ASSET 2016: experiences surrounding gender equality in the physical sciences, and their intersections with ethnicity and disability

Transcription

1 ASSET 2016: experiences surrounding gender equality in the physical sciences, and their intersections with ethnicity and disability

2 Acknowledgements The Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society of Biology and the Academy of Medical Sciences commissioned Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) to design and implement the 2016 version of the Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET). This report was researched and written by Dr Amanda Aldercotte, Dr Kevin Guyan, Dr Jamie Lawson, Stephanie Neave and Szilvia Altorjai at ECU. Additional gratitude is extended to Lenna Cumberbatch (previously of The Royal Society), Polly Williams (The Royal Society), Dr Rachel Macdonald (the Academy of Medical Sciences), Bola Fatimilehin (the Royal Academy of Engineering) and Dr Laura Bellingan (the Royal Society of Biology) for their ongoing support and invaluable input into the content, design and analyses of the ASSET 2016 survey. The ECU team is grateful to the more than 5000 respondents who donated their time to complete the survey and the dedicated staff of the 43 institutions who engaged with the project, without whom this nationally representative sample would not have been possible. Further information Dr Amanda Aldercotte

3 ASSET 2016 Experiences surrounding gender equality in the physical sciences, and their intersections with ethnicity and disability Contents Executive summary 1 1 Introduction 9 2 Methods The survey The sample Sample weighting Data reduction Presentation of results 12 3 Perceptions of gender equality Perceived gender equality in respondents departments Perceived gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources Perceived gender equality in obtaining senior posts The impact of the Athena SWAN Charter Beyond the gender gap: how do gender differences in perceptions of gender equality vary by ethnicity and disability status? 20 4 Recruitment How post was obtained Interview panels Decision to take up current post Beyond the gender gap: how do recruitment processes differ for STEMM academics belonging to more than one underrepresented group? 26 5 Job and career Current posts Time distribution across different academic duties Life in the department Factors influencing the average academic career Factors influencing respondents academic careers Beyond the gender gap: how does ethnicity and disability intersect with gender in relation to the jobs and careers of STEMM academics in the physical sciences? 43 Equality Challenge Unit, October 2017

4 6 Caring responsibilities, leave and career breaks Maternity, paternity, adoption, shared parental or other parental leave Career breaks Beyond the gender gap: how do caring responsibilities and career breaks differ for STEMM academics belonging to more than one underrepresented group? 54 7 Training and leadership Training opportunities Training barriers Beyond the gender gap: how do differences in training opportunities and barriers differ across other characteristics? 61 8 Promotion and development Explicit encouragement or invitation for promotion Department s encouragement of career development Plans for future career Beyond the gender gap: do individuals belonging to more than one underrepresented group experience a unique path through the promotion and development process? 72 9 Conclusion Key gender differences in the physical sciences compared with STEMM sciences in general Summary of intersectional results Recommendations References 80 Appendix: sample characteristics Gender Ethnicity Disability 83 Index 84

5 Executive summary 1 Background to the Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology 2016 The Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET) is a national survey of academics working in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM). ASSET 2016 was funded by The Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society of Biology and the Academy of Medical Sciences and was managed by Equality Challenge Unit (ECU). The ASSET 2016 survey covered six aspects related to STEMM academics working life: perceptions of gender equality; recruitment; job and career; caring responsibilities, leave and career breaks; training and leadership; promotion and development. By focusing on a subsample of respondents from the ASSET 2016 survey, the current report seeks to examine the experiences, expectations and perceptions of gender equality of academics in the physical sciences. The current report also includes a novel discussion of how gender differences in these aspects of working life intersect with other protected characteristics, including ethnicity/race and disability. The final weighted sample size was 826 respondents in the physical sciences (527 men, 299 women) of which 67 identified as black or minority ethnic (BME) and 142 reported having disclosed as disabled. 2 Perceptions of gender equality in the physical sciences respondents rated their department as more committed to gender equality than female respondents, although both genders were generally positive. respondents felt that men in their department have an advantage in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development (eg receipt of mentoring, positive feedback from management, involvement in promotion decisions) and markers of esteem (eg invitations to conferences, recognition of intellectual contributions). In contrast, male respondents did not perceive an advantage for either gender. Regarding the allocation of additional academic duties (eg teaching, administrative tasks), male respondents perceived an advantage for women while female respondents reported a perceived advantage for men. Despite both genders reporting that it was slightly easier for a man to obtain a senior post in their department on average, female October

