Department Application Bronze and Silver Award

Transcription

1 Department Application Bronze and Silver Award

2 ATHENA SWAN BRONZE DEPARTMENT AWARDS Recognise that in addition to institution-wide policies, the department is working to promote gender equality and to identify and address challenges particular to the department and discipline. ATHENA SWAN SILVER DEPARTMENT AWARDS In addition to the future planning required for Bronze department recognition, Silver department awards recognise that the department has taken action in response to previously identified challenges and can demonstrate the impact of the actions implemented. Note: Not all institutions use the term department. There are many equivalent academic groupings with different names, sizes and compositions. The definition of a department can be found in the Athena SWAN awards handbook. COMPLETING THE FORM DO NOT ATTEMPT TO COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION FORM WITHOUT READING THE ATHENA SWAN AWARDS HANDBOOK. This form should be used for applications for Bronze and Silver department awards. You should complete each section of the application applicable to the award level you are applying for. Additional areas for Silver applications are highlighted throughout the form: 5.2, 5.4, 5.5(iv) If you need to insert a landscape page in your application, please copy and paste the template page at the end of the document, as per the instructions on that page. Please do not insert any section breaks as to do so will disrupt the page numbers. WORD COUNT The overall word limit for applications are shown in the following table. There are no specific word limits for the individual sections and you may distribute words over each of the sections as appropriate. At the end of every section, please state how many words you have used in that section. We have provided the following recommendations as a guide. 2

3 Department application Bronze Silver Actual Word limit 10,500 12,000 11,838* Recommended word count 1.Letter of endorsement Description of the department Self-assessment process 1,000 1, Picture of the department 2,000 2, Supporting and advancing women s careers 6,000 6, Case studies n/a 1, Further information * Includes quotations and text written in Impact Boxes; excludes tables, figures and images. Name of institution Department Focus of department University of Oxford National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit STEMM Date of application 30 November 2016 Award Level Institution Athena SWAN award Contact for application Must be based in the department Silver Date: November 2013 Professor Maria Quigley maria.quigley@npeu.ox.ac.uk Level: Bronze Telephone Departmental website 3

4 GLOSSARY CDWG CTU FT IT MQ MRC MSD NDPH NIHR NPEU PDR PT RoD RR SAT SMG T&D URL Career Development Working Group Clinical Trials Unit Full-time Information Technology Maria Quigley (Chair of Self-Assessment Team) Medical Research Council Medical Sciences Division Nuffield Department of Population Health National Institute for Health Research National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Personal Development Review Part-time Recognition of Distinction Rachel Rowe (Deputy Chair of Self-Assessment Team) Self-Assessment Team Senior Management Group Training and Development University Research Lecturer 4

5 1. LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words Silver: 500 words An accompanying letter of endorsement from the head of department should be included. If the head of department is soon to be succeeded, or has recently taken up the post, applicants should include an additional short statement from the incoming head. Note: Please insert the endorsement letter immediately after this cover page. 5

6 Ruth Gilligan Athena SWAN Charter Equality Challenge Unit First Floor, Westminster Tower 3 Albert Embankment London SE1 7SP 28 November 2016 Dear Ruth Re: Renewal application for Athena SWAN Silver Award As Director of the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit I fully endorse and support our renewal application for the Athena SWAN Silver Award and I confirm my personal commitment to all the principles of the Athena SWAN initiative. I encourage all staff in the Unit to focus on implementing our action plan and embedding the Athena SWAN principles within our culture to achieve maximum impact for everyone across the Unit. I see at first hand, on a daily basis, the impact for all our staff of the changes we have made as a consequence of our action plan and, as I outline below, our earlier actions have proved successful and have motivated us to identify new goals to advance further our Unit culture, promoting equality and diversity for all. Action plan impacts of which I am particularly proud relate to the complete overhaul and development of an improved, more supportive and inclusive, personal development review (PDR) process: Not all staff initially welcomed the change from optional appraisal to mandatory PDR, but during the PDRs which I conduct staff now tell me that this has been a very positive change which has resulted in development and promotion opportunities that were unlikely to have been identified through the old process. We now have 100% participation in PDR compared with 35% in During the PDR discussions I see individuals taking stock and planning their future career path in a much more effective way than in the past with some of the results outlined in the point below. Two of our senior female researchers applied and have been made full Professors (resulting in a total of three female professors in the Unit), five senior researchers were made Associate Professors (2f, 3m) and the status of University Lecturer was conferred on two junior female researchers; seven researchers have been re-graded. The focus of our research is women, babies and families and in common with other research groups in this field, we have a predominantly female workforce. However, with an inclusive culture this area of research can attract both men and 6

7 women, as illustrated by our eight current DPhil students, five of whom are women and three of whom are men. I am fully committed to continuing to develop and enhance our research field to ensure that maternal and child health research is a field which is accessible to all. It is a joy to watch everyone (women and men; research, professional and support staff) in the Unit thrive and flourish. I am pleased that I am able to contribute towards enabling and supporting ALL staff in striving to achieve their full potential in their chosen career. As Unit Director I will ensure that we will continue on this path with a strong inclusive effort based around our new action plan setting the goals for the years ahead. I can confirm that the quantitative and qualitative data used in support of our renewal application are an accurate representation of the Unit. Yours sincerely Jennifer J Kurinczuk Professor of Perinatal Epidemiology Director, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit 7

8 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEPARTMENT Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words Silver: 500 words Please provide a brief description of the department including any relevant contextual information. Present data on the total number of academic staff, professional and support staff and students by gender. Image 1: Photo of NPEU in 2015 The National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU) is a vibrant, multi-disciplinary research unit which was established within the University of Oxford in It is part of the Nuffield Department of Population Health (NDPH) within the Medical Sciences Division (MSD) of the University (Figure 1). NDPH was established in July 2013 by bringing together ten leading research units (including NPEU). The NPEU has its own Director and Administrator and has its own practices and policies related to staff development and management, in addition to those of the wider Department, Division and University. The NPEU hosts postgraduate students via the admission system of NDPH. Figure 1: How the NPEU fits into the structure at the University of Oxford Oxford University Medical Sciences Division (MSD) Mathematics and Physical Life Sciences Division Social Sciences Division Humanities Division Nuffield Dept of Population Health (NDPH) 15 other MSD departments NPEU 9 other NDPH units/centres 8

9 The NPEU mission is to produce methodologically rigorous research evidence to improve the care provided to pregnant women and their families during pregnancy, childbirth, the newborn period and early childhood, as well as promoting the effective use of resources by perinatal health services. The NPEU has an excellent national and international reputation for conducting studies which have contributed to policy change, influenced practice and helped improve the care of women and their babies. Two examples, which were included as case studies demonstrating research impact in the 2014 Research Excellence Framework, resulted in changes to the management and prevention of eclampsia in pregnancy (worldwide) and influenza in pregnancy (in the UK/Europe). NPEU staff and students are based in one building, together with other staff and students from NDPH. All NPEU staff, including the Director, are funded by competitively obtained research grants. Hence, NPEU is primarily a research unit although several NPEU staff have teaching responsibilities, such as on NDPH s MSc in Global Health Science, undergraduate teaching, examining, tutoring, supervising MSc and DPhil students and teaching on short courses. The current NPEU Director is a woman and two of the four previous Directors were women. In this application, staff are classified either as research staff or professional/support staff. When staff data were collected in July 2016, there were 84 staff in the NPEU (30 research staff and 54 professional/support staff), 6 DPhil students and 2 academic visitors. Research staff include clinical and non-clinical researchers, research nurses and trial directors. Among research staff, 80% (24/30) are female and 40% (12/30) are parttime. Professional/support staff include: project managers and trial co-ordinators; programmers and other IT staff; and other administrative staff. Three support staff (Unit Administrator, Head of IT and Security, and Senior Trials Manager) have significant line management responsibility and are members of the NPEU Senior Management Group (SMG). Three-quarters of the professional/support staff (76%, 41/54) are female and 40% (21/54) work part-time. Most staff work as part of one or more project teams fostering a collaborative and teamworking culture. A project team will usually include research staff, professional/support staff, staff from different disciplines, with different levels of seniority and will often include external collaborators from other universities, the NHS or service user groups. Most staff feel valued irrespective of their role, gender or seniority: 92% of staff in the 2016 survey reported that they felt valued for the work they do in the NPEU. 9

10 3. THE SELF-ASSESSMENT PROCESS Recommended word count: Bronze: 1000 words Silver: 1000 words Describe the self-assessment process. This should include: (i) a description of the self-assessment team The SAT currently comprises nine members across a range of backgrounds and experience: Table 1: NPEU SAT Name/Job title Gender SAT responsibility Background Sue Bellenger Unit Administrator Sarah Chamberlain Graphic and Multimedia Designer Jane Henderson Researcher Andrew King Head of Trials Programming Andy Kirk Webmaster and Design Co-ordinator Marian Knight Professor Maria Quigley Professor Oliver Rivero-Arias Associate Professor Rachel Rowe University Research Lecturer F F F M M F F M HR policy implementation. SMG member. Perspectives of raising a young family and working part-time. Researcher perspective. Co-chair of Career Progression Group Leads data analysis. Represents trials and programming. Perspectives from the design team. Web/design skills. Senior academic. SMG member. Chair of SAT. SMG member. Perspectives of raising a young child. Co-led some of our surveys. SMG member. Has grown-up children and caring responsibilities for older relatives, benefits from flexible working. Works part-time. Benefits from flexible working to fit in with childcare. Works 70%FTE to maintain outside interests. Benefitted from flexible working when her children were younger. Benefitted from flexible working when his children were younger. Has young family, benefits from flexible working. Three secondary school children. Benefits from flexible working. Works 90%FTE, one child. Benefits from regular home working. Benefits from regular home working to fit in with childcare. F Deputy Chair of SAT. Works 80% FTE with flexible working. Had maternity leave and completed DPhil while in Unit. 10

