Women in scientific careers - Science and Technology Committee Contents

3  Gender perceptions in STEM careers

18. Gender perceptions and biases may be present throughout all stages of STEM study and career. Gender patterns in subject interests have been shown to be socially constructed, not biologically based.[89] These social constructs start influencing children at a young age. The Targeted Initiative on Science and Mathematics Education stated that "by age 14, most girls have already come to see science careers as 'interesting but not for me'".[90] Factors influencing the views of children, parents and teachers include:

a)  stereotypes, for example, "70% of people around the world associate being a scientist with being a man"; [91]

b)  a lack of knowledge about STEM careers, often coupled with a lack of female role models.[92] Both girls and boys are more likely to aspire to STEM when their families "possess substantial 'science capital', i.e. science-related qualifications, 'know how' and contacts";[93]

c)  a strong popular perception among students and parents that particular STEM careers, particularly those in the physical sciences, are masculine;[94]

d)  girls reporting lower self-confidence in their abilities despite no differences in actual abilities or attainment. This is "exacerbated by the 'brainy' image of STEM held by the majority of young people";[95] and

e)  Sexism, such as differential expectations and encouragement for girls to continue with STEM. There is some evidence of "teachers favouring boys and perceiving them to be 'better' (and more 'naturally able') at science than girls, even where attainment data indicate otherwise".[96]

The Government "funds STEMNET to run the STEM Ambassador programme which raises awareness amongst children and young people of the range of careers that science and technical qualifications offer".[97] Although not a central part of this inquiry, we are aware that the STEM Ambassador Scheme is very well regarded.[98] We have also previously recommended that engagement with industry should be a core requirement of teachers' Continuing Professional Development as this would improve the provision of STEM careers advice to students.[99] We encourage the Government to work with the STEM community and schools to tackle gender stereotypes in education, particularly at primary level. In addition, we re-iterate the importance of engagement with STEM industry being part of teachers' CPD.

19. University College London (UCL) commented on the continuation of gender stereotypes into academia whereby "the assumed identity of an academic in STEMM tends to be linked to masculinity".[100] Once in a STEM career, women may encounter attitudes that hinder their progression to senior levels. Plymouth Marine Laboratory stated that "the 'glass ceiling', a term often used in the corporate world, can also exist in the scientific environment, with scientific leadership dominated by males".[101] The leaky pipeline itself reinforces existing views about women in science; UCL added that "the decline in female scientists through the academic pipeline reinforces the assumption and stereotypes surrounding science and gender" and might "put off young women and girls from choosing science subjects at school, A level and University".[102] Role models and mentoring are further discussed in paragraphs 33-39.

Recruitment to STEM jobs

20. The British Pharmacological Society highlighted that "many women in STEM suffer bias due to expectation, in that the potential for a woman to take maternity leave or to require flexible working in future can impact the judgement of interviewers".[103] The British Medical Association stated that "academic appointment panels [...] are often wholly male due to the lack of women in senior positions" and that "despite equality training and guidelines, unconscious bias means that panels frequently have a tendency to choose appointees like themselves".[104] This type of bias in an environment dominated at senior levels by men may mean that "many successful candidates will be male".[105] Bias against women in recruitment is not solely perpetrated by men. Studies have demonstrated that both men and women can be unconsciously biased towards preferring male candidates in STEM. A 2012 study led by Yale University, in which 127 science faculties from research-intensive universities "were asked to rate the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position" showed that "both male and female professors rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and preferable to hire than the (identical) female applicant".[106] The study also found that "they also offered the male applicant a higher starting salary and additional career mentoring support".[107] Similar bias exists in the UK, for example, Bournemouth University highlighted that "in terms of applications for jobs and promotion, when CVs are judged blindly women fare better on average, but when names are included, men have the advantage".[108]

21. The effects of gender bias cannot just be mitigated with simple measures such as ensuring that recruitment and interview panels include women. Dr June McCombie, representing the Institute of Physics, acknowledged that this could place "an extra load" on women scientists because "you cannot physically have a woman on every single committee and every single appointments panel in the university because there simply are not enough".[109] However she added that "there is no doubt that the majority of women involved see this as something they should do in order to [...] make sure that committees [...] are less influenced by unconscious bias and inaccurate evaluations".[110] Sarah Dickinson, Equality Challenge Unit (ECU), stated that:

    People are coming up with some interesting initiatives. If you do not have enough females in a department, they are taking females from other departments or bringing in female HR representatives to ensure that there is a gender balance. In terms of committees, it is things like deputising roles or shadowing roles, so there is a great opportunity for early career women to get the opportunity to sit on a committee and shadow so that it adjusts the gender issues.[111]