6 Executive summary respondents reported a significantly stronger advantage for men than male respondents. 2.1 Intersectional results Gender and ethnicity: respondents were more likely to perceive an advantage for men in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development, markers of esteem and additional academic duties than male respondents, regardless of their ethnicity. Gender and disability: Compared with female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled, female respondents who disclosed as disabled not only reported a stronger advantage for men in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development and markers of esteem, but also felt less positive about the impact of Athena SWAN initiatives in their institution. 3 Recruitment Although the majority of male and female respondents obtained their current post through an external advertisement (67.4% and 66.4%, respectively), proportionally more male respondents (16.9%) obtained their current post through a formal promotion than female respondents (8.8%). Of those who were interviewed for their current post, 85.2% had more men than women on their interview panel. However, the difference between the proportions of male (5.4%) and female respondents (9.8%) who reported having more women than men on their interview panels was not significant. Compared with male respondents, female respondents reported that the quality of life in the department and its commitment to equality were more influential in their decision to take their current post. The commitment to equality item that was rated as the most influential was whether the department or institution had an Athena SWAN award. 3.1 Intersectional results Gender and ethnicity: Compared with female respondents, proportionally more male respondents were formally promoted to their current post, regardless of their ethnicity. However, only 27.8% of the respondents who were formally promoted were women, all of whom were white. BME female respondents rated the quality of 2 ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

7 Executive summary working life in the department and its commitment to equality as being more influential in their decision to take their current post compared with BME male, white male and white female respondents. Gender and disability: Although similar proportions of male (13.0%) and female respondents who disclosed as disabled (10.5%) had been formally promoted to their current post, there was a significant gap between male and female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled who were formally promoted (17.7% and 11.5%, respectively). respondents who had not disclosed as disabled rated their department s commitment to equality as more influential than female respondents who disclosed as disabled and male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled. 4 Job and career respondents were underrepresented in senior positions (eg head of school/division/department and professors) and overrepresented in early career positions (eg research fellow, research assistant, post-docs), even when age and contract type were taken into account. Although male and female respondents did not significantly differ in how much time they reported spending on teaching, male respondents reported spending more time on research-related tasks than female respondents. In contrast, female respondents reported spending more time on public engagement than male respondents. Both genders were relatively positive in their ratings of life in their department; however, male respondents viewed their departments as (i) more supportive, (ii) transparent and fair, and (iii) placing greater value on teaching, than female respondents. and female respondents felt that the most beneficial factors for academic career progression were (i) being involved in wellregarded projects, (ii) successfully applying for grants, and (iii) having substantive research output. Both genders felt a heavy teaching load, a heavy administrative workload and taking a career break impeded academic career progression. respondents rated the impact of having a family/children, protected characteristics and administrative duties on the average academic career more negatively than male respondents. In contrast, October

8 Executive summary female respondents were more positive than male respondents about the impact of having sources of support. With regard to their own career progression, female respondents rated the impact of their sex, gender identity, age and caring responsibilities more negatively than male respondents. 4.1 Intersectional results Gender and ethnicity: Although BME female respondents were the least likely to be on part-time and teaching-only contracts, they were the most likely to be on fixed-term contracts. Regarding their own career progression, not only were BME respondents more negative in their ratings of the impact of ethnicity than white respondents overall, BME female respondents were significantly more negative about the impact of ethnicity than BME male respondents. Gender and disability: The proportion of female respondents who disclosed as disabled on teaching-only contracts (38.7%) was significantly larger than the proportions of female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (19.4%), male respondents who had disclosed as disabled (14.3%) and male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (17.8%). Moreover, female respondents who disclosed as disabled rated the impact of disability status on their own career progression more negatively than all other groups. 5 Caring responsibilities, leave and career breaks The difference between the proportion of female (33.6%) and male respondents (42.3%) who reported that they had previously taken parental leave (ie maternity, paternity, additional paternity, adoptive, shared parental or unpaid parental leave) was not significant. Regardless of whether they had previously taken parental leave, male respondents were more likely than female respondents to say that they (i) could relocate if necessary, (ii) feel involved in the social life of their department, or (iii) have their work successes celebrated in their department. Both male and female respondents who had taken parental leave found that flexible working hours and keeping-in-touch (KIT) days were the most helpful options available in their department in preparing them to return to work. However, in general, female respondents felt less prepared to return from parental leave compared with male respondents. 4 ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