11 Advised by Charlotte Smith F MSD Athena SWAN Facilitator Brid Cronin F MSD Athena SWAN Facilitator Stephanie McCall F NDPH Athena SWAN and Training Facilitator Adrienne Hopkins F University Senior Equality Advisor (ii) an account of the self-assessment process SAT membership The SAT has been in place since Members are volunteers and membership is reviewed annually at SAT meetings to ensure that the group is sufficiently balanced with respect to gender (6f, 3m) and job type (5 research, 4 professional/support); additional volunteers are sought (via or Unit meetings) when necessary. Maria Quigley (MQ) agreed with the Director that she would chair the SAT until In March 2015, MQ asked Rachel Rowe (RR) to be the Deputy Chair of the group, partly to recognise Rachel s commitment to Athena SWAN activities and to provide some continuity when MQ steps down as chair. Working Groups The main Athena SWAN activities are led by the SAT, with policies signed off by the SMG. One of the first things that the SAT did in 2012 was to set up two working groups on Career Development (currently led by Jane Henderson and Jennifer Hollowell) and Flexible Working (currently led by Claire Carson) (Figure 2). These topics were chosen to address the needs identified in our first Athena SWAN survey (2012). Based on information and feedback gathered through NPEU surveys, discussions at NPEU meetings/seminars, and small group meetings, the groups have developed many of the actions described in this application. Membership of the working groups is on a voluntary basis and is reviewed annually or whenever someone leaves the group to ensure that all groups (e.g. research/professional/support, male/female) are represented. Some members have been asked to join a group in order to represent a particular section of the NPEU (e.g. Clinical Trials). 11

12 Figure 2: Relationship between SMG, SAT and Working Groups SMG Athena SWAN SAT Working Group on Career Development Working Group on Flexible Working SAT and Working Group Meetings The SAT meets on average four times per year. The agenda includes standing items, such as updates from working groups and monitoring progress on the action plan, together with new items for discussion. Minutes are circulated to the SAT and saved on the NPEU network. The Working Groups each meet 2 4 times per year, as appropriate, e.g. more often if they are running a survey or developing a policy. At least one member of each of the working groups is on the SAT and that person feeds back at the SAT meetings and vice versa. Consultation within NPEU This application has been developed with input from the NPEU. Athena SWAN is a standing agenda item at the termly NPEU meetings (attended by all NPEU members) where MQ and RR present an update of activities and this usually generates some discussion in the meeting. MQ and RR also encourage NPEU members to follow up or provide additional comments outside of the meeting (e.g. one-to-one discussion or by ). Since 2012, we have conducted four online surveys of all NPEU members and these have had high response rates (Table 2). The survey results, which will be discussed throughout this application, have been extremely positive and confirm that the NPEU provides a supportive environment. The surveys identify areas for improvement and allow us to monitor the impact of our activities. 12

13 Table 2: Summary of NPEU surveys related to Athena SWAN Purpose of survey was to inform: Athena SWAN application NPEU flexible working policy NPEU career development policies Athena SWAN application Date Nov 2012 Jul 2014 Dec 2014 Mar 2016 Response rate 98% (61/62; 49f, 12m) 79% (62/78; 48f, 13m, 1 not stated) 93% (76/82; 59f, 17m) 88% (71/81; 55f, 12m, 4 not stated) Dissemination of results via: Unit Unit seminar in Nov 2014 Unit Unit & Unit meeting Oct 2016 Consultation outside NPEU Three NPEU members (MQ and RR from the SAT; Claire Carson from the Flexible Working Group) are part of the SAT for NDPH and this allows us to share ideas and experiences. For example, NPEU has shared experiences of flexible working with NDPH, while NPEU members have benefitted from new initiatives developed by the NDPH SAT, such as a mentoring scheme and the Early Career Researchers Network. The SAT has ongoing input from the Divisional Athena SWAN Facilitator, who attends the SAT meetings and provides information on Athena SWAN activities and best practices across the University. Members of the SAT attend workshops and information sharing sessions with other University departments, and external speakers such as a Frameworks for Change Workshop by Dr Jennifer de Vries (2014), and seminars by Departmental Gold Award holders such as Professor Paul Walton (York, Oct 2015) and Professor Tom Welton (Imperial, Nov 2015). These inspired us to explore extending flexible working even to those posts which are traditionally assumed to be unsuitable for flexible working (see Section 5.5 and Action 4.1). In January 2016, two of our SAT (MQ and RR) gave a talk on our experiences of Athena SWAN to staff within the Social Sciences Division of the University who were preparing Bronze applications. (iii) plans for the future of the self-assessment team The two Working Groups have produced a timeline for all of their tasks to enable progress to be monitored. The SAT will meet every three months at which there will be a progress report from the Working Groups. The SAT chair will continue to report on progress at the monthly SMG meetings at which Athena SWAN is a standing agenda item. Athena SWAN will continue to be a standing item at the termly Unit meetings and the SAT will continue to seek views of NPEU members at Unit meetings, seminars, small group meetings and via . The SAT will continue to contribute to Athena SWAN activities in NDPH, the Division and the University as appropriate. The impact of the action plan will be measured with accurate and timely data collection. Data are collected by the NPEU Admin Team and downloaded onto a secure area of the network every 1 2 months, and two SAT members (AKing, MQ) analyse the data annually 13

14 and present to the SAT. The Admin Team and SMG monitor compliance with new policies. The SAT also conducts surveys when there is a need to evaluate perceptions and awareness of new initiatives, or to monitor impact (Table 2) and will continue to do so (Actions 1.2 and 4.1), as well as using focus groups (Actions 1.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.5) to inform actions and policy. MQ and RR oversee implementation of the action plan. Having two people leading on activities, and two different people leading the working groups, ensures that the workload is shared. Membership of the SAT and Working Groups is optional and is discussed at an individual s annual PDR. Membership may change to ensure effective implementation of the action plan. 14

15 4. A PICTURE OF THE DEPARTMENT Recommended word count: Bronze: 2000 words Silver: 2000 words All staff and student data collection for this application was in July 2016 unless stated otherwise. Owing to small numbers, we have combined data into larger categories where appropriate and we have tended to show absolute numbers when percentages would be misleading (e.g. Figure 3). 4.1 Student data If courses in the categories below do not exist, please enter n/a. (i) Numbers of men and women on access or foundation courses Not applicable (ii) Numbers of undergraduate students by gender Full- and part-time by programme. Provide data on course applications, offers, and acceptance rates, and degree attainment by gender. Not applicable (iii) Numbers of men and women on postgraduate taught degrees Full- and part-time. Provide data on course application, offers and acceptance rates and degree completion rates by gender. Not applicable (iv) Numbers of men and women on postgraduate research degrees Full- and part-time. Provide data on course application, offers, acceptance and degree completion rates by gender. NPEU postgraduate students are DPhil students who are registered within the Nuffield Department of Population Health (NDPH). DPhil applicants may apply to NDPH for a fulltime or part-time DPhil programme; NDPH was the first University Department to implement the part-time DPhil in DPhil places are advertised by NDPH. Applicants may choose from a list of projects with named supervisors, or may apply with their own project, having first identified a potential supervisor. Some applicants have funding when they apply, others apply for an NDPH/University scholarship. Applications are reviewed by an NDPH panel (2f, 1m), and shortlisted applicants are interviewed by the panel plus one of the potential DPhil supervisors. DPhil places are awarded on merit, irrespective of funding or full/part-time status. DPhil students who are supervised by NPEU staff sit with NPEU members during their DPhil studies and are fully integrated within NPEU, NDPH (74 DPhil students, 62% female) 15

16 and an Oxford College. Owing to their official registration within NDPH, the students have been considered as part of the NDPH Athena SWAN application (silver awarded 2015). However, some information on NPEU DPhil students is presented here to present a complete picture. In July 2016, NPEU had 6 DPhil students (4f, 2m, Table 3); as of October 2016, the NPEU has 8 students (5f, 3m). Completion rates are high 100% of students who have started within the last 10 years have completed or are on track to complete within 4 years (pro rata for part-time). Table 3: Number of NPEU DPhil students by year and gender (v) Year Female Male Total July (1 PT) 1 5 July (1 PT) 0 3 July (1 PT) 0 4 July (1 PT) 2 6 PT Part-time Progression pipeline between undergraduate and postgraduate student levels Identify and comment on any issues in the pipeline between undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. The DPhil students in NPEU (Table 3) and NDPH cover a variety of disciplines including clinical/statistical epidemiology and health services research. NDPH does not offer undergraduate courses. There are numerous undergraduate pipelines (e.g. medicine, nursing, mathematics, economics, psychology, nutrition) and DPhil students often complete an MSc before starting their DPhil. Two of the current NPEU DPhil students completed the NDPH MSc in Global Health Science before starting their DPhil. 4.2 Academic and research staff data (i) Academic staff by grade, contract function and gender: research-only, teaching and research or teaching-only Look at the career pipeline and comment on and explain any differences between men and women. Identify any gender issues in the pipeline at particular grades/job type/academic contract type. Staff grades and pipelines All NPEU staff including the Director are funded by competitively obtained research grants and are classified as research staff or professional/support staff. Some research staff undertake teaching responsibilities, although this does not affect their job title/description or source of salary funding. Hence, all researchers are categorised as research-only. Some researchers have University titles (e.g. Professor) which are awarded as part of the University Recognition of Distinction Exercise (RoD). These data are shown in Section iii)). 16

