747 47 33 6.3% 70%2007 D - E 47 2 2 4.2% 100.0% 156 13 12 8.3% 92.3%

C - D 104 9 5 8.6% 55.6% 214 16 11 7.5% 68.8%B - D 186 1 1 0.5% 100.0% 192 1 1 0.5% 100%B - C 186 14 13 7.5% 92.8% 192 14 13 7.3% 92.8%A - B 139 7 6 5.0% 85.7% 165 5 4 3.0% 80%

2007 Total 497 33 27 6.6% 81.8% 727 49 41 6.7% 83.7%2006 D - E 47 5 5 10.6% 100.0% 166 14 8 8.4% 57.1%

C - E 104 0 0 0% 0% 196 1 1 0.5% 100.0%C - D 104 6 6 5.8% 100.0% 196 9 5 4.6% 55.6%B - D 186 0 0 0% 0%  181 5 5 2.8% 100.0%B - C 186 7 7 3.8% 100.0% 181 8 7 4.4% 87.5%A - C 139 1 1 0.7% 100.0% 181 0 0 0% 0%A - B 139 3 3 2.2% 100.0% 181 2 2 1.1% 100.0%

2006 Total 476 22 22 4.6% 100.0% 724 39 28 5.4% 71.8%2005 D - E 37 1 1 2.7% 100.0% 175 14 10 8.0% 73.3%

C - D 92 9 6 9.8% 66.7% 192 11 8 5.7% 72.7%B - C 194 10 10 5.2% 100.0% 163 6 5 3.7% 83.3%A - B 141 2 2 1.4% 100.0% 157 8 8 5.1% 100.0%

2005 Total 464 22 19 4.7% 86.4% 687 39 31 5.7% 79.5%Grand Total 2578 141 115 5.5% 81.6% 3642 208 162 5.7% 77.9%

18

Table 7b. Academic Staff Fast Track Promotion 2000-2009

Year Female Male TotalAppnsAppn Success Appn Success

2009 0 0 1 1 12008 1 1 0 0 12007 0 0 2 2 22006 2 2 6 6 82005 2 2 3 2 52004 1 1 5 5 62003 2 2 4 4 62002 0 0 6 5 62001 0 0 3 3 32000 1 1 5 5 6

TOTALS 9 9 35 33 44

In 2010, women comprised 43.3% of all teaching and research academics promoted, with 22 successful applicants out of 26. This figure represents a significant increase (up from 34% in 2009) in the percentage of academic women successfully gaining promotion through the academic ranks at UWA. Despite yearly fluctuations, when the data is examined longitudinally from 2003-2007, academic women have a consistently lower application, but higher or equal success rate than men (80.6% and 78.5% respectively in 2009 and 84.6% and 85.2% respectively in the current reporting period). Application and success rates were fairly even between female and male academics up to the Level C. However, at Levels D and E, the number of female applications drops significantly while the number of male applications increases. This trend has remained relatively unchanged in the past decade.

19

8. UWA Leadership Roles by Gender 2010

Table 8: Faculty Leadership Roles by Gender 2010 Dean Faculty Manager

Head of School

School Manager TOTAL

Faculty School F M F M F M F M F MArchitecture, Landscape & Visual Arts Architecture, Landscape & Visual Arts 1* 1 1 1

Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences

Faculty Office 1 1 1 1

Humanities 1 1 2 0

Music 1 1 0

Social & Cultural Studies 1 1 0 2

Business UWA Business School 1* 1 1 1

Education Graduate School of Education 1* 1 2 0

Engineering, Computing & Mathematics

Faculty Office 1 1 1 1

Civil & Resource Engineering 1 0 1

Computer Science & Software Engineering 1 0 1Electrical, Electronic & Computer Engineering 1 0 1

Environmental Systems Engineering 1 0 1

Mathematics & Statistics 1 0 1

Mechanical Engineering 1 0 1

Law Law 1* 1 1 1

Life & Physical Sciences

Faculty Office 1 1 2 1 3

Anatomy & Human Biology 1 1 0 2Biomedical, Biomolecular & Chemical Sciences 1 1 2 1 3