9 Executive summary Proportionally more female respondents (16.1%) had taken career breaks than male respondents (6.1%). Although the majority of respondents career breaks lasted less than 12 months (50.0%), a considerable number of respondents reported breaks of one to two years (20.5%), three to five years (12.8%) or more than five years (16.7%). Respondents who had taken longer career breaks (ie three or more years) found it more difficult to return to work and were more negative in their ratings of how a career break had impacted their career progression than respondents who had taken shorter career breaks (ie under two years), regardless of their gender and whether they had previously taken parental leave. 5.1 Intersectional results Gender and ethnicity: There were no significant differences in the proportions of BME women (30.0%), white women (31.9%), BME men (20.0%) and white men (26.1%) reporting that they had previously taken parental leave. However, it was not possible to quantitatively explore whether men and women s opinions of the options around returning from parental leave varied by ethnicity as too few BME respondents had previously taken parental leave. Gender and disability: While the proportion of female respondents who disclosed as disabled (29.5%) and female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (32.2%) who had taken parental leave were relatively similar, the proportion of female respondents who disclosed as disabled (68.4%) with access to flexible working hours was significantly smaller than the proportion of women who had not disclosed as disabled (92.1%). 6 Training and leadership Of the ten training areas listed, it was only in administrative tasks related to management that male respondents had more experience in than female respondents. Compared with male respondents, a larger proportion of female respondents reported that the following barriers had blocked their access to training that they needed or wanted in the last 12 months: time, costs, lack of availability at their institution, caring responsibilities and gender identity. October

10 Executive summary 6.1 Intersectional results Gender and ethnicity: Compared with white male respondents, significantly smaller proportions of BME male respondents had obtained training in administrative tasks related to management, postgraduate supervision, leadership, grant application skills and project planning/financial management skills. BME male respondents were also more likely to report that they had been unable to access training that they needed or wanted because they were not eligible or the training was not relevant to their post. In contrast, the differences in the training opportunities and barriers experienced by BME and white female respondents were not statistically significant. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that almost half of the BME female respondents in the physical sciences had completed postgraduate supervision training (45.0%), leadership training (40.0%) or grant application training (45.0%). Gender and disability: Compared with male respondents who disclosed as disabled, significantly fewer female respondents who disclosed as disabled had equality and diversity training for staff and student issues. Many of the gender differences in the training barriers experienced by men and women were not present among respondents who disclosed as disabled. 7 Promotion and development The proportion of male respondents (58.9%) who were encouraged or invited to apply for a promotion or post at a higher grade was significantly larger than the proportion of female respondents (47.1%) who reported this experience. Compared with their female colleagues, male respondents were more likely to feel that their department values their research and that they have access to senior departmental staff. There were no significant differences in the proportions of male and female respondents who did not want to continue their careers in STEMM (2.5% and 3.7%, respectively). However, proportionally more female respondents (9.2%) than male respondents (4.8%) reported that they would like to continue their career in STEMM but outside of higher education. 6 ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

11 Executive summary 7.1 Intersectional results Gender and ethnicity: The proportion of white male respondents (60.7%) that had been encouraged or invited to apply for promotion was considerably larger than the proportion of BME female respondents (45.0%), BME male respondents (40.4%) and white female respondents (47.1%) who had been directly encouraged or invited to apply for promotion. However, BME female respondents were more likely than white female respondents to say that their department encouraged them to develop their careers and that they felt their appraisal was useful and valuable. Finally, while the proportion of BME male respondents (12.8%) who would like to continue their career in STEMM outside of higher education was larger than the proportion of white male respondents (4.0%), it is worth noting that 9.9% of white female respondents also reported this intention compared with 0% of BME female respondents. Gender and disability: In general, a larger proportion of male respondents, regardless of whether they had (51.9%) or had not (60.1%) disclosed as disabled, had been encouraged to apply for promotion compared with female respondents (39.0% and 49.1%, respectively). Additionally, the proportion of female respondents who disclosed as disabled (8.3%) who did not want to continue their career in STEMM was significantly larger than the proportion of male respondents who disclosed as disabled (2.5%), female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (2.6%) and male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (2.5%). 8 Recommendations The following recommendations are driven by respondents reported experiences of gender equality and reinforced by their description of these experiences in the open-ended questions of the ASSET 2016 survey. While these recommendations are phrased in terms of alleviating discrepancies between men and women s experiences in general, many could be adapted or used as a starting point for addressing the imbalances specific to the physical sciences or other imbalances, such as those related to the intersections between gender and ethnicity and gender and disability status. = = Develop mentoring or sponsorship programmes to increase the visibility of staff in early career posts (eg by increasing exposure to senior staff, clarifying promotion processes and providing opportunities to serve on departmental committees) (ECU, 2012). = = Ensure academic contracts accommodate flexible working policies. October