17 NPEU researchers represent many academic disciplines and come from a variety of clinical (e.g. public health, obstetrics, paediatrics, midwifery) and non-clinical (e.g. epidemiology, statistics, health economics, psychology) backgrounds. For example, a recent grade 7 researcher post asked for a postgraduate qualification in epidemiology, statistics or a health related science, a substantial part of which relates to statistical methods in health research. Figure 3 and Table 4 show researchers by grade, year and gender. The majority are female (80%, 24/30 in 2016) which is consistent with the gender profile in NPEU (77% female, 65/84). Such a high proportion of female researchers is characteristic in public health departments (e.g. Athena SWAN application for: Department of Health Sciences, University of York 2013, 82% female; Institute of Health and Society, University of Newcastle 2014, 72% female) or maternal and child health (e.g. Athena SWAN application for Department of Nursing and Midwifery, University of West of England 2014, 79% female). A third of all researchers (33%, 10/30 in 2016) are grade 6 7 (the most junior of the nonclinical research grades) and nearly a quarter (23%, 7/30 in 2016) are grade 10 or clinical consultants. While the number of men is too small to draw conclusions about gender differences over time or by grade, men are represented across all levels of seniority and the data do not show any appreciable pipeline issues across seniority. We are mindful that the number of male researchers is small and our previous Athena SWAN application sought to investigate this and address possible unconscious bias in our recruitment process. Our actions on gender equity have narrowed the gap between male and female success rates at being shortlisted or appointed (see Section 5.1 i). We will build on these actions and successes in line with the expanding remit of Athena SWAN principles, arranging for more detailed focus groups on gender and ethnicity to identify any potential barriers to working in, or applying for, a NPEU post (Actions 1.1 and 2.2). We continue to monitor data on recruitment (see subsequent section, Action 6.1). The 19 men who currently work in NPEU include 6 researchers, 9 IT staff, 2 trial coordinators and 2 support staff. We continue to ensure that there is appropriate gender representation on NPEU committees and research management groups. 17

18 Figure 3: Number of research staff by year, grade and gender Grades 6/7 Grades 8/9/Clinical trainee Grade 10/Clinical Grades 6/7 consultant Grades 8/9/Clinical trainee Grade 10/Clinical Grades 6/7 consultant Grades 8/9/Clinical trainee Grade 10/Clinical Grades 6/7 consultant Grades 8/9/Clinical trainee Male Female Grade 10/Clinical consultant Table 4: Number of staff in each grade by year and gender Grade 6 7 Grade 8 9* Grade 10/ Clinical consultant Total 2013 F M 11 (46%) 0 9 (38%) 2 (50%) 4 (17%) 2 (50%) 24 (100%) 4 (100%) 2014 F M 8 (31%) 1 (25%) 13 (50%) 1 (25%) 5 (19%) 2 (50%) 26 (100%) 4 (100%) 2015 F M 8 (36%) 2 (40%) 9 (41%) 1 (20%) 5 (23%) 2 (40%) 22 (100%) 5 (100%) 2016 F M 9 (38%) 1 (17%) 10 (42%) 3 (50%) 5 (21%) 2 (33%) 24 (100%) 6 (100%) * includes clinical trainee SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY Where relevant, comment on the transition of technical staff to academic roles. The NPEU professional/support staff include programmers/other IT staff, Study Coordinators, and other administrators (e.g. finance, HR). NPEU policies support career progression of all staff, usually as part of the annual PDR process and regular one-to-one meetings. For example, NPEU provided financial support and study leave to two female trial co-ordinators to undertake a Diploma in Clinical Trials, which will help facilitate career progression (to Trial Director or Trials Manager) or career transition (to researcher, should they wish to go down this route). A female project co-ordinator who 18

19 was considering a career as a researcher was encouraged by her line manager to undertake an MSc (part-time); NPEU policy allowed her regular study leave and flexible working. (ii) Academic and research staff by grade on fixed-term, open-ended/permanent and zero-hour contracts by gender Comment on the proportions of men and women on these contracts. Comment on what is being done to ensure continuity of employment and to address any other issues, including redeployment schemes. All NPEU researchers are funded by external research grants and are initially employed on fixed-term contracts. For externally-funded research staff, NDPH encourages openended contracts to be offered to staff who have been employed by the University for at least 4 years, provided that there is a reasonable prospect that external funding will continue in the foreseeable future and the work is central to the future plans of NDPH. Figure 4 shows the number of researchers with fixed/open-ended contracts by gender, grade and year. In 2016, 30% (9/30) of researchers have open-ended contracts. This proportion does not vary by gender (7/24=29.2% in women, 2/6=33.3% in men) but it varies by grade (6/7=86% of grade 10/consultants, 0/10 grade 6 7 researchers). This reflects the fact that most of the senior staff have been in the NPEU for more than 4 years and are more likely to be employed on grants with longer term funding. No NPEU researchers have permanent or zero-hours contracts. Figure 4: Contract type of research staff by year, grade and gender Fixed term Grades 6/7 Fixed term Grades 8/9/Clinical trainee Fixed term Grade 10/Clinical consultant Fixed term Grades 6/7 Fixed term Grades 8/9/Clinical trainee Fixed term Grade 10/Clinical consultant Fixed term Grades 6/7 Fixed term Grades 8/9/Clinical trainee Fixed term Grade 10/Clinical consultant Fixed term Grades 6/7 Fixed term Grades 8/9/Clinical trainee Openended Openended Openended Openended Openended Openended Openended Openended Openended Openended Openended Openended Fixed term Grade 10/Clinical consultant Male Female The length of initial staff contracts varies according to the staffing model in the grant, but the majority are 2 3 years, while contracts of less than one year or more than 5 years are unusual. For example, for staff appointed in 2015, 8 had initial contracts of months, 9 had contracts of months and 3 had contracts of 3 or more years. 19

20 Every effort is made to retain staff by extending contracts within the NPEU, particularly when planning new grant applications, or as soon as a principal investigator is informed that a grant application has been successful. Since 2011, the SMG undertake a review of all staff with 6 months left on their contract, with a discussion of their potential match with upcoming posts. In addition, the Director and NPEU Administrator regularly review the NPEU s budget as a whole (made up of the individual grants), with a view to extending staff contracts where possible. There are several policies in place which help re-deploy NPEU staff when their contract in the NPEU cannot be extended. The employee is offered a meeting with their line manager to discuss re-deployment and is advised to look at the University s Jobs website and Careers Service website. Staff are entitled to time off to attend interviews. Staff with at least 2 years service in the University are also informed that they are a priority candidate for other University posts (this gives them the opportunity to interview for the post before it is open to external candidates). (iii) Academic leavers by grade and gender and full/part-time status Comment on the reasons academic staff leave the department, any differences by gender and the mechanisms for collecting this data. All leavers have an exit interview with one of the HR team. A form records administrative data (e.g. forwarding contact details) together with the reason for leaving. Figure 5 shows the number of researchers who have left NPEU in the past four years by gender and reason for leaving. The numbers are too small to allow comparisons by gender (12f, 3m) or full/part-time status (6 full-time, 9 part-time). As expected, the most common reason for leaving was to take up another post at Oxford University (4f, 0m) or elsewhere (6f, 2m). We will review exit processes and consider introducing more detailed exit interview questions (Action 1.3). Figure 5: Reason for staff leaving the NPEU by year and gender Retired Family moved away New post at University of Oxford Family New post elsewhere Retired moved away New post at University of Oxford Family New post elsewhere Retired moved away New post at University of Oxford Family New post elsewhere Retired moved away New post at University of Oxford Aug 12 Jul 13 Aug 13 Jul 14 Aug 14 Jul 15 Aug 15 Jul 16 Male Female New post elsewhere 20

21 5 SUPPORTING AND ADVANCING WOMEN S CAREERS Recommended word count: Bronze: 6000 words Silver: 6500 words 5.1 Key career transition points: academic staff (i) Recruitment Break down data by gender and grade for applications to academic posts including shortlisted candidates, offer and acceptance rates. Comment on how the department s recruitment processes ensure that women (and men where there is an underrepresentation in numbers) are encouraged to apply. Our recruitment numbers are relatively small, therefore we have presented data by broad grades (7 versus 8 10/clinical). In order to assess impact, we have also presented data for two time periods, before ( ) and after ( ), to coincide with the introduction of some Athena SWAN-inspired recruitment policies. The majority of applicants for NPEU research posts in were female (58%), as were the majority shortlisted (66%) and appointed (73%) (Table 5). As data for grade 8 10 posts is sparse, we compared male and female success rates in being shortlisted (Figure 6a) and appointed (Figure 6b) for combined grades. Table 5: Number of applicants for NPEU research posts by year, grade and gender All grades Grade 7 Grade 8 10* All grades Grade 7 Grade 8 10* No. of posts No. of applications % Female 63% 61% 68% 58% 57% 71% No. shortlisted % Female 75% 73% 78% 66% 64% 80% No. appointed % Female 84% 82% 88% 73% 75% 67% *includes clinical trainee/consultant Figure 6: Percentage of applicants who were a) shortlisted and b) appointed, by year and gender 40% 40% 35% 35% 30% 30% 25% 25% 20% 20% 15% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% % Female Male Female Male a) Percentage shortlisted from all applicants b) Percentage appointed from shortlist 21

22 The NPEU website and job descriptions of advertised posts display We are proud to hold an Athena SWAN Silver Award. Contextual information around NPEU recruitment includes: advertising posts in research disciplines historically seen as female disciplines (proportion female 52% in clinical medicine, 60% in psychology, 65% in health and community studies, 75% in nursing and allied health professionals; Equality in higher education: statistical report Part 1: staff); the percentage of applicants who were shortlisted (Figure 6a) is calculated out of all applicants and we have noted a higher tendency among men to submit applications that do not meet the advertised criteria for a post; finally, the percentage of shortlisted applicants who were appointed is based on small numbers (11/31=35% of women and 4/16=25% of men in , Figure 6b). In our previous Athena SWAN application, we sought to monitor and remove potential biases in our recruitment processes. Three actions from our previous application have had a direct impact on NPEU recruitment. First, we have been monitoring recruitment data since 2012 to improve awareness of the gender inequality. Second, in 2013 we organised training in Unconscious Bias for staff involved in recruitment and selection; Unconscious Bias training has also now been incorporated into the standard recruitment training which is untaken as a refresher course every three years. Finally, in 2013 we modified the recruitment and selection process such that when a panel is being planned, the chair of the panel is reminded to include men and women. If a suitable male panel member is not identified in NPEU, staff contact the NDPH Administrators, who will help find an appropriate man. As a result of these process changes, all interview panels for research staff and the majority of interview panels for professional/support staff include both genders (Table 6). Table 6: Gender representation on interview panels by type of post Research staff Total number of interview panels Both genders represented on interview panels Professional & support staff Total number of interview panels Both genders represented on interview panels All staff Total number of interview panels Both genders represented on interview panels NK Not known NK NK (86%) (91%) Up to Sept (100%) 22

