2 Background
Why gender diversity matters
THE ECONOMIC CASE
4. The Coalition Government has "committed
to work together to tear down the barriers to social mobility
and equal opportunities in Britain, and build a fairer society".[8]
It considers that "no one should be held back because of
who they are or their background" nor should they "be
defined simply by these characteristics".[9]
The Government's December 2010 report on The Equality Strategy
- Building a Fairer Britain stated that "inequalities
matter to all of us" and that "failure to tackle discrimination
and to provide equal opportunities, harms individuals, weakens
our society and costs our economy".[10]
5. The UK needs to address a shortage
of skilled scientists and engineers: in our 2012 report on Educating
tomorrow's engineers, we highlighted estimates that around
820,000 science, engineering and technology (SET) professionals
will be required by 2020.[11]
The Society of Biology stated that "increasing women's participation
in the UK labour market could be worth between £15 billion
and £23 billion [1.3 - 2.0 per cent of GDP], with STEM accounting
for at least £2 billion of this".[12]
In Scotland, it has been estimated that "a doubling of women's
high-level skill contribution to the economy would be worth as
much as £170 million per annum to national income".[13]
The economic case for diversity in science has been recognised
by the Government: in July 2012, Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP, Secretary
of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, stated that "women
[...] make up less than a fifth of all employees in the science
sector" and that "there's no way we can generate the
number of scientists and engineers the economy requires without
addressing this situation".[14]
Simply put, the UK economy needs more skilled scientists and
engineers and this need will not be met unless greater efforts
are made to recruit and retain women in STEM careers.
THE BUSINESS CASE
6. The 2002 Report SET Fair: A Report
on women in Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) identified
gender diversity in science as a "business bottom line issue"
and highlighted that "SET companies with few women employees
are drawing on only half the talent pool and risk addressing only
half the marketplace".[15]
Gender diversity is perceived to improve workplace culture; a
2010 study of public attitudes and perceptions about diversity
by the Government Equalities Office found that diverse organisations
were "more able to deal with problems in a holistic manner
compared to institutions with limited diversity".[16]
University College London (UCL) stated that:
The most tangible and immediate
effect of improving diversity is seen in organizational culture.
[...] A diverse workforce might also contribute to the diversity
of research aims, approaches and findings. This is not to say
that women will have inherently different research interests,
but that different people will bring different perspectives to
research.[17]
The Medical Schools Council and Dental
Schools Council stated that "there is a business case for
mixed gender teams" and that because "diversity of knowledge
and social capital in teams is vital in production of new ideas",
having a "lack of women may have a significant impact on
the robustness of policy decisions and research innovation".[18]
UCL Engineering stated that "the diversity of thought leadership
and problem solving brought by having more women on a team is
well documented in business terms" and that "academia
needs to be more creative about retaining these women for the
benefit of other staff and also students".[19]
Increasing the proportion of
women at professorial and other senior levels in academia is considered
to have a positive impact on both men and women. UCL stated that
"the presence of women professors not only has a significant
positive effect on the confidence and self-esteem of female students,
but also on that of male students who develop leadership abilities
and emotional wellbeing as a result".[20]
A joint written submission from Oxford Research and Policy and
Katalytik stated that "many institutions have found that
implementing good working practices benefits all staff [...] whereas
bad working practices tend to adversely affect women more than
men".[21] In short,
"what benefits women benefits men too".[22]
7. Gender diversity does not universally
bring rewards for business. A 2013 Government literature review
on The Business Case for Equality and Diversity stated
that "studies appear to have found evidence that firms have
reaped business benefits from equality [and] diversity, but not
all firms in all contexts at all times".[23]
The review found that "how diversity is managed is also crucial:
if appropriately, it can bring benefits to business, if poorly,
it can increase costs".[24]
In June 2013, the Royal Society published an "invitation
to tender for research into two questions relating to the business
case for diversity in the scientific workforce".[25]
The two questions were "What evidence is there that establishes
the business case for diversity in the scientific workforce?"
and "Are diverse teams more likely to do good science?"[26]
The research would "consist of a literature review and key
interviews looking at the economic case for diversity" and
would "establish the difference diversity makes to science,
looking at optimum group size and diversity in relation to a range
of productivity measures".[27]
The announcement of this project provoked some debate in the media
about the need for a business case when solid moral arguments
already existed for improving diversity.[28]
Gender diversity in STEM can bring business benefits if well
managed. The business case for diversity in science is
being reviewed by the Royal Society and we expect that its findings
will highlight how STEM organisations can maximise the business
benefits of diversity in the workforce.