12 Executive summary = = Establish a set budget (time and money) for training programmes. = = Establish transparent workload allocation models that promote balance in the distribution of research, teaching and administrative duties among staff. = = Promote the development of supportive and career progressing networks (examples of good practice are available in an ECU 2017 report for HEFCE). = = Ensure all staff have opportunities to engage with senior departmental staff. = = Explore options to offer analogous leave to staff caring for another adult to that offered to staff caring for children. = = Provide staff returning from parental or carer leave with additional options such as a low initial teaching or administrative workload. = = Expand promotion criteria to include performance in other professional skills such as teaching and administrative experience. = = Reduce variability in amount and type of support provided by line managers: (i) by ensuring that line management duties are evenly distributed; (ii) line managers have the opportunity to develop their management skills (eg through management training programmes or unconscious bias training); (iii) line managers are motivated to prioritise these duties by increasing their accountability and adding incentives for being a good line manager. 8 ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

13 1 Introduction The most recent iteration of the national Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET) sought to examine the experiences, expectations and perceptions of gender equality of academics working in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM). ASSET 2016 was funded by The Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society of Biology and the Academy of Medical Sciences and was managed by Equality Challenge Unit (ECU). Published in April 2017, the full ASSET 2016 report showed that from recruitment to promotion, female STEMM academics were more likely to perceive, experience or be exposed to some form of disadvantage compared with their male colleagues (ECU 2017). The current report explores the experiences and perceptions of gender equality of academics working in the physical sciences across six aspects of working life: = = perceptions of gender equality = = recruitment = = job and career = = caring responsibilities, leave and career breaks = = training and leadership = = promotion and development To provide additional insight into the gender experiences of academics in the physical sciences, the current report also examines how gender differences in the above aspects of working life vary across individual sub-disciplines, including: = = chemistry = = earth, marine and environmental sciences = = mathematics = = physics This approach and the addition of qualitative data allows ASSET 2016 to paint a more detailed picture of current perceptions of gender equality in the physical sciences. Finally, while the main focus of the current report is to identify and describe gender differences in the perceptions and experiences of academics in the physical sciences, ASSET 2016 incorporates a novel exploration of the intersections between (i) gender and ethnicity/ race, and (ii) gender and disability status. October

14 2 Methods Details on the development of the ASSET 2016 survey and the sampling method employed are available in the full report (ECU 2017). In sum, the survey underwent extensive piloting prior to being distributed to a cluster sample of 52 eligible higher education institutions (HEIs) that took into account the different locations (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, England and London) and mission groups (University Alliance, Million+, GuildHE and Russell Group) of UK institutions. Over the course of four recruitment waves, 43 HEIs agreed to take part. Response rates were monitored and participating institutions were updated at regular intervals to encourage further engagement. The survey ran from March 2016 to June The survey ASSET 2016 contained six distinct sections relating to various aspects of experience within UK STEMM departments and a final monitoring section, which gathered equality and personal data on respondents. The sections were: = = perceptions of gender equality = = recruitment = = job and career = = caring responsibilities, leave and career breaks = = training and leadership = = promotion and development The survey contained 89 questions in total, but the number of questions answered varied from respondent to respondent, since individuals were routed through the survey according to their own characteristics. For example, a respondent who had never taken maternity, paternity, adoption, shared parental or other parental leave did not complete the section on the options and resources surrounding parental leave. 2.2 The sample Full details on the ASSET 2016 sample and the data cleaning processes employed to remove empty cases are available in the full report (ECU 2017). The final unweighted subsample of academics in the physical sciences contained 836 respondents from 40 institutions, of which 476 were male and 360 were female. The following analyses are 10 ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