23 IMPACT: Since implementing these 3 actions, female applicants still have higher success rates, but there is a smaller gap between male and female applicants in terms of their chance of being: shortlisted (30% in females, 21% in males in compared with 34% in females, 19% in males in , Figure 7a) appointed (35% in females, 25% in males in compared with 33% in females, 19% in males in , Figure 7b) We will continue to shortlist and appoint according to how well candidates meet the criteria. We will facilitate this by continuing to ensure that all staff on recruitment panels undergo regular training on unconscious bias and equality and diversity (Action 6.2). In addition, we will carry out a pilot study to investigate whether it is feasible and beneficial to anonymise job applications prior to shortlisting (Action 2.1). We will continue to monitor data on recruitment by gender, together with the gender profile on NPEU research management groups and committees, to ensure both genders are represented. We will further investigate the recruitment experiences of men and ethnic minority staff using focus groups (Action 2.2). (ii) Induction Describe the induction and support provided to all new academic staff at all levels. Comment on the uptake of this and how its effectiveness is reviewed. NPEU members have a Unit induction with one of the HR Team, usually on their first day. The induction is offered to all new staff, DPhil students, MSc placements (typically 3 months), trainees in clinical specialties/public health (who have placements in NPEU for 3 12 months), and visitors who will be in the NPEU for at least 3 months; uptake is 100%. The induction covers topics such as: Unit meetings and seminars on the campus; remote working; the University s childcare services and childcare vouchers, and includes bespoke NPEU literature to take away for reference. In a follow-up , researchers are sent the link to the University website Support for Researchers and encouraged to attend the Welcome Event for Researchers organised by the University several times per year which enables them to meet peers from different departments. There are separate inductions by the IT team, the Health and Safety Officer, and the individual s line manager; the latter is tailored to the person s individual job description. Starting at their induction, training and development (T&D) opportunities are encouraged for all staff. All new staff are given their own T&D folder which includes information on computing and other courses (e.g. the University leaflets Careers Support for Research Staff and Research Staff Support ). T&D needs are reviewed formally as part of the probation (see below) and PDR processes, and informally at one-to-one meetings with line managers. For new staff with line management responsibilities, mandatory online training in Unconscious Bias and Bullying and Harassment has recently been introduced and compliance is being monitored by the HR team. 23

24 All new staff have a probationary period of 12 months which helps facilitate a smooth settling in process and enables T&D needs to be identified and addressed. Induction is evaluated as part of the probation process. New staff fill in a self-completion form which is reviewed with their line manager at the one month meeting and submitted to the HR team at the end of probation for review: Staff almost always report that the induction was useful (in 2016, 100% agreement among staff who had joined the NPEU in the past year compared with 60% for the University as a whole). Improvements following feedback include revising the process in 2015 by sending a follow-up to include links to useful web pages (e.g. Welcome for Researchers; Equality and Diversity) which reduces the number of leaflets. A more recent suggestion for improvement, which is about to be added to the induction, is for guidance using the online system for booking meeting rooms. (iii) Promotion Provide data on staff applying for promotion and comment on applications and success rates by gender, grade and full- and part-time status. Comment on how staff are encouraged and supported through the process. Encouraging career progression has been a strong focus of our Athena SWAN activities since Through mandatory PDR, we have ensured that staff are aware of promotion opportunities and are encouraged and supported to apply. IMPACT: Since implementing our previous action of mandatory Personal Development Review (PDR) for all staff since 2013, there has been improved career planning for NPEU staff: In the December 2014 survey (at the end of the second round of mandatory PDR), 15 staff said that PDR had encouraged them to apply for a promotion such as a University title, re-grading or new post. Comparing survey data from 2016 and 2012 (when uptake of PDR was low), there is a statistically significant increase in the proportion of staff who report that their line manager supports them to think about professional development (70% in 2012, 90% in 2016, p=0.004). There is no formal promotion process at the University, but exceptional performance is recognised in other ways, such as re-grading of current posts where responsibility has increased significantly, or securing a new or a higher grade post through open recruitment. Researchers may also be promoted through securing an externally-funded fellowship or being awarded a University title in the University Recognition of Distinction Exercise. We have presented data for each of these categories separately, but as the numbers are small, we have combined the data from January 2013 to September

25 Re-grading Staff can apply to the University to have their post re-graded, a process which involves submitting the reason for re-grade and their current job description. An individual s current responsibilities are reviewed against their job description as part of PDR, although staff can apply for a re-grade at any time in the year. In , seven researchers and 20 professional/support staff were re-graded (n=19) or secured a new, higher grade post within the NPEU (n=8). Owing to the small numbers for researchers these data are presented for researchers and professional/support staff combined (Figure 8a). There were no unsuccessful applications for re-grade although one individual achieved a smaller increase in grade than requested and another individual was advised to delay their application as they did not currently meet the criteria for regrade. Among the 27 successful applications, 78% were female, 37% were part-time and 26% were researchers (Figure 7a), which is broadly consistent with the profile of all NPEU staff in 2013, the start of this reporting period (82% female, 37% part-time, 39% researchers in 2013, Figure 7b). There was a spread of promotions across grades although fewer at the higher grades (8+) than lower grades (3 6). Figure 7a: No. of re-grades in by gender, job type, working hours and grade 100% 90% 80% Male 6 Part-time 10 Research 7 Grade % 60% Grade % 40% 30% 20% Female 21 Full-time 17 Professional/ support 20 Grades % 0% By gender By work hours By job type By grade 25

26 Figure 7b: Total staff in 2013 by gender, working hours, job type and grade 100% 90% 80% Male 13 Part-time 27 Research 28 Grade % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Female 59 Full-time 45 Professional/ support 44 Grade 7 25 Grades % By gender By work hours By job type By grade University titles and external fellowships The University Recognition of Distinction exercise takes place every year (prior to 2014, every two years for professorial titles) and invites academic/research staff to apply for the title of Professor, Associate Professor and University Research Lecturer (URL; recognises substantial independent research achievement, along with contributions to teaching and citizenship). Staff are informed of the process by an which is cascaded down to departmental heads, and an advertisement in the University s Gazette magazine which is available online. The application invites disclosure of personal circumstances, where relevant. For the URLs and Associate Professors, the SMG discuss all eligible staff, and the Director or line manager will or speak to them directly and encourage them to apply. Nine staff (7f, 2m) currently have University titles of University Research Lecturer, Associate Professor or Professor (Figure 8). Figure 8: Number of researchers with University title by year and gender Univ Res Lecturer Assoc Prof/Reader Professor Univ Res Lecturer Assoc Prof/Reader Professor Univ Res Lecturer Assoc Prof/Reader Professor Univ Res Lecturer # Associate Professor is a new title, introduced in 2014; Reader is being phased out Assoc Prof/Reader Male Female Professor 26

27 IMPACT: Since implementing our previous actions of improved career development (through mandatory PDR) and the Director/SMG encouraging staff to apply for University titles (through annually reviewing all eligible staff), there has been an increase in the number of staff with University titles from 5/31 (16%) in 2013 to 9/30 (30%) in 2016 (Figure 8). The actions are discussed in Section 5.3 ii). Among the nine researchers who were successful during , the following titles were awarded: Professor (2f); Associate Professor (2f, 3m); and University Research Lecturer (2f). The numbers are small but show representation across gender, working hours and seniority of title (Table 7). There were five unsuccessful applications (3f, 2m; 2 full-time, 3 part-time). All were given feedback as to why they were unsuccessful and were encouraged to develop the appropriate skills or experience in order to meet the promotion criteria. Examples of the encouragement given include support to write grant applications or protected time to write first-author papers. Two applications were resubmitted successfully within a couple of years. As part of the annual PDR, eligible staff are encouraged to apply for fellowships. Three female researchers have been awarded externally-funded fellowships through NIHR or MRC (Table 7). All three are part-time. Table 7: Number of research staff awarded a University title or externally-funded fellowship in by working hours and gender University titles awarded Fellowships awarded Female 6 3 Male 3 0 Total 9 3 Unsuccessful applications 3f, 2m 1f Pending - 1f Full-time 6 0 Part-time 3 3 Total 9 5 Unsuccessful applications 2 FT, 3 PT 1 FT Pending - 1 FT FT full-time PT part-time We will continue to monitor the number of applications for promotion and the success rate (Action 6.1). We will improve communication about career development 27

28 opportunities by putting the information on the Athena SWAN noticeboard in the kitchen (Action 3.3), in addition to circulars. We will continue to review and improve the PDR process (Action 3.5). (iv) Department submissions to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) Provide data on the staff, by gender, submitted to REF versus those that were eligible. Compare this to the data for the Research Assessment Exercise Comment on any gender imbalances identified. At the time of the census for the 2014 REF (October 2013), there were seven eligible NPEU staff (5f, 2m) and six of these were included in the REF submission (4f, 2m), based on the quality of their four best papers. For the 2008 RAE, there were also seven eligible staff (3f, 4m) and five were included (2f, 3m). The numbers are small but suggest that most eligible staff are submitted irrespective of gender. SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY 5.2 Key career transition points: professional and support staff (i) (ii) Induction Describe the induction and support provided to all new professional and support staff, at all levels. Comment on the uptake of this and how its effectiveness is reviewed. Promotion Provide data on staff applying for promotion, and comment on applications and success rates by gender, grade and full- and part-time status. Comment on how staff are encouraged and supported through the process. Induction Professional/support staff follow the same induction processes as researchers, with a separate induction by their manager which is tailored to the person s individual job description. For example, staff working on clinical trials attend a Good Clinical Practice course soon after starting. Induction uptake is 100%. Promotion The main promotion opportunities for professional/support staff are re-grading of current posts due to increased responsibility or securing a new or a higher grade post through open recruitment. During , 20 professional/support staff were either regraded or secured a new, higher grade post within the NPEU (Figures 7a b). Further data on these promotions have been combined with data for researchers due to small numbers, and have been presented and discussed just above Figures 7a b. There were 28