Physics 1 1 0 2

Psychology 1 2 0 3

Sport Science, Exercise & Health 1 4 1 4 2

Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences

Faculty Office 1 1 2 2 3 3

Dentistry 1 0 1

Medicine & Pharmacology 1 1 2 0

Paediatrics & Child Health 1 1 1 1

Pathology & Lab Medicine 1 1 0 2

Population Health 1 1 1 1

Primary, Aboriginal & Rural Health Care 1 3 3 4 3

Psychiatric & Clinical Neurosciences 1 1 1 1

Surgery 2 1 1 2

Women’s & Infants Health 1 1 1 1

Natural & Agricultural Sciences

Faculty Office 1 1 1 1

Agricultural & Resource Economics 1 2 2 1

Animal Biology 1 1 1 1 2

Earth & Environment 1 1 1 1

Plant Biology 1 1 0 2

Vice Chancellery

Vice-Chancellery 1 0 1

Albany Centre 1 1 0

Indigenous Studies 1* 1 2 0

TOTAL 4 7 7 4 7 28 20 12 37 52

* denotes same person in Dean and Head of School roles

20

Figure 4: UWA 2010 Management Structure Tiers 1-4

Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor

SENATE 14 Male / 7 Female

Vice-Chancellor

Pro Vice-ChancellorEducation

DirectorCentre for Advancement of Teaching

& Learning

DirectorAlbany Centre

Co-ordinator Regional Programmes

Academic Co-ordinatorAustralian Learning & Teaching

Council Support Initiative Director

UWA Press

DirectorGovernment Services

DirectorInternational Centre

DirectorLegal Services

DirectorPlanning Services

DirectorPublic Affairs

DirectorResearch Services

DirectorStudent Services

Section Managers Responsible to Directors

Directors of CentresResponsible to Heads and/or Deans

Deans ofArchitecture, Landscape, Visual Arts Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences

EducationEngineering, Computing &

Mathematics Law

Life & Physical Sciences Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences

Natural & Agricultural SciencesSchool of Indigenous Studies

UWA Business School

6 male / 4 female

Heads of Schools Responsible to Deans of Faculty

28 male / 7 female

DirectorSports Park

General Manager Perth International Arts Festival

Principal Currie Hall

Executive DirectorFinance & Resources

Director Facilities Manager

Director Financial Services

Director Human Resources

ManagerUniversity Theatres

DirectorUWA Cultural Precinct

Director Risk Management

General Manager University Club

Acting DirectorDevelopment (Office of)

DirectorUWA Extension

Section Managers Responsible to Directors

Female Academic

Male Academic

Female Professional

Male Professional

Key:Curatorial DirectorsResponsible to Director

Executive DirectorAcademic Services & Registrar

DeanGraduate Research School

Director Institute of Advanced Studies

Pro Vice-ChancellorResearch

Deputy Vice-ChancellorResearch

DirectorOffice of Industry & Innovation

University Librarian &Director

Information ManagementLibrary & IT Services

21

8. UWA Leadership Roles by Gender 2010

For many years the UWA Management Structure Tiers 1-4 (including the Faculty leadership roles of Dean and Head of School) has been foregrounded because of the disproportionate over-representation of men and corresponding under-representation of women. This ‘gap’ has narrowed significantly over recent reporting periods as, while there is still currently only one woman (the Executive Director, Finance and Resources) in the University Executive, eight of the thirteen academic directors (61.5%, excluding Deans & Heads of Schools) are women.Of all the University leadership categories, the position of Dean of Faculty is the strongest performing category in its achievement of gender equity and it continues a consistent longitudinal trend in positive gender equity performance. In 2010, four of the ten Deans of Faculty were women which represents a slight slippage from 2009 where there was gender parity. Women appear to have now consolidated their positions in Faculty management, with female Faculty and School Managers at 64% and 63% respectively. Notwithstanding this positive overall picture, it is worthwhile monitoring the significant 10% reduction in representation at the more senior Faculty Manager level since the last reporting periodThe consistent trend of poor representation of women in the ‘Heads of School’ category continues (20% in 2010). This represents a significant concern, not only because it is a feeder category for more senior levels of academic leadership such as Dean and Pro Vice-Chancellor, but also because women are choosing not to take on the role. Following many years of inequitable participation of senior professional women staff, there has been significant improvement in the gender equity performance within the portfolios of the Executive Director (Finance and Resources) and Executive Director and Registrar. Senior women now hold five, as opposed to two a year ago, out of twenty Director positions within these Divisions.

22