|
|||
|
Career progression review of progression and promotion of women in biological science 2001/02 Brief descriptionThe University’s biosciences faculty reviewed what was seen as the major hurdle for women in the biological sciences - the transition from contract researcher to lecturer. Its aims were to find out why so few women make the transition and why so few held senior academic posts. Specifically they wanted to identify institutional and other constraints to the appointment and promotion of women academics, and to identify and assess possible solutions and the changes needed at faculty, institutional and national level to attract more women to academic posts and facilitate their retention and career progression. Contact: Penny Hatton, Director, Staff and Departmental
Development Unit (SDDU) - p.m.hatton@adm.leeds.ac.uk BackgroundAnalysis of Leeds statistics revealed it was a typical UK biological science faculty, with women representing 45% of contract research staff, 29% of lecturers and less than 10% of senior academics. They did not see barriers to promotion as the reason why at Leeds there are so few women at the top; rather that the women were ‘diluted out’ by an influx of men to senior posts. The review was undertaken against a background of a low awareness of the issues of career progression for women in SET and a minimal engagement of women academic and research staff in the agenda for change. Organisation structure and managementThe steering group for the review included the University’s HR director, representatives from staff development unit and academics internal and external to the faculty. The approach they used was focus groups for contract researchers and lecturers, a questionnaire to all research and academic staff in the faculty, based on themes arising from the focus groups, and one-to-one interviews with senior faculty managers, selected principal investigators and questionnaire respondents. Key findingsA key finding was the lack of HR management skills at all levels. Most of the other problems identified were associated with this poor management. They impacted on both sexes, disproportionately affecting those with caring duties, mainly but not exclusively women. The issues identified were:
Other findings of interest were that:
Their conclusions were that addressing problems in a gender specific way was not the best way forward, and that greater attention to people management and development, openness, inclusion and flexible working should benefit all staff as well as making academic careers more attractive to and sustainable by women. Facilitating women’s transition from contract research to academic posts required actions on both sides of the barrier. Impact and benefitsThe steering group believe that the study’s findings can be used to make lectureships more attractive to both men and women and more sustainable by women by, among other things, the implementation of mechanisms to minimise the effects of career breaks on women’s competitiveness. Writing in summer 2002 the team was uncertain whether the investment they had made in their report was worth it. The 65-page study report made 28 suggestions for action – 12 at faculty level, 10 at university level or at faculty level and six at national level. At faculty level, the project raised awareness among men and women, managers and staff, of the gender imbalance amongst academic staff, particularly at senior level and the need to address it with positive action. Although the initial reception by the faculty management committee reflected their concern about the resource implications of implementing the suggested actions, a first successful outcome was the production and distribution of a feedback guide to all faculty staff. The study was also instrumental in the University’s decision to appoint faculty diversity officers. Since then the faculty management and HR structures have been strengthened and action has been taken to improve appraisal and mentoring for contract research staff. Each member of academic staff is now a member of at least one broad research grouping, which means that all groups should have sufficient critical mass to be able to support any member through maternity leave. |
|||
|
|||