29 no obvious disparities by gender or part-time status, and there was a spread of promotions across grades. 5.3 Career development: academic staff (i) Training Describe the training available to staff at all levels in the department. Provide details of uptake by gender and how existing staff are kept up to date with training. How is its effectiveness monitored and developed in response to levels of uptake and evaluation? NPEU staff have regular one-to-one meetings with their line manager which include discussion of career development, and training and development (T&D) needs. The frequency of meetings varies from weekly to quarterly depending on the needs of the individual. T&D is also discussed as part of annual PDR. Agreed training needs are listed in a section of the PDR form and a copy of this section is given to the Unit T&D lead. The T&D lead can help identify a suitable course or arrange for in-house training if appropriate. Examples of in-house training include Management training in positive and performance management (for SMG, ), Structural Equation Modelling (for researchers, 2014), Addressing harassment and bullying (for line managers, 2015). The T&D lead also discusses training with the Training Facilitator in NDPH, who can help identify suitable courses and arrange in-house training within NDPH. Appropriate training needs are agreed with line managers and are funded either by the relevant research grant or NPEU funds. Many grants allow approximately 500 per person per year for training. If there is no grant funding then the NPEU covers the cost. For training identified as part of PDR, no applications have been refused on the basis of funding in the past three years. Staff find out about conferences and external courses in a variety of ways such as via line managers or by word of mouth. Many courses offered by the University are advertised by , e.g. via the University Research Staff list, and these are forwarded to NPEU researchers (who may not all be on this list) by the T&D Lead. Recent examples of courses advertised in this way include a workshop for researchers returning to work after maternity leave, and the personal development courses Springboard (for women) and Navigator (for men). Since 2013, five women (3 researchers and 2 professional/support staff) have undertaken Springboard. There is strong evidence in the 2016 survey that staff take time to reflect on and plan for career development (81%) and that their line manager actively encourages them to take up career development opportunities (90%). Staff awareness about promotion opportunities is somewhat lower; 65% of staff were clear about the development opportunities available to them. As part of our previous actions since 2013, we have made information about training and development available in a number of additional ways. The NPEU website includes information on courses, re-grading, fellowships and university titles under Training, development and career progression on the NPEU website (Image 2). The NPEU intranet 29

30 includes a list of courses attended by staff and a review by the attendee to help staff evaluate whether any given course is likely to be effective for them (Image 3). This is maintained and kept up to date by the chair of the Career Development Working Group (CDWG). We have also hosted a seminar by the University of Oxford Researcher Development Officer about University training available to researchers. The intranet also includes information on career maps (Image 4, Section 5.4) and fellowships (Image 3). Image 2: Screenshot of Working in the NPEU section of NPEU website Image 3: Screenshot of Athena SWAN section of NPEU intranet Most staff (86% in 2016) are comfortable discussing T&D with their line manager; similarly most (83%) reported that they had opportunities to take on new responsibilities and develop skills, demonstrating the effectiveness of PDR and the training facilitated through PDR and ongoing review of training needs. In our 2016 survey, 50% of line managers identified a need for further training in conducting PDR and/or supporting staff to think about their careers. Our CDWG will review the available training and discuss with the NDPH to ensure that we can develop a list of recommended training to meet this need (Action 3.4). Our new T&D group, which expands the remit of the CDWG to cover all T&D related issues, chaired by our new T&D lead, will oversee monitoring of T&D needs for all staff (Action 6.3). We will also continue 30

31 to increase awareness of training opportunities through our new Athena SWAN noticeboard (Action 3.3 & 5.1). There are periodic reminders about these website/intranet pages in Unit meetings. However, only 43% of research staff in 2016 were aware of the process for applying for the title of Associate Professor or University Research Lecturer. We will improve communication about career development opportunities by putting the information on the Athena SWAN noticeboard in the kitchen (Action 3.3), in addition to circulars. We will continue to review and improve the PDR process (Action 3.1). We will continue to monitor the number of applications for promotion and the success rate (Action 6.1). (ii) Appraisal/development review Describe current appraisal/development review schemes for staff at all levels, including postdoctoral researchers and provide data on uptake by gender. Provide details of any appraisal/review training offered and the uptake of this, as well as staff feedback about the process. Prior to 2013, PDR and/or appraisal were optional for almost all staff and uptake was low. As part of our previous action plan, mandatory PDR for all staff was implemented in 2013; the only staff who are not eligible for PDR are those who are in their one year probationary period, during which T&D needs are identified. In the 2012 survey, only 35% of staff reported having had a career development plan or PDR. Since 2014, all eligible staff have had an annual PDR (Table 8). Table 8: Number of staff who had PDR by year and job type Research staff Total staff in post at end of year Total staff eligible for PDR* Eligible staff who had PDR by end of year 22 (100%) 24 (100%) 18 (100%) Professional and support staff Total staff in post at end of year Total staff eligible for PDR* Eligible staff who had PDR by end of year 15 (83%) 31 (100%) 26 (100%) *Staff who are still in their probationary period are assessed as part of a different process. Also excludes staff who have left or are about to leave, or who are on maternity leave Most staff find the PDR process useful (69% of staff in 2014 and 71% in 2016). In the 2014 survey on career development, staff reported that PDR had encouraged them to reflect 31

32 on their achievements (87%), think about their career path (60%) and enrol on a course (58%). These results suggest that PDR is generally a positive process for many staff. I am pleased that it [PDR] has been made compulsory as otherwise I may not have participated but now I understand the value. (Member of staff, Dec 2014 survey) It's nice to have some time set aside to sit with your manager and discuss things as normally everyone is so busy it's something that you never get round to doing! (Member of staff, Dec 2014 survey) IMPACT: PDR is almost always conducted by an individual s line manager. Since the PDR process was updated in 2013: there has been a large increase in the proportion of staff reporting that their line manager gives them helpful feedback (78% in 2012, 93% in 2016, p=0.017). Whilst the data above show improvement due to implementation of our previous actions, there is scope for further development. New actions include expanding the remit of the Career Development Working Group to cover all T&D related issues (Action 6.3); reviewing the PDR process to ensure it works effectively for all groups of staff (Action 3.5), including staff moving from one short-term contract to another (Action 3.1). There are several mentoring opportunities for NPEU staff and these are discussed as part of the PDR process. For example, in 2016, NDPH introduced a scheme for staff at all levels and several NPEU members are taking part as mentees (3f) or mentors (3f). There is a group mentoring scheme for junior and mid-career researchers within the Division and this was taken up by several NPEU members (3f). Two women have taken part in the University Ad Feminam ongoing mentoring scheme for senior academics as either mentee or mentor. Other NPEU members have external mentors as part of their NIHR or MRC fellowship and other staff have identified a mentor through an informal process, e.g. asking someone to be their mentor. (iii) Support given to academic staff for career progression Comment and reflect on support given to academic staff, especially postdoctoral researchers, to assist in their career progression. Career progression (e.g. applying for university titles) requires fulfilling criteria in research (e.g. publications, grants), teaching and citizenship. These activities are discussed at PDR and we are pro-active in ensuring that all researchers are given appropriate opportunities to gain experience in all of these areas: Teaching There are opportunities for researchers to take on teaching responsibilities. For example, NDPH runs an MSc in Global Health Science and organisers all staff annually asking for volunteers to undertake teaching (e.g. delivering lectures, facilitating practicals, 32

33 marking assignments). A few NPEU staff undertake teaching duties outside the Department, e.g. two staff teach on a Clinical Trials course elsewhere in the University. In addition, NPEU leads an MSc module in Maternal and Child Health. In , the SMG discussed how to involve other researchers in delivering the module on Maternal and Child Health. They invited one researcher to be a co-lead for the module and two researchers and a DPhil student to facilitate a practical. IMPACT: With the improvements to the PDR process since 2013, line managers have been proactive in ensuring researchers are offered, and encouraged to undertake, teaching opportunities. Examples include: Two researchers gave their first lecture on the MSc last year; this year they were both asked to deliver more (2 3) lectures. Senior researchers have encouraged 5 researchers to be co-supervisors of MSc placements. One researcher now supervises her own MSc placements. One mid-career researcher took on the role of DPhil co-supervision and is now advertising a DPhil project as the lead supervisor. Grant applications See Section 5.3 v). Citizenship/committees Citizenship opportunities are discussed as part of PDR. All researchers have the opportunity to be on some committees (there are regular s and announcements at termly Unit meetings for volunteers to join the SAT and working groups). Other citizenship opportunities include running seminars, being responsible for the News on the website, organising social events, etc. External committee membership is discussed in Section 5.6 iv). (iv) Support given to students (at any level) for academic career progression Comment and reflect on support given to students at any level to enable them to make informed decisions about their career (including the transition to a sustainable academic career). DPhil students have regular meetings with their supervisors (typically every 2 4 weeks). It is a requirement of NDPH (and some DPhil funders) that students have a T&D plan; this is discussed within supervision meetings. Each student has an annual T&D allowance (funded by NDPH) which is used to supplement University courses (which are usually free). As part of T&D planning in supervision meetings, students are encouraged to present their work at conferences, and when other opportunities arise (the Annual NDPH Symposium and poster competition), supervisors forward details to the students. Students who wish to take on some teaching responsibilities are supported in this endeavour. This is discussed as part of T&D planning, or as the opportunity arises. All the current DPhil students (4f, 2m) have presented their work at a conference, and most have undertaken teaching (3f, 2m). 33