GENDERED RESEARCH
8. UCL stated that the "differential
access of women and men to leadership in the higher education
sector [...] influences the nature and process of knowledge production
and the ways in which they can influence discourses and practices".[29]
Portia Ltd stated that "the historical absence of women in
researchas participants, as subjects, and as beneficiarieshas
resulted in science having more evidence for men than for women,
and in the 'male' being accepted as the norm in study design,
and in the application and communication of research".[30]
For example, Portia Ltd explained that "nearly all that is
known about the effects of environmental pollution is based on
studies involving men, but overwhelmingly, pollutants affect women
and men differently".[31]
Portia's A-Z of Why Gender Matters in R&D highlights
other examples of where gender bias in science has had adverse
consequences.[32] For
example:
a) there are no female crash dummies,
even though women's and men's anatomy differs, women have, for
example, less muscle around the neck and upper torso and experience
greater risk of injury as a result;
b) our understanding of pain starts
with the male rat model;
c) calculations of radiation dosage
are based on an absorption model of a middle aged man; and
d) in most anatomy books the majority
of images are of a man's body.[33]
A 2013 European Commission report on
Gendered Innovations: How Gender Analysis Contributes to Research
provided further examples:
In engineering, for example, assuming
a male default can produce errors in machine translation. In basic
research, failing to use appropriate samples of male and female
cells, tissues, and animals yields faulty results. In medicine,
not recognizing osteoporosis as a male disease delays diagnosis
and treatment in men. In city planning, not collecting data on
caregiving work leads to inefficient transportation systems.[34]
Portia Ltd explained that:
When researchers do pay attention
to biological and social differences between women and men, stunning
discoveries follow. For example, muscle-derived female stem cells
have better regenerative properties than equivalent male cells,
and the metabolic profiles of women and men are distinctly different.[35]
It stated that "findings such as
these have huge implications for diagnosis and therapy, and for
health economics".[36]
The Commission stated that: "thirty years of research have
revealed that sex and gender bias is socially harmful and expensive"
and that "gender bias also leads to missed market opportunities".[37]
It recommended that "the current generation of researchers
needs to learn how to exploit the creative power of sex and gender
analysis in their research design".[38]
In addition, the Open University suggested that "UK Research
Councils should follow the example of the Irish Research Council
and require all research bids to include a statement on sex-gender
dimensions and implications of the research proposal".[39]
Research Councils UK (RCUK) has published a statement on its "expectations
for equality and diversity" but it does not include encouragement
to consider the gender dimension of research.[40]
9. We suggest that the national
academies, learned societies and research funders review how gender
analysis can improve research findings within different STEM disciplines
and formulate guidance on the matter. Research funders
should encourage the consideration of gender dimensions of research
from funding applicants.
The leaky pipeline
10. The Open University explained that
"the pathway to an academic research career typically starts
with a PhD followed by a number of short-term research contracts
prior to gaining a permanent academic/research post".[41]
The leaky pipeline describes the "gradual loss of women working
at each career stage following postgraduate training, from Postdoc
to Lecturer, Senior Lecturer and Professor".[42]
Academic research careers are competitive and many men and women
do not reach senior positions. Dr Bryn Jones, Visiting Fellow
at the School of Physics, University of Bristol, stated that "we
train a very large number of people to PhD standard" although
there are "a much smaller number of research assistant posts"
and "the number of permanent positions is very small".[43]
The Academy of Medical Sciences highlighted that "women are
still less likely than their male colleagues to advance to senior
positions in academia [...] despite their growing numbers in undergraduate
and postgraduate courses since the 1970s".[44]
As a result, universities "lose a substantial proportion
of the pool of talented staff available to them".[45]
Although women make up 44.5 per cent of academic staff across
higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK, only 20.5 per
cent of professors are women.[46]
Women are under-represented at professorial levels across academic
research careers in all STEM disciplines (typically 17 per cent
although there is variation between disciplines).[47]
The WinSET Committee at the University of Nottingham stated that
"it is important to differentiate between the STEMM[48]
subjects" because "the points in the pipeline which
are critical for women's proportionality do vary from subject
to subject".[49]
For example:
in psychology the pipeline leakage
is most acute when going from senior lecturer to professor and
until this career point there is a very good representation of
women, whereas in the chemical sciences there is a steady decline
in gender proportionality from undergraduate to professorial level,
with a slight increase in the rate of leakage at the point of
going from PhD students to post-doctoral researchers.[50]
11. In some STEM disciplines, the under-representation
of women is a result of girls and women choosing not to study
the subjects that lead to STEM careers. In others, women may be
well represented at early stages of study and career but fail
to be retained and to progress to senior levels. For example,
Sarah Dickinson, Manager of the Athena SWAN Charter, Equality
Challenge Unit, explained that "in specific areas like chemistry,
[...] it is a retention issue, whereas in engineering and physics
it is a recruitment issue".[51]
Although this Report focuses on retention rather than recruitment,
we recognise that poor retention of women scientists has implications
for the recruitment of girls and women - these issues are explored
later in this Report.