15 2 Methods limited to respondents who identified as male or female. Gender differences are discussed in terms of male respondents and female respondents as well as men and women, which ECU appreciates are not necessarily synonymous with the labels of male and female disclosed in the survey. 2.3 Sample weighting In order to ensure sample representativeness (UK STEMM academics), non-response weights were calculated using the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) 2013/14 staff record (ECU 2015). Weights were based on gender (male or female), ethnicity (black or minority ethnic [BME] or white) and field of study (HESA cost centres). The full ASSET 2016 report describes how non-response weights were calculated and applied (ECU 2017). The final weighted physical sciences subsample consisted of 826 respondents (527 men, 299 women). These numbers differ from those reported for the unweighted sample in the previous section because the weights applied were designed to obtain a more balanced gender distribution. However, as the weighting procedure also included ethnicity and field of study, applying the sample weights had a similar impact on the apparent size of these subsamples. This has been taken into account in the analysis which follows. Table presents the distribution of male and female respondents across the individual academic fields encompassed under the physical sciences discipline. Table Individual sub-disciplines by gender Sub-discipline Total No. % % No. % % No. % Chemistry Earth, marine and environmental sciences Mathematics Physics Total October

16 2 Methods All statistics reported from this point forward have been obtained from the weighted physical sciences subsample (see Appendix 1 of the full ASSET 2016 report for characteristics of the full ASSET 2016 weighted sample) (ECU 2017). 2.4 Data reduction In consideration of the large number of survey questions in ASSET 2016, items relating to a similar topic were averaged into summary scores. Details regarding the principal components analyses used to determine whether closely related items captured a common concept are available in Appendix 2 of the full ASSET 2016 report (ECU 2017). Average ratings on individual items and summary scores ranged from 1.00 to 7.00, with higher scores typically reflecting a more positive view (unless otherwise specified). For example, if respondents were asked to rate the impact of being a woman on the average academic career, a rating of 1.00 would reflect an extremely negative effect while 7.00 would indicate an extremely positive effect. Average ratings on individual items and summary scores ranging from 3.95 to 4.05 were considered neutral, or in this example, as having no effect. 2.5 Presentation of results Quantitative analyses The quantitative results are presented in six separate sections. Use of the term significant herein refers only to statistically significant differences (at the p <.05 level). Except for analyses in which proportions of total men and women were compared, all analyses controlled for respondents current age (and where applicable, also respondents current posts) in order to determine whether gender differences were specifically related to respondents declared gender. Visual representations of gender differences presented in this report are based on average ratings, summary scores or the proportion of respondents within each gender. Where possible, visual representations are accompanied by 95% confidence intervals around average ratings and summary scores to facilitate identifying which differences are statistically significant. If two statistics have non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals, they are necessarily 12 ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

17 2 Methods significantly different. However, there are instances where two statistics may have overlapping 95% confidence intervals but are still significantly different so interpretation of these confidence intervals should be completed alongside the results reported in the text Qualitative analyses Within each section of the ASSET 2016 survey, respondents were given the opportunity to expand and reflect upon the content of that section in a free text response. The qualitative data were coded inductively and emerging themes were used to inform the case studies included in vignettes throughout this report. Relevant quotations from these open responses were selected to provide additional insight into the mechanisms underlying respondents perceptions and experiences Results related to individual sub-disciplines Within each section, comparisons of how respondents perceptions and experiences differ across four main sub-disciplines are presented: = = chemistry = = earth, marine and environmental sciences = = mathematics = = physics Intersectionality This report explored the intersection between gender and two protected characteristics (ethnicity/race and disability status), which are presented at the end of each section. To summarise these intersections succinctly, these subsections only describe statistically significant findings; areas in which no difference between groups was found are not discussed. Ethnicity/race and disability status were selected because the number of respondents possessing such characteristics in the subsample of respondents in the physical sciences was sufficient for quantitative analyses (see Table ). October

18 2 Methods Table Sample sizes by gender and protected characteristic of interest Protected characteristic Total No. % No. % No. Ethnicity BME White Disability status Had not disclosed as disabled Had disclosed as disabled To explore the intersection between gender and ethnicity, the following minority groups were aggregated into a single BME group (based on the 2011 census classification system): = = Asian Asian Indian, Asian Pakistani, Asian Bangladeshi, Asian British and Asian other = = black black Caribbean, black African, black British and black other = = Chinese = = mixed = = other ethnic background While this definition of BME status is widely recognised and used to identify patterns of marginalisation and segregation caused by attitudes towards an individual s ethnicity, ECU recognises its limitations, particularly the erroneous assumption that minority ethnic individuals are a homogeneous group. The phrase respondents who disclosed as disabled, or equivalent, is used throughout the report to refer to those who indicated that they had: a specific learning disability; a general learning disability; a social/ communication impairment; a long-standing illness or long-term health condition; a mental health condition; a physical impairment or mobility issues; deafness or serious hearing impairment; blindness or a serious visual impairment. The phrase respondents who had not disclosed as disabled was used for respondents who did not report a disability and did not specify that they did not wish to disclose this information (ie individuals who indicated that they would prefer not to say were excluded from these analyses). 14 ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