34 The NPEU also hosts placements for MSc students (on average 3 students per year, from May to August) and public health/clinical trainees (typically 1 trainee per year for 3 12 months). The student or trainee will undertake a piece of research with supervision by NPEU researcher(s). Many of these placements result in a first-author paper for the student/trainee, and some of the students (3f, 3m) have gone on to undertake a DPhil. All students have access to the University careers service which hosts numerous local and national seminars and careers fairs. These events enable students to learn about academic (and non-academic) career paths and provide practical support such as interview skills and CV workshops. (v) Support offered to those applying for research grant applications Comment and reflect on support given to staff who apply for funding and what support is offered to those who are unsuccessful. NPEU is proactive in encouraging junior staff to get experience in writing grant applications. This experience ranges from shadowing to being a co-applicant or the Principal Investigator. From January 2013 to July 2016, there were 17 grant applications which were led by a junior or mid-career researcher (Table 9). Some of these were fellowship applications (doctoral, postdoctoral, mid-career) and others were small to medium size grants. One of our 2013 actions was to establish a mechanism that enabled researchers to develop grant application skills. Our target, since 2013, was for at least 50% of grant applications led by NPEU staff to involve a grade 7 8 researcher as a co-applicant or shadow. A less experienced researcher would initially shadow a more senior colleague to gain experience in the whole grant application process, with a view to becoming a coapplicant on a grant or leading their own grant application. A list of submitted grants, including data on the involvement of grade 7 8 researchers, is reviewed at the monthly SMG meetings and the collated data are reviewed annually by the SAT and the SMG. By July 2016, we had exceeded our 50% target (62%) (Table 9). There are also many clinical trial grants with an external lead which include a NPEU junior/mid-career researcher as a co-applicant or shadow (60%). Table 9: Number of NPEU grant applications which involved a junior-midcareer researcher as a lead, co-applicant or shadow Junior/mid-career researcher* as: Total Lead applicant 17 Co-app/shadow on grant led by NPEU 10/16 (62%) Co-app/shadow on clinical trial with external lead 12/20 (60%) *grade 7 8 researchers, clinical research fellows or public health trainees IMPACT: This action has involved more researchers in the grant application process, which has led to early/mid-career researchers developing their own applications. For example: One researcher was supported by her line manager in leading an application for a small grant (her first grant), after which she successfully led an application for a larger and more complex grant; both applications were successful 34

35 This is a successful initiative and we will continue to ensure that early/mid-career researchers have opportunities to develop grant application skills (Action 6.4). The support given to researchers starts with the researcher and line manager discussing suitable fellowships and project ideas either as part of PDR or regular one-to-one meetings. To support researchers, senior staff read and comment on draft applications, and the finance team assist with budgets. NPEU helps arrange mock interviews with the on-site NIHR Research Design Service and senior researchers give feedback on presentations before mock interviews. Unsuccessful applicants are supported in their next steps which is often to develop another application for a different project and/or a different funder; the applicant is then supported through the process again as described above. SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY 5.4 Career development: professional and support staff (i) (vi) (ii) Training Describe the training available to staff at all levels in the department. Provide details of uptake by gender and how existing staff are kept up to date with training. How is its effectiveness monitored and developed in response to levels of uptake and evaluation? Appraisal/development review Describe current appraisal/development review schemes for professional and support staff at all levels and provide data on uptake by gender. Provide details of any appraisal/review training offered and the uptake of this, as well as staff feedback about the process. Support given to professional and support staff for career progression Comment and reflect on support given to professional and support staff to assist in their career progression. Professional/support staff undergo the same processes for T&D and PDR as researchers (described in previous sections). Uptake for PDR has been 100% since 2014 (Table 8). All of the previous data and actions, except those related to grant applications and teaching, 35

36 apply to all NPEU staff. In addition, professional and support staff are given some specific support to assist in their career progression: The intranet has a list of courses (Image 3, Section 5.3 i)) with the name of NPEU staff who have attended. Professional/support staff have taken many courses covering topics such as: project management, spreadsheets, databases, taking minutes, clinical trials methodology. Shadowing opportunities are provided for some individuals, for example, on costing grant applications, attending a Trial Steering Committee meeting, or attending R&D Forum conferences for networking on trials. In order to enhance access to, and diversity in, technical and support roles, the NPEU has begun to develop apprenticeship roles, and has recently appointed its first IT Apprentice Software Developer. The NPEU intranet has a section on career development. This includes the career maps of several staff which show the pathways taken in their career to date (Image 3, Section 5.3 i)). One of these is for an administrator (Image 4) and another is for a project co-ordinator. Image 4: Example of career map on NPEU intranet There is scope for further development. One action is to organise a focus group to explore the development needs which might be addressed through shadowing for professional/support staff (Action 3.2). There are limited mentoring opportunities for professional and support staff and another action is to improve this by feeding back to the organisers of mentoring schemes that there is a demand, and by considering developing mentoring within the NPEU (Action 3.6). 36

37 5.5 Flexible working and managing career breaks Note: Present professional and support staff and academic staff data separately (i) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: before leave Explain what support the department offers to staff before they go on maternity and adoption leave. As part of our previous action plan, we developed a guide for parents which gives information on maternity/ adoption leave, paternity leave, shared parental leave and other information about child care and schools (Image 5). The guide and other relevant information are given out at induction and are on the NPEU website. Image 5: The NPEU guide for parents which is on the NPEU website The University s maternity leave scheme includes 26 weeks of full pay, 13 weeks of Statutory Maternity Leave and up to 13 weeks of unpaid leave. Women on maternity/adoption leave may also do up to ten days of paid work during maternity leave (Keeping in Touch KIT days). The Unit HR Team is responsible for discussing maternity leave, KIT days, and return to work, with pregnant employees. Once a pregnant woman first contacts the HR Team (before or after informing the line manager), she undergoes a risk assessment by the Unit Health and Safety Officer to ensure a safe environment at work. The woman will then make a plan outlining when she wants to start maternity leave and eventually a plan for her return to work; the latter is usually finalised by the woman while on maternity leave. The woman discusses these plans with the HR team and her line manager. The role of the HR team, as described above, is a formal University process. The arrangements for covering work during maternity/adoption leave and supporting a woman s return to work are the responsibility of the line manager. Our actions on flexible working (Action 4.1) and maintaining an inclusive environment (Actions 6.5 and 6.6) will ensure that women who return to work after maternity/adoption leave are well supported and they are fully included in NPEU activities. (Section 5.6) 37

38 (ii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: during leave Explain what support the department offers to staff during maternity and adoption leave. NPEU staff are funded by research grants. When women go on maternity leave, the line manager (in consultation with the Director, as appropriate) considers the most appropriate way of covering the work, taking into account the interests of the pregnant woman, the staff who cover the work and project deliverables. If a woman wants to return to work, then the priority is to enable the woman to work on the project on her return rather than employ someone for maternity cover. For 6 of the 7 NPEU maternities in , the woman returned to work (Table 10). For three of these women, they were working with other researchers on a large programme of work and there was flexibility to re-allocate the work across the team to reflect staff availability and/or change the timelines. For one woman, the project timeline was changed and her post extended accordingly so that she could resume working on the project (which contributed to her DPhil) on her return. For two women, there was funded maternity cover. (iii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: returning to work Explain what support the department offers to staff on return from maternity or adoption leave. Comment on any funding provided to support returning staff. NPEU staff have access to subsidised childcare provision (including 5 university nurseries, one of which is on the same site as NPEU). There is a salary sacrifice scheme for payment of nursery fees and a childcare voucher scheme for eligible parents. The University also offers a Returning Carers' Fund which is a small grants scheme designed to support anyone who has taken a break of at least 6 months for caring responsibilities. The scheme is advertised in the NDPH newsletters. Women returning to work in the NPEU after maternity or adoption leave often choose to have a staggered return to work, for example, using KIT days or accumulated annual leave (6 weeks for staff on maternity leave for a year) to start working gradually. The planned return to work is agreed with the line manager. Women returning following maternity/adoption leave also benefit from the NPEU policy on flexible working they can apply to change their working hours or pattern (see vi) below. One of our future focus groups will identify whether there is anything else we can do to support staff returning after maternity, adoption or shared parental leave (Action 1.1 & 4.2). (iv) Maternity return rate Provide data and comment on the maternity return rate in the department. Data of staff whose contracts are not renewed while on maternity leave should be included in the section along with commentary. Of the 7 women who took maternity leave in , 6 returned to the NPEU and one did not return as her family re-located. Of those who returned, three chose to return full- 38

39 time and three part-time. All 6 are still in post now (4 months to 2 years after returning to work). Two additional women are now on maternity leave; one is planning to come back part-time. Table 9: Return rate following maternity/adoption leave by job type during Researchers Professional/Support Total maternities 5 2 Returned full-time 2 1* Returned part-time 2** 1 Did not return after maternity leave 1 # 0 * full-time with flexible working ** one woman was part-time already but reduced hours from 85% to 65% # one woman re-located abroad due to family circumstances SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY Provide data and comment on the proportion of staff remaining in post six, 12 and 18 months after return from maternity leave. See data in previous section. (v) Paternity, shared parental, adoption, and parental leave uptake Provide data and comment on the uptake of these types of leave by gender and grade. Comment on what the department does to promote and encourage takeup of paternity leave and shared parental leave. In , two men had paternity leave and one is currently on shared parental leave. The policies for paternity, adoption and shared parental leave are available on our website. The website links are given out at induction and are mentioned at Unit meetings. The process for these is contacting the HR Team and making a plan outlining the details of the planned leave. These plans are discussed with the HR Team and line manager. One of our actions will identify what else we can do to support staff going on, or returning from, shared parental leave (Actions 1.1 & 4.2). (vi) Flexible working Provide information on the flexible working arrangements available. The NPEU has a strong culture of flexible working. Types of flexible working include parttime, non-standard hours, regular home working, compressed hours (e.g. 5 days over 4 long days) and term-time only working. For staff in posts for which regular flexible 39

40 working is not possible, staff can request flexible working on an ad hoc basis such as working at home when there are domestic appointments or home repairs. In the past, flexible working was arranged on a case-by-case basis in agreement with a person s line manager rather than through a formal procedure. As part of our previous action plan, we set up a Flexible Working Group in 2013 with a view to making the process of flexible working more transparent and equitable. In 2014, the Group conducted a survey of all NPEU staff to find out about their experiences of, and attitudes towards, flexible working. A quarter of staff reported that they would choose to work alternative patterns to their current pattern. Staff (including line managers) also explained what they thought were the pros and cons of flexible working. The Group went on to develop a flexible working policy, with training for line managers in July 2015 and a launch of the policy at a Unit meeting in October The policy describes the types of flexible working arrangements available, the process for applying and some of the reasons why flexible working may not always be approved. In July 2016, 60% of researchers (18/30) and 37% of professional/support staff (20/54) had agreed flexible working arrangements (Figure 9). This figure is highest among female researchers (16/24=67%) compared with female professional/support staff (16/41=39%) and all male staff (6/19=32%). The proportion of staff who work part-time is similar in female researchers (11/24=46%) and female professional/support staff (18/41=44%), but lower in all male staff (4/19=21%) (Figure 9). Figure 9: Staff working patterns in 2016 by job type and gender 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Female Male Female Male Researchers Professional/support Part-time flexible Part-time Full-time flexible Full-time