Another option, suggested by Clem Herman, Open University, was to "anonymise applications so that you do not clearly see the gender".[112]

Progress and promotion

22. The Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools Council stated that "students can be biased in their perceptions of leadership, with medical school students of both genders reporting that men generally make better leaders".[113] UCL stated that "the skills or abilities that people think they need in a leader or a manager are also connected to a normative masculine identity, and women who display these skills are often judged negatively because they are perceived to be presenting stereotypically masculine traits" yet "conversely, women who don't display these traits may be viewed as unsuitable for the role".[114] In addition, "women suffer because men find it easier to deal with men as leaders seeing them in their own image and as potential equals".[115] Perceptions matter because, as Dr Bryn Jones explained, "there is a very strong hierarchy within university research structures" which makes "support from established academics of critical importance in the career opportunities available to junior researchers".[116] He provided the following examples:

a)   Applications for fellowships "generally need to be approved by universities, giving university departments decisive roles in determining which individuals are able to apply for fellowships";

b)  Researchers on fixed-term grant funded contracts are, "in very many cases", prohibited from applying for research grants;

c)  PhD students and research assistants "are normally granted access to data and to facilities through established academics", who decide which individuals are given access to "the best data, the best facilities and the best projects";

d)  Entry into research collaborations is often dependent on nomination by established academics who are already members; and

e)  Junior researchers normally require grant holders (established academics) to release funding for them to travel to conferences "at which they might get themselves noticed by potential future employers".[117]

Dr Jones concluded that this could "lead to a selection in favour of certain individuals, and a selection against women, ethnic minorities and people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds".[118] Highlighting that this issue could hinder men too, he stated "pushy, loud or articulate individuals are more likely to be noticed by established academics" and "junior researchers who are quiet, shy, reticent or polite can be denied opportunities regardless of their abilities as researchers".[119] Dr Jones acknowledged that "it is dangerous to generalise about personality types and gender", but stated that "an aggressive pushiness may be more common among men than women, which may help some types of men to get essential career support from established academics".[120] The University of Manchester stated that "unconscious bias also extends to matters including lack of invitations to speak at seminars or international conferences—such invitations are important to promotion".[121]

23. Women scientists may also perceive promotions as undesirable. The British Medical Association explained that "men are more likely to put themselves forward for leadership/senior positions than women" and that "for a complex set of reasons, women are more hesitant to apply for promotions".[122] On the basis of internal promotion data, the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) concluded that "once a female got to the promotion panel there was a 100% success rate".[123] NPL added that "this is not the case for male candidates and might suggest that women wait until they feel completely ready before applying for promotion".[124] The Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools Council also considered that "women tend to wait until they meet all the criteria for promotion, whereas men tend to be more speculative in their applications" and that "consequently, women are less likely to submit themselves for consideration for promotion without encouragement or mentoring".[125] The University of Manchester added that "women often perceive that aggressive political skills are required at the top of the career ladder or in positions of authority" and they "may not want to adopt this style of leadership".[126] The Athena SWAN Committee at the Institute of Health and Society (IHS), Newcastle University, stated that it had "discovered a perception among younger female members of the IHS staff that a period of maternity leave has to be 'made up' before they can compete on equal terms with men".[127]

24. Interestingly, the skills that are normally considered essential to leadership are under-valued in academia: ScienceGrrl stated that "non-research skills (e.g. leadership, mentoring, pastoral care, teaching, project/lab management) appear to be largely ignored" in career advancement.[128] This can be a gender issue as "anecdotally [...] more women than men take on so-called 'soft' responsibilities".[129] The STFC WiSTEM Network stated that:

    Evaluation of success in STEM jobs typically relies heavily on 'quantity' [...], technical ability and intellectual rigor, but often fails to formally highlight and recognise facets of ability which have a significant impact on actual performance. For example, academic scientists spend a considerable proportion of their time communicating (in articles, at conferences and seminars), networking, writing grant proposals, supervising students, managing staff, teaching and—increasingly—performing public outreach activities and working on the commercial exploitation of their findings.[130]

How non-research activities are valued in academia is further explored in paragraph 51.

Research funding

25. Securing research funding is vital to academic success. The University of Oxford stated that "grant-awarding processes themselves may not be free from bias" and that "even if the allocation process is bias-free, evidence shows that women are less likely to apply for funding; apply for smaller amounts of funding for a shorter duration; and wait longer after rejection before applying again".[131] Because of this, women tend to "progress more slowly up the career hierarchy, reducing the number of women in senior positions".[132] Portia Ltd similarly stated that "fewer women than men apply for research grants—in numbers that correlate to how many women are present at professorial levels" and that "when