19 3 Perceptions of gender equality The first section of the ASSET 2016 survey explored respondents perceptions of gender equality, focusing on (i) their department s commitment to gender equality, (ii) how resources are allocated in their department, and (iii) the ease with which senior posts are obtained. This section also included questions regarding the perceived impact of Athena SWAN initiatives. 3.1 Perceived gender equality in respondents departments On average, male respondents were more positive about their department s commitment to gender equality than female respondents (see Table 3.1.1). The only item presented in Table that male and female respondents rated similarly was how equally represented men and women are in their department: both genders tended not to agree with this statement and, on the following item in the survey, 81.4% of respondents said that there were more men than women in their department (see Figure 3.1.1). Table Ratings of department s commitment to gender equality Department s commitment to gender equality summary score In general, men and women are equally well represented (in numbers) in my department In general, men and women are treated equally in my department My department is committed to promoting gender equality in STEMM If I had concerns about gender equality in my dept, I would know who to approach My department is (or would be) responsive to concerns about gender equality Figure Ratings of department gender distribution by gender 81.4% 14.6% 4.0% More women than men Roughly equal numbers of women and men More men than women October

20 3 Perceptions of gender equality 3.2 Perceived gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources Respondents were asked to rate whether they perceived an advantage towards women or an advantage towards men across 18 items describing the allocation of tasks and resources in their department. These items were averaged into three summary scores reflecting the allocation of tasks and resources related to (i) professional development (eg receipt of mentoring, attention from senior management), (ii) markers of esteem (eg distribution of laboratory space or equipment, invitations to conferences), and (iii) additional academic duties (eg allocation of teaching, administrative or pastoral tasks) (ECU 2017). Regarding the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development and markers of esteem, female respondents were more likely to perceive an advantage towards men than male respondents, who tended to rate these items more neutrally (ie perceiving no advantage for either gender) (see Figure 3.2.1). In contrast, while female respondents reported a similar perceived advantage for men in the allocation of additional academic duties, male respondents perceived an advantage for women in this area. It is worth noting however that while these differences are statistically significant, they are relatively small in size (eg average summary scores were out of 7.00 and these were 4.13 for men and 3.94 for women regarding the allocation of additional academic duties). Figure Perceived allocation of tasks and resources by gender Professional development Neutral 3.99 Advantage for men Markers of esteem Additional academic duties Note. Error bars are based on 95% confidence intervals. 16 ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

21 3 Perceptions of gender equality Closer look: esteemed tasks These female mathematicians commented on the esteem associated with certain tasks and how this could have a detrimental effect on a person s development and progression: Soft volunteering roles for things you can t put on your CV are more often taken up by women. This goes from small things like setting up the milk rota to organising PPI activities. This has been going on for a while now, and for some in my department, it has now become an expectation that some woman will step for these things, men are not even asked to consider doing these adminy or fun side things., mathematics This was particularly the case for staff who took on more teaching responsibilities: Women generally seem to place more emphasis on teaching responsibilities and tend to have greater investment in teaching., mathematics It is the value attributed to work that needs addressing. If more value was placed on the standard of teaching and the time taken doing it and less on the more traditional roles of prominent leadership and research recognition, then the balance would be more equitable., mathematics It seems that more than half of staff in teaching-orientated roles are women, yet there is confusion and lack of direction when it comes to promotion for those in teaching-orientated jobs., mathematics 3.3 Perceived gender equality in obtaining senior posts Despite both genders reporting that it was slightly easier for a man to obtain a senior post in their department on average, female respondents reported a significantly stronger advantage for men than male respondents. As seen in Figure 3.3.1, the proportion of female respondents reporting that it was much easier for a man to obtain a senior post was almost six times the proportion of male respondents endorsing this option; the majority of male respondents rated this item neutrally. October

22 3 Perceptions of gender equality Figure Proportion of respondents ratings of ease in obtaining senior post by gender Much easier for a woman % 20% 30% 40% 50% Easier for a woman Slightly easier for a woman The same for women and men Slightly easier for a man Easier for a man Much easier for a man ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