41 IMPACT: Our new policy highlights that there is some ad hoc flexibility of working within all posts and some posts can accommodate an element of flexible working. For example: One researcher, whose job requires data analysis within the Unit premises, identified the need to have more first-author papers in order to progress her career. Our policy enabled her to use regular home working as a way of getting protected time to write a first-author paper (now published) and start writing another paper. These results show that there is a culture of flexible working among researchers but less so among professional/support staff. This is at least partly because their job descriptions are more constrained (e.g. customer-facing or data security requirements of these roles). Our actions will help promote and increase access to flexible working by developing a plain English leaflet and web page on flexible working, which will include a commitment to ad hoc flexibility where permanent flexible working is not possible (Action 4.1). We will evaluate the policy in 2018 and revise it if necessary (Action 1.2). IMPACT: Our 2013 action was to add a flexible working point to the checklist for staff advertising posts. This has resulted in a greater number of research posts being advertised flexibly* from: 43% (9/21) in pre-athena SWAN to 69% (11/16) in *e.g. part-time or full-time or part-time (vii) Transition from part-time back to full-time work after career breaks Outline what policy and practice exists to support and enable staff who work part-time after a career break to transition back to full-time roles. As part of the NPEU flexible working policy, all staff who want to change their hours (i.e. an increase or decrease) can apply to do so. Requests are granted subject to the availability of funds (since all staff are funded by research grants) and the demands of the post (i.e. meeting the project deliverables on time). In the past 3 years, all requests to change working hours have been granted. 41

42 5.6 Organisation and culture (i) Culture Demonstrate how the department actively considers gender equality and inclusivity. Provide details of how the Athena SWAN Charter principles have been, and will continue to be, embedded into the culture and workings of the department. The Athena SWAN principles of equality, diversity and inclusivity are actively considered through: Recruitment Staff on interview panels have training on unconscious bias and equality and diversity (Action 6.2). 69% of research posts are advertised flexibly. Induction Uptake is 100% of all staff. Information given on University s Equality and Diversity website pages. Training for line managers on Unconscious Bias (Action 6.2) and Bullying and Harassment which will be extended to all staff (Action 5.2). PDR Uptake is 100% of all staff. T&D form included as part of PDR. Extensive interactions involving all members NPEU occupies shared and open-plan offices and a kitchen, which is used extensively for informal interactions. Interaction between staff is encouraged through the weekly 10:30am coffee morning, which alternates between Tuesday and Wednesday to enable part-time staff to attend. We have a tradition of bringing in cakes and fruit to celebrate personal and workrelated achievements. The Christmas lunch has been a regular social event for over 20 years. There is a lunch rather than an evening event to facilitate attendance for those with caring responsibilities. The Secret Santa takes place on the same day and volunteers bring in a home-made Christmas cake and other treats. The NPEU marks its significant anniversaries (e.g. 25 th ) with one-day scientific conferences. NPEU members are invited to these events. NPEU members have their photograph taken when they join the Unit and copies of these, with names and job titles, are displayed outside the kitchen. We use (including a weekly announcement ) and the intranet to keep everyone informed of new developments such as new staff starting, media coverage of a scientific paper, or a new grant being awarded. 42

43 We will improve on the processes for recruitment, induction and PDR (Actions 1.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.5). We will maintain these good communication and social networks (Action 6.6). We will create an Athena SWAN noticeboard to raise awareness of our activities (Action 5.1). (ii) HR policies Describe how the department monitors the consistency in application of HR policies for equality, dignity at work, bullying, harassment, grievance and disciplinary processes. Describe actions taken to address any identified differences between policy and practice. Comment on how the department ensures staff with management responsibilities are kept informed and updated on HR polices. NPEU employs professionally qualified HR staff who ensure all HR processes meet current equality legislation. The team have access to HR specialists within the NDPH and the University who provide additional expertise, e.g. for immigration advice. The NPEU regularly reviews its policies and, when needed, it develops new policies which enhance the University s (e.g. Flexible Working, Probation) or fill a gap (e.g. PDR). The NPEU s policies have been requested by other Departments as a model (e.g. Flexible Working, PDR). All members of recruitment panels must undertake training. The Admin Team keep a record of who has done (or needs to do) the training, and reminders are sent when refresher courses need to be undertaken. Line managers, especially those who are new to line management, are encouraged to undertake management courses. Following suggestions from NPEU staff, we will improve training for line managers in topics such as PDR and probation (Action 3.5). The NPEU, NDPH and University have a zero tolerance attitude to bullying and harassment. All line managers undergo training in bullying and harassment. Information on bullying and harassment is included in the induction pack, and our website has details of the University s harassment service and the NPEU harassment officer. In the 2016 survey, about 5% of staff reported that they experienced bullying or harassment. While this figure is relatively low (9% for the University as a whole), we are not complacent. We will introduce training on bullying and harassment for all staff (Action 5.2) and will make information on sources of help more accessible so that staff who feel they are being bullied know where to turn (Action 5.1). (iii) Representation of men and women on committees Provide data for all department committees broken down by gender and staff type. Identify the most influential committees. Explain how potential committee members are identified and comment on any consideration given to gender equality in the selection of representatives and what the department is doing 43

44 to address any gender imbalances. Comment on how the issue of committee overload is addressed where there are small numbers of women or men. Table 10 shows committee membership by gender for 2016 (data are not available for previous years except 2012; data for 2016 and 2012 show similar patterns). The Senior Management Group (SMG) is the main decision-making body in NPEU and meets monthly. The SMG comprises the Director, the Administrator, the Head of IT and Security, the Senior Trials Manager and the most senior researchers (usually at least a grade 9 researcher or clinical consultant). SMG membership is reviewed every two years or when a member leaves. The Athena SWAN self-assessment team and the two Working Groups were formed in 2012 (Table 10). Membership of these committees is voluntary. These committees have enabled (and will continue to enable) NPEU staff to influence policy and practice. NPEU research falls under three streams, two of which have their own management structure (Table 10). The Director and another senior researcher sit on the NDPH Senior Management Group (NDPH SMG) which influences wider Departmental policy and practice. Some NPEU staff sit on other NDPH committees (Table 10). Committee membership is reviewed at PDRs, in particular, to ensure that senior staff do not have committee overload, and that more junior staff have the opportunity to join committees which are important for their career development. Table 10: Number of NPEU staff on committees in 2016 by gender Method of joining Female Male NPEU committees* SMG I 7 3 Athena SWAN SAT V 6 3 Flexible Working Group V 4 1 Career Development Group V 9 2 CTU Management Group I 6 4 PRU-MHC Management Group I 5 2 NDPH Committees* SMG I 2 Athena SWAN SAT I 2 Teaching Committee I 2 Outreach Group V 1 1 Symposium Planning Group I/V 2 I invited to join V volunteered for this committee/group * For NPEU committees, the total number of men and women listed is the total number on the committee; for NDPH committees, the total number of men and women listed is the total from NPEU, but there are other NDPH members on the committee 44

45 (iv) Participation on influential external committees How are staff encouraged to participate in other influential external committees and what procedures are in place to encourage women (or men if they are underrepresented) to participate in these committees? All senior researchers (5f, 2m) are members of at least one external committee such as funding boards, Advisory Groups and Research Governance Groups. Membership is by invitation or open competition. Membership of external committees is often by invitation or open application. Following discussions at monthly SMG meetings and annual PDRs, line managers are pro-active in encouraging researchers to join committees, and looking for opportunities to shadow another member. For example: Several researchers are on NDPH committees. A mid-career researcher shadowed a senior researcher on an external Advisory Group and now sits on that Group in her own right. The Director now circulates national adverts for applications to funding boards to senior staff encouraging them to apply. This has resulted in 4 staff (2f, 2m) successfully applying to be members or chairs since Two staff said: It has been a great professional and personal experience. Discussion with, and encouragement from, the Director led me to evaluate my suitability for the role and this gave me confidence to apply. (v) Workload model Describe any workload allocation model in place and what it includes. Comment on ways in which the model is monitored for gender bias and whether it is taken into account at appraisal/development review and in promotion criteria. Comment on the rotation of responsibilities and if staff consider the model to be transparent and fair. In our 2016 survey, 85% of staff reported that their workload was reasonable. NPEU researchers are project-funded and their workload is largely determined by their job description. Additional duties such as teaching and citizenship are optional and most junior and mid-career researchers have a low teaching and administrative burden. They may volunteer to undertake additional roles, such as membership of a Working Group, after discussion with their line manager. These responsibilities are rotated when a person wants to step down. As the burden is generally low, a detailed workload allocation model 45

46 is not appropriate, although individuals will continue to review their own responsibilities with their line manager as part of PDR (Action 3.5). SMG members have a larger administrative burden. The SMG has a list of the main responsibilities and all senior staff volunteer to take responsibility for some of them. Examples of the responsibilities include being the co-ordinators for: T&D; postgraduate student enquiries; academic visitors and Athena SWAN lead. The list is reviewed regularly at SMG Away Days (every 1 2 years). In the interim, new responsibilities are allocated at SMG meetings, and often rely on volunteers. This relatively informal and flexible scheme works well, given that the SMG is small and meets monthly. In addition, individuals review their own responsibilities with the Director as part of PDR. (vi) Timing of departmental meetings and social gatherings Describe the consideration given to those with caring responsibilities and parttime staff around the timing of departmental meetings and social gatherings. For more than 14 years, all Unit-wide meetings and seminars have been held during core working hours (10am 4pm). Most team meetings are arranged so that it is convenient for all the relevant staff to attend, and it is often possible to join by teleconference. Owing to the large number of part-time staff and the fact that many staff take some annual leave during school holidays, there is a culture of arranging meetings in school hours and in school term time, whenever possible. We will maintain these practices (Action 6.5) and raise awareness of their importance outside NPEU (Action 6.8). The NPEU has also encouraged this culture to others in the University. A previous action in 2013 was for the SAT to develop a carefully worded which is sent to those who organise seminars or meetings outside of core hours or during school holidays. We welcome the XXX seminar series. A number of our colleagues have expressed an interest in the Inaugural Lecture in this series on 17th February We note however that this date falls in the middle of an Oxfordshire school holiday. Here in the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU) we have a policy of not scheduling seminars and meetings during school holidays as this makes it difficult for those with caring responsibilities to attend, which disproportionately adversely affects women. This also helps to promote the Athena SWAN agenda ( We appreciate that many factors are considered when organising a lecture such as this and note that crèche facilities have been provided. However, we are writing to request that when scheduling future events in this series, careful consideration is given to timing with a view to maximising opportunities for women and others with caring responsibilities to attend. Thank you for considering our . Image 6: about timing of meetings/seminars 46