Government funding and support
for diversity in STEM
12. The UK Resource Centre for Women
in Science, Engineering and Technology (UKRC) was established
in 2004, following the 2002 SET Fair report.[52]
The UKRC provided "practical help and support to girls and
women in SET, including those thinking of a career in SET and
those taking a career break".[53]
Following the 2010 Spending Review, the Government's The allocation
of science and research funding 2011/12 to 2014/15 stated
that "from April 2011, funding for the UK Resource Centre
for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (UKRC) will not
be renewed".[54]
The Government's rationale for ceasing to fund the UKRC (which
has since become incorporated into Women in Science and Engineering
- or WISE) was that:
The Government's approach to tackling
lack of diversity in STEM careers is to encourage diversity in
the STEM workforce by raising awareness of different STEM careers
and embedding and mainstreaming equality and diversity through
a number of the programmes we fund, and those of the partners
with which we work.[55]
It considered that "better value
can be realised through these broader activities and through better
direction of existing diversity projects".[56]
In the same 2010 funding allocation, the Government stated that
diversity initiatives also "include the work of STEMNET and
the STEM Ambassadors to encourage a diverse STEM pipeline; the
National Academies' fellowships; Research Councils' PhD and fellowships
awards; and the Big Bang Fair, and National Science and Engineering
Competition".[57]
However we note that many of these initiatives target STEM education
in schools and do not tackle diversity in academic careers: STEMNET,
the Big Bang Fair and the National Science and Engineering Competition
are all largely aimed at school children.[58]
13. In its written submission to this
inquiry, the Government explained that "BIS funds the Royal
Society and Royal Academy of Engineering to lead a programme of
work, in partnership with the professional institutions, industry
and others, aimed at understanding and addressing issues of diversity
in the STEM workforce".[59]
The Women in Science Engineering and Technology (WiSET) group
stated that "the curtailing of the central role of the UKRC
was too soon for mainstreaming".[60]
The Royal Society of Chemistry stated that the UKRC "provided
a single, immediately identifiable source of information, support
and advice for women in STEM, and their employers" and suggested
that a similar organisation should be re-created, "should
the Government be unable to demonstrate that the current mainstreaming
of diversity through alternative BIS funded programmes matches
the success delivered by the UKRC".[61]
Similarly the Science Council considered that the leadership of
the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering "must
acknowledge and engage with the very large numbers of other organisations
working to increase the numbers of women in the STEM workforce".[62]
Table 1 and Figure 1 show Government funding for diversity programmes
over the last two spending reviews.Table
1: Diversity activities funded by BIS between 2008 and 2015,
in cash terms[63]
| Financial Year
|
| 2008-09
| 2009-10
| 2010-11
| 2011-12
| 2012-13
| 2013-14
| 2014-15
|
| £ k
| £ k |
£ k | £ k
| £ k |
£ k | £ k
|
Royal Academy of Engineering
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 275
| 276 | 277
| 278 |
Royal Society
| 2,992 |
3,430 | 4,045
| 3,941 |
3,414 | 2,754
| 2,291 |
UK Resource Centre for Women in STEM
| 2,538 |
2,443 | 2,468
| 500 | 0
| 0 | 0
|
Daphne Jackson Trust
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 40
| |
Total in cash terms
| 5,530
| 5,873
| 6,513
| 4,716
| 3,690
| 3,071
| 2,569
|
Total in real terms[64]
| 6,070
| 6,274
| 6,780
| 4,800
| 3,690
| 2,972
| 2,467
|
Figure 1: Diversity activities funded by BIS between 2008 and
2015, in real terms[65]
When we asked David Willetts MP, Minister
of State for Universities and Science, why UKRC funding was cut,
he responded that "it was a tough decision" and that
"there was a view that some of the work could be done by
the Royal Society or the Royal Academy of Engineering and more
mainstreamed".[66]
The Minister accepted that the total amount of Government funding
for diversity in science had been substantially reduced.[67]
He stated that "there is still a lot of work under way, so
it is not as if we gave up on the cause; we have been very energetic
on the cause" and highlighted the Vitae concordat, Athena
SWAN and the work of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of
Engineering.[68] Although
we accept that difficult financial decisions had to be made by
the Government in the 2010 Spending review, it is disappointing
that spending dedicated to improving diversity in science was
so significantly reduced. While we have no concerns about the
quality of the diversity programmes of the National Academies,
we have not been assured that they could have the same reach and
impact as the UKRC had.