23 3 Perceptions of gender equality 3.4 The impact of the Athena SWAN Charter Overall, 6.1% of respondents had not heard of the Athena SWAN Charter in their department and an additional 2.3% of respondents reported that Athena SWAN initiatives were not run in their departments. Among respondents who were aware of Athena SWAN, both genders tended to agree that these initiatives had a positive impact on the work environment in their department and institution as whole. There were no differences in how men and women rated the impact of Athena SWAN in their department or institution. Case study: opinions of Athena SWAN were more positive among respondents in physics Although all sub-disciplines were positive about the impact of Athena SWAN initiatives on their department in general, respondents in physics were more positive than respondents in chemistry, mathematics and earth, marine and environmental sciences (see Figure 3.4.1). Figure Ratings of impact of Athena SWAN on department by sub-discipline Slightly Neutral positive Chemistry Earth, marine Mathematics Physics However, it is worth noting that there were no gender differences between men and women s ratings of the impact of Athena SWAN initiatives in any the individual sub-disciplines. Moreover, there was very little variability in the proportions of respondents who had not previously heard of Athena SWAN initiatives across the sub-disciplines (range was 4.2% for chemistry to 7.9% for physics). October

24 3 Perceptions of gender equality Closer look: historical factors and attitudes towards gender equality initiatives Among respondents who discussed gender equality initiatives, such as Athena SWAN, the values and purposes of these initiatives were understood in different ways: Positive recruitment agendas then force existing female staff to undertake administrative roles for example representation on a LOT more interview panels than men, which takes up time they could otherwise use to advance their career., chemistry For some respondents, gender inequalities in academia were the result of historical factors and this situation would improve over time: I believe the imbalance of men and women at senior levels in the department reflects historical issues: there is a good representation of female junior professors, but fewer at the senior professor level this will likely balance out with time, assuming the current dedication to gender equality issues continues., earth, marine and environmental sciences The current distribution of males/females in academic positions reflects the student numbers of the past 30 years gender equality has improved substantially in the past decade and this will slowly filter through to higher rungs of the ladder., chemistry 3.5 Beyond the gender gap: how do gender differences in perceptions of gender equality vary by ethnicity and disability status? Gender and BME respondents were more likely to report a perceived advantage for men in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development, markers of esteem and additional academic duties than male respondents, regardless of their ethnicity (see Figure ). There was a similar gender difference in perceived ease of obtaining senior posts: compared with male respondents, female respondents felt that it was easier for a man to obtain a senior post in their department, regardless of ethnicity. 20 ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

25 3 Perceptions of gender equality Figure Perceived allocation of tasks and resources by gender and ethnicity Professional development BME female White female BME male White male Advantage for women 3.93 Neutral 4.00 Advantage for men Markers of esteem BME female White female BME male White male Additional academic duties BME female White female BME male White male Note. Error bars are based on 95% confidence intervals Gender and disability status respondents who disclosed as disabled reported a stronger advantage for men in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development and markers of esteem than female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (see Figure ). In addition, female respondents who disclosed as disabled rated the impact of Athena SWAN initiatives in their institution less positively than female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled. October

26 3 Perceptions of gender equality Figure Perceived allocation of tasks and resources by gender and disability status Professional development Disabled female Non-disabled female Disabled male Non-disabled male Advantage for women Advantage Neutral for men Markers of esteem Disabled female Non-disabled female Disabled male Non-disabled male Additional academic duties Disabled female Non-disabled female Disabled male Non-disabled male Note. Error bars are based on 95% confidence intervals. 22 ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

27 4 Recruitment Respondents were asked about how they had obtained their current post and the factors that influenced their decision to take the position. If respondents had been interviewed for their post, they were asked to provide details about the number of men and women on their interview panel(s). 4.1 How post was obtained The majority of men and women obtained their current post through an external advertisement (see Figure 4.1.1). However, proportionally more men (16.9%) had obtained their current post through a formal promotion compared with women (11.3%), and proportionally more women (8.8%) had obtained their current posts through other methods (eg fellowship or grant application) than men (2.9%). Figure Recruitment method by gender Ad hoc promotion % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Formal promotion round Invitation/nomination Application for advertised post Other (eg fellowship/grant) October