47 IMPACT: As a result of this action, a version of the above has been sent to external committees when meetings have been arranged in school holidays and on two occasions, the meetings were re-arranged. This has also been sent to several seminar organisers. We have taken these steps to raise awareness, and our s have received positive responses. (vii) Visibility of role models Describe how the institution builds gender equality into organisation of events. Comment on the gender balance of speakers and chairpersons in seminars, workshops and other relevant activities. Comment on publicity materials, including the department s website and images used. NPEU holds a monthly seminar series organised by two female mid-career researchers. All staff are invited and the seminars are open to staff from outside NPEU. Conscious that seminars are often dominated by senior male academics, since 2014 we have aimed to achieve gender balance in seminar speakers across the academic year, and invite both established and early to mid-career speakers, and monitor statistics on both these. We also have a statement to this effect on the seminar web page. Over the three years from , 60 70% of speakers each year are female, with around 50% being early to midcareer researchers. Monitoring our statistics has revealed that early to mid-career male researchers in particular may be under-represented. We will continue to work to ensure gender balance and specifically to address this under-representation. In addition we will increase awareness of our policy through our new Athena SWAN noticeboard and using the NPEU account (Action 6.7). Diversity in images used in publicity materials and on the NPEU website is monitored by the NPEU webmaster and design team. This has ensured, for example, that images used in leaflets (Image 5) and reports (Image 7a b) represent women and men, and families from different ethnic backgrounds. Image 7a: Cover of an NPEU report Image 7b: Cover of an NPEU report 47

48 A recent review of images on our website found that most images were of NPEU staff and study logos, with a small number of other images accompanying news items. Inevitably, given the nature of our work, six of the ten images accompanying news items since 2014 were of women, but men were represented in four images and two images included people from ethnic minority backgrounds. As part of an ongoing review of our digital presence, incorporating the development of an image library, we are explicitly considering diversity, and are developing guidelines for the use of imagery on our website and in social media which incorporate guidance on gender and ethnic diversity (Action 5.3). (viii) Outreach activities Provide data on the staff and students from the department involved in outreach and engagement activities by gender and grade. How is staff and student contribution to outreach and engagement activities formally recognised? Comment on the participant uptake of these activities by gender. Since 2015, as part of our Athena SWAN activities, we explicitly encouraged staff and students to engage in outreach and public engagement, with a view to involving the public more in our work, but also as a way of promoting the involvement of women in science. We have held a meeting for staff interested in outreach, involving research and professional/support staff; hosted a seminar on public engagement as part of our regular seminar series open to all staff and students; and drawn attention to outreach opportunities by ing information to staff and students. 48

49 IMPACT: As a direct result of these activities, there has been a demonstrable increase in involvement in outreach and public engagement: A mid-career female researcher was invited to join the NDPH Outreach Working Group and is shadowed in this role by a male trial co-ordinator. With support of the Head of Trials, 2 staff (1 female statistician, 1 male trial co-ordinator) and 2 DPhil students are doing training in public engagement to develop an activity for a schools science festival in A female DPhil student gave a talk at the Annual OxFEST conference ( Oxford Females in Engineering, Science, and Technology is a society which promotes and supports women working in these areas). A female statistician gave a presentation on her career as part of the Oxford International Women s Festival. A multi-disciplinary team of male and female staff took part in a public LiveFriday event at the Oxford Ashmolean Museum exploring the art and science of Hope and Fear, showcasing their work on pain in babies, Image 8. Image 8: Outreach activity November 2016 All outreach activities are discussed, encouraged and recognised as part of PDR and as valuable citizenship. 49

50 SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY 6 CASE STUDIES: IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS Recommended word count: Silver 1000 words Two individuals working in the department should describe how the department s activities have benefitted them. The subject of one of these case studies should be a member of the selfassessment team. The second case study should be related to someone else in the department. More information on case studies is available in the awards handbook. CASE STUDY 1 I joined the NPEU as a Grade 7 Researcher in 1999, applying for a six-month full-time job. At the time I had two pre-school children and the ethos of the NPEU as a workplace which provided a supportive environment for women with family responsibilities was evident as it was quickly agreed that I could take up the post at 60%FTE over nine months. Since that time I have always felt supported by the NPEU culture and commitment to flexibility and career development for staff. For example, in 2002 I had my third child and took six months maternity leave, returning to work at reduced hours (45%FTE) to help manage child care for my growing family. I have benefitted from the NPEU commitment to continuity of employment for contract research staff, working on a range of research projects, developing my skills and experience of different areas of research in maternal and infant health, while being encouraged to develop my own research interests and programme of work. Successive line managers have supported me to write and publish first-author publications; deputise for them on external groups and committees, which has resulted in my becoming a member of some of these groups in my own right; and to shadow and collaborate with them in developing grant applications, and later to develop grant applications of my own. In 2006, following an unsuccessful application the previous year, I applied for and was awarded an NIHR Doctoral Fellowship which funded my salary and University fees to undertake a DPhil (75%FTE for 4 years) and included further formal training. Towards the end of my doctoral research I worked as a co-applicant with my line manager to develop a funding application which subsequently funded my salary at 80%FTE for the two years following my doctorate, from During regular meetings with my line manager, which explicitly included consideration of my career development, I was encouraged to apply for re-grading of my post and was promoted to Grade 8, Senior Health Services Researcher, in

51 Having benefitted from the supportive culture of the NPEU, but recognising that more could be achieved by formalising and developing this culture through concerted action, I joined the NPEU Athena SWAN Self-Assessment Team in 2013, becoming co-chair of the Career Development Working Group and, since March 2015, Deputy Chair of the SAT. I have found the increased attention to career development that has come with Athena SWAN beneficial, particularly the introduction of formal mandatory PDR and enhanced support for early and mid-career researchers preparing grant applications. In 2014 I was encouraged and supported to apply for an NIHR Post Doctoral Fellowship, including being given protected time to develop my application, which now funds my work (75%FTE for 4 years. The structured approach to PDR has helped me focus on areas I need to develop, leading me to develop my teaching and supervisory activities. In recognition of this I was awarded the title of University Research Lecturer in I continue to benefit from flexible part-time working to balance work with the needs of my family. CASE STUDY 2 I joined the NPEU as a full-time postdoctoral researcher (grade 7) in August 2008 to work on a 2-year project on child health after fertility treatment. I had my first child in 2009, and took 7 months maternity leave, returning to work first 60%FTE and later 80%FTE. As the role became part-time, the duration of the contract was extended to allow this research to be completed. I was pregnant with my second child when that contract came to an end. I was encouraged to apply for a Teaching Associate position, split between research in the NPEU and teaching postgraduates in the NDPH, and was interviewed and offered that role when 8 months pregnant. I again took a 7 month maternity leave, returning 60%FTE, and later increasing to 80%FTE. The supportive culture of the NPEU and the fact that many staff work part-time meant that I felt fully involved in NPEU activities and I could continue to develop my career while raising a young family. I found the updated PDR particularly helpful as it enabled me to focus on what might help my career progression within the University. For example, I took up the opportunity to become an Examiner for the NDPH MSc in Global Health and to join a number of NDPH committees. My line manager has supported my involvement in a number of different research projects, expanding my expertise in perinatal epidemiology. More recently I have been provided with both the time and support from senior staff to develop my ideas for a mid-career research fellowship, returning to my interest in the longer term health impacts of infertility. I successfully applied for an MRC Career Development Award in 2014, which provides me with 6 years funding (80%FTE, as a grade 8) to develop an independent research career while allowing time with my young family. Since submitting my MRC application, the NPEU policy of encouraging early and midcareer researchers to work alongside more senior researchers as a shadow or coapplicant has resulted in my becoming a co-applicant on another similar study, and has developed my portfolio of research grants. Through PDR I have been encouraged to 51

52 consider other development opportunities and successfully applied for the title of University Research Lecturer in I continue to teach on the MSc, and my line manager has encouraged me to develop supervisory skills. In 2010, I was given the opportunity to be a co-supervisor of an MSc placement and since then I have supervised three more placements as the lead supervisor. I have also been co-supervising a DPhil student since I have developed my own DPhil project which has just been advertised. I now benefit from the NPEU policy of flexible working, working 80%FTE with a day working at home each week. In addition, I have been able to work a combination of longer and shorter days allowing me to fit my work around my caring responsibilities. 52

53 7 FURTHER INFORMATION Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words Silver: 500 words Please comment here on any other elements that are relevant to the application. The NPEU is a friendly, supportive working environment, as reflected in the overwhelming number of positive responses to surveys in 2012, 2014 and 2016 which consistently indicate that more than 90% of staff feel valued for the work they do here. The following word cloud encapsulates what people like best about working in the NPEU. What also comes out strongly from free-text responses to these surveys is the extent to which our approach to Athena SWAN has always been inclusive, with a focus on all staff, irrespective of gender or staff group. Inclusive environment and culture where everyone's contribution is recognised and valued Clear consistent policies and a sense that everyone's contribution is valued, not just that of senior members of the Unit. All staff from grade 4 upwards treated equally and equally valued. No them and us for support and academic staff. This approach has resulted in demonstrable impact for all staff groups, as evidenced in this application, and has been reinforced by the expansion of the Athena SWAN charter to consider gender equality more broadly. As a small unit in a specialty which is predominantly female we are continuing to challenge ourselves to make our 53