14. The Government should monitor
the effects of its policies on mainstreaming diversity funding.
If it transpires that cutting UKRC funding and mainstreaming has
had a detrimental effect on the retention of women in STEM careers,
the Government should increase diversity funding.
The Athena SWAN Charter
15. Several publicly funded initiatives
exist to improve gender diversity in science.[69]
However, the Athena SWAN Charter appears to be the most comprehensive
practical scheme aimed at improving academic STEM careers. It
is "a scheme that recognises excellence in science, engineering,
technology, mathematics and medicine (STEMM) employment for women
in higher education".[70]
It was founded in 2005, with the first awards conferred in 2006.[71]
The Charter is run by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU), a charity
"which works to further and support equality and diversity
for staff and students in higher education across all four nations
of the UK, and in colleges in Scotland".[72]
The ECU is funded by the four funding councils of the UK as well
as Universities UK and GuildHE.[73]
The Athena SWAN Charter receives additional funding from the Royal
Society, the Biochemical Society, the Department of Health and
the Scottish Funding Council.[74]
To become a member of the Charter, a university (or research institute
embedded within it) must accept and promote the six Charter principles,
which are that:
a) Addressing gender inequalities
requires commitment and action from everyone, at all levels of
the organisation;
b) A change in cultures and attitudes
across the organisation is required to tackle the unequal representation
of women in science;
c) The absence of diversity at management
and policy-making levels has broad implications which the organisation
will examine;
d) The high loss rate of women in
science is an urgent concern which the organisation will address;
e) The system of short term contracts
has particularly negative consequences for the retention and progression
of women in science, which the university recognises; and
f) There are both personal and structural
obstacles to women making the transition from PhD into a sustainable
academic career in science, which require the active consideration
of the organisation.[75]
The ECU explained that "once Charter
signatories, universities and their STEMM departments are encouraged
to submit for Athena SWAN Charter recognition awards at Bronze,
Silver or Gold level".[76]
There are currently 94 members of the Charter.[77]
There are currently 58 HEIs with a total of 259 awards between
them.[78] In July 2011,
the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies outlined
"her intention that all medical schools who wish to apply
for NIHR[79] Biomedical
Research Centres and Units funding need to have achieved an Athena
SWAN Charter for women in science Silver Award".[80]
We considered whether other research funders should require universities
to hold Athena SWAN awards in order to qualify for funding. Professor
Dame Julia Higgins, Royal Society, stated that:
medical grants are given to whole
departments. The research councils give grants to individuals
or to small groups of individuals, often across two or three departments
or two or three universities. If that requirement were there,
it would preclude a very large part of the system from even applying.
[...] Moreover, it would completely flood the ECU. They would
not be able to deal with that many applications.[81]
She also stated that "the great
success of the SWAN awards has been that they have been voluntary"
and they "have appealed to the one thing that academics have,
which is a huge sense of competition".[82]
Dr Leslie Thompson, Research Councils UK (RCUK), stated that "the
research councils, following the lead of NIHR, decided not to
go down the route of mandating Athena SWAN, but talked to the
sector about the issues of diversity broadly, not just women,
and produced a statement".[83]
The RCUK Statement of Expectations for Equality and Diversity
states that those in receipt of Research Council funding are expected
to:
a) promote and lead cultural change
in relation to equalities and diversity;
b) engage staff at all levels with
improving the promotion of equality and diversity;
c) ensure all members of the research
workforce are trained and supported to address disincentives and
indirect obstacles to recruitment, retention and progression in
research careers; and
d) provide evidence of ways in which
equality and diversity issues are managed at both an institutional
and department level.[84]
It would not be practical to mandate
that applicants for research funding must hold Athena SWAN awards,
although we commend the Chief Medical Officer for taking this
step with some NIHR funding streams. We recommend that all public
research funders should require applicants and recipients to demonstrate
that they are taking steps to improve equality and diversity.