28 4 Recruitment 4.2 Interview panels To calculate the average proportion of women on respondents interview panels, the total number of women on the interview panel was divided by the total number of panellists. These scores ranged from 0 (ie no women on the interview panel) to 1 (ie only women on the interview panel). Overall, 7.0% of respondents recalled having an equal number of men and women on their interview panels and an additional 7.0% indicated that there were more women than men on their interview panel. This means that 85.2% of respondents recalled having more men than women on their interview panel. However, the difference between the proportions of male (5.4%) and female respondents (9.8%) who recalled having more women than men on their interview panels was not significant. 4.3 Decision to take up current post The ASSET 2016 survey included seven items regarding why respondents decided to accept their post. These were averaged into two summary scores reflecting (i) the quality of working life in that department and (ii) the department s commitment to equality (see Table 4.3.1). Table Breakdown of summary scores and average ratings across items related to respondents decision to take their current post Summary scores Quality of working life Flexibility of working hours Work/life balance offered Diverse and inclusive working environment Reputation for training or career development Commitment to equality Childcare facilities available An Athena SWAN awarded to the department Staff networks (eg LGBTQ group) On average, female respondents reported that the quality of life in the department and its commitment to equality were more influential in their decision than male respondents. Although indices of working life were considered more influential by both genders in general, the commitment to equality index that was rated as the most influential was whether the department or institution had an Athena SWAN award. 24 ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

29 4 Recruitment Case study: deciding to take a post in the individual subdisciplines Men and women in chemistry and earth, marine and environmental sciences rated the factors reflecting the quality of working life and a department s commitment to equality in a similar manner (see Figures and 4.3.2). This was not the case among respondents in mathematics or physics: compared with men, women in these sub-disciplines rated working life as more influential in deciding to take their current post. Women in mathematics were also more likely to rate their department s commitment to equality as more influential than men in mathematics (although this gender difference was not present among men and women in physics). Figure Influence of quality of working life in taking up current post by gender and sub-discipline Chemistry Neutral Influential Earth, marine Mathematics Physics Note. Error bars are based on 95% confidence intervals. October

30 4 Recruitment Figure Influence of commitment to equality in taking up current post by gender and sub-discipline Not influential Neutral Chemistry Earth, marine Mathematics Physics Note. Error bars are based on 95% confidence intervals. There are two additional points worth noting: first, respondents ratings of these two areas of influence did not significantly differ across the individual sub-disciplines, and second, indices of the quality of working life were consistently rated as more influential than those reflecting commitment to equality, regardless of sub-discipline. 4.4 Beyond the gender gap: how do recruitment processes differ for STEMM academics belonging to more than one underrepresented group? Gender and BME Proportionally more men than women were formally promoted to their current post, regardless of their ethnicity. However, it is worth noting that only 27.8% of the respondents who were formally promoted were women, all of whom were white. Of those respondents who were interviewed for their current post, there were no significant differences in the proportions of BME women (15.1%), white women (9.3%), BME men (11.6%) and white men (4.8%) who reported having more women than men on their interview panels. 26 ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

31 4 Recruitment In general, BME respondents rated the quality of working life in the department and its commitment to equality as more influential than white respondents. However, BME women rated these factors as being more influential in their decision to take their current post compared with BME men, white men and white women (see Figure ). Figure Influence of the quality of working life and commitment to equality in taking up current post by gender and ethnicity Not at all influential Neutral Influential Quality of working life BME female White female BME male White male Department s equality commitment BME female White female BME male White male Note. Error bars are based on 95% confidence intervals Gender and disability status The gender differences in how respondents were recruited and the factors that influenced their decision to take their current post were only present among respondents who had not disclosed as disabled. As seen in Figure , the difference between the proportions of women who disclosed as disabled (10.5%) and men who disclosed as disabled (13.0%) who had been formally promoted to their current post was not significant. In contrast, among respondents who had not disclosed as disabled, proportionally more men (17.7%) than women (11.5%) obtained their current post through a formal promotion. October

32 4 Recruitment Figure Recruitment method by gender and disability status Ad hoc promotion Disabled female Non-disabled female Disabled male Non-disabled male % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Formal promotion round Disabled female Non-disabled female Disabled male Non-disabled male Invitation/nomination Disabled female Non-disabled female Disabled male Non-disabled male Application for advertised post Disabled female Non-disabled female Disabled male Non-disabled male Other (eg fellowship/grant) Disabled female Non-disabled female Disabled male Non-disabled male ASSET report 2016: physical sciences