Each research funder should publish and disseminate this expectation
and what actions will be considered sufficient to meet this criterion.
16. The NIHR announcement led to a rapid
increase in Athena SWAN applications which had already been "gaining
momentum".[85] The
ECU stated that "this is a very welcome step, and one that
provides an opportunity for medical schools and higher education
institutions to take the lead on creating gender parity".[86]
The University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine's Athena
SWAN Governance Group highlighted the need for "improved
resourcing of the Equality Challenge Unit" as "the exponential
increase in applications by universities and their constituent
departments for recognition of efforts in increasing support for
women in STEMM has in no way been matched by adequate expansion
of the ECU".[87]
When we asked the Minister about increasing Government support
for Athena SWAN, he responded:
I cannot say anything about funding
at the moment. [...] It is part of the problem of success; everybody
is so desperate to get an Athena SWAN award that they are quite
hard-pressed to get through the volume of work. I cannot make
any commitment at the moment, but if they need help, I am sure
we would want to try to help, if we could.[88]
17. The Athena SWAN Charter is
a comprehensive scheme that is widely supported across academia.
With increasing demand, the Equality Challenge Unit may require
additional resources and the Government should respond positively
to any such request.
8 Government Equalities Office, The Equality Strategy
- Building a Fairer Britain, December 2010, p.6 Back
9
Government Equalities Office, The Equality Strategy - Building
a Fairer Britain, December 2010, p.6 Back
10
Government Equalities Office, The Equality Strategy - Building
a Fairer Britain, December 2010, p.8 Back
11
Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2012-13,
Educating tomorrow's engineers: The impact of Government reforms
to 14-19 education, HC 665, para 9 Back
12
WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para 1 Back
13
Tapping all our Talents. Women in science, technology, engineering
and mathematics: a strategy for Scotland, April 2012, Royal
Society of Edinburgh, para 3 Back
14
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, Vince Cable
delivers speech on UK science, openness and internationalisation,
Press Release, 12 July 2012 Back
15
Set Fair: A Report of Women in Science, Engineering
and Technology from The Baroness Greenfield CBE to the Secretary
of State for Trade and Industry, November 2002 Back
16
WSC 29 [UCL] para 12; The Government Equalities Office
(2010), Representation of women in business and government:
Public attitudes and perceptions, Government Equalities Office,
12 March 2010 Back
17
WSC 29 [UCL] para 16 Back
18
WSC 64 [Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools Council] para
6.2 Back
19
WSC 59 [UCL Engineering] para 20 Back
20 ``
WSC 29 [UCL] para 13 Back
21
WSC 65 [Sean McWhinnie, Oxford Research and Policy, and Jan Peters,
Katalytik] para 31 Back
22
WSC 44 [Imperial College London], para 8 Back
23
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, BIS Occasional
Paper Number 4, The Business Case for Equality and Diversity,
Jan 2013, p.vi Back
24
Department for business, Innovation and Skills, BIS Occasional
Paper Number 4, The Business Case for Equality and Diversity,
Jan 2013, p.vi Back
25
Royal Society, The business case for diversity in the scientific
workforce, Invitation to Tender, June 2013, http://royalsociety.org/policy/
Back
26
Royal Society, The business case for diversity in the scientific
workforce, Invitation to Tender, June 2013, http://royalsociety.org/policy/
Back
27
Science in Parliament Vol 70 No. 4, Leading the Way: Diversity
at the Royal Society, Autumn 2013 Back
28
The Independent, Sparks fly over Royal Society gender study,
30 June 2013 Back
29
WSC 29 [UCL] para 10 Back
30
WSC 13 [Portia Ltd] para 2 Back
31
WSC 13 [Portia Ltd] para 2 Back
32
Portia, A-Z of Why Gender Matters in R&D, 2012-2013,
http://www.portiaweb.org.uk Back
33
Portia, A-Z of Why Gender Matters in R&D, 2012-2013,
http://www.portiaweb.org.uk Back
34
European Commission, Gendered Innovations: How Gender Analysis
Contributes To Research,2013, p 8 Back
35
WSC 13 [Portia Ltd] para 3 Back
36
WSC 13 [Portia Ltd] para 3 Back
37
European Commission, Gendered Innovations: How Gender Analysis
Contributes To Research,2013, p 8 Back
38
European Commission, Gendered Innovations: How Gender Analysis
Contributes To Research,2013, p 41 Back
39
WSC 102 [Open University] para 8 Back
40
Research Councils UK, RCUK expectations for equality and diversity,
January 2013, http://www.rcuk.ac.uk Back
41
WSC 22 [Open University] para 10 Back
42
WSC 28 [Academy of Medical Sciences] para 2 Back
43
Q 8 Back
44
WSC 28 [Academy of Medical Sciences] para 2 Back
45
WSC 48 [Royal Astronomical Society] Back
46
Higher Education Statistics Agency, Free Online Statistics
- Staff: Statistical First Release 185, 2011-12 Back
47
WSC 104 [Scienceogram UK]; WSC 79 [Department for Business, Innovation
& Skills (BIS) and the Northern Ireland Assembly] para 6 Back
48
STEMM is Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine. Back
49
WSC 40 [WinSET Committee, University of Nottingham] Back
50
WSC 40 [WinSET Committee, University of Nottingham] Back
51
Q 75 Back
52
National Archives, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
(2010), UK Resource Centre for Women (UKRC), http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Back
53
Vitae, Greenfield Report, http://www.vitae.ac.uk Back
54
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, The allocation
of science and research funding 2011/12 - 2014/15, Dec 2010,
p.54 Back
55
WSC079 [Government] para 7 Back
56
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, The allocation
of science and research funding 2011/12 - 2014/15, Dec 2010,
p.54 Back
57
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, The allocation
of science and research funding 2011/12 - 2014/15, Dec 2010,
p.54; HC Deb, 21 Dec 2010 : Column 1262W Back
58
Figures for these and other "mainstreamed" activities
that have received Government funding is at WSC 105 [Government
supplementary] Back
59
WSC 79 [Government] para 9 Back
60
WSC 60 [WiSET] para 5.2 Back
61
WSC 72 [Royal Society of Chemistry] para 43 Back
62
WSC 86 [Science Council] para 5.1 Back
63
WSC 105 [Govt supplementary]: funding provided by the Department
of Health to the Equality Challenge Unit is not included Back
64
Cash terms figures were provided by BIS and converted to real
terms by the House of Commons Library Back
65
Cash terms figures were provided by BIS and converted to real
terms by the House of Commons Library Back
66
Q 178 Back
67
Q 179 Back
68
The Vitae Concordat to support the career development of researchers
is an agreement between the funders and employers of researchers
in the UK, setting out the expectations and responsibilities of
each stakeholder in researcher careers, http://www.vitae.ac.uk/;
See paragraph 15 for Athena SWAN; Q 180 Back
69
For example see http://societyofbiologyblog.org/links-day-diversity-in-science/
for a list of major initiatives Back
70
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit] Back
71
Athena SWAN Charter, History and principles, http://www.athenaswan.org.uk/
Back
72
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit] Back
73
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit]; The four funding councils are
the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the
Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW), the Scottish
Funding Council (SFC) and the Department for Employment and Learning
in Northern Ireland. Back
74
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit] Back
75
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit] Back
76
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit] Back
77
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit]; For the full list see Athena
SWAN, Members list, http://www.athenaswan.org.uk Back
78
Athena SWAN, Current award holders, http://www.athenaswan.org.uk
Back
79
National Institute of Health Research Back
80
Equality Challenge Unit, Chief Medical Officer links gender
equality to future funding, 18 August 2011, http://www.ecu.ac.uk
Back
81
Q 60 Back
82
Q 60 Back
83
Q 148; Research Councils UK, Statement of Expectations for
Equality and Diversity, 17 Jan 2013 Back
84
WSC 23 [RCUK] para 3 Back
85
Q 60 [Sarah Dickinson]; also WSC 79 [Government] para 32 Back
86
Equality Challenge Unit, Chief Medical Officer links gender
equality to future funding, 18 August 2011, http://www.ecu.ac.uk
Back
87
WSC 24 [University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine's
Athena SWAN Governance Group] para 16f Back
88
Q 189 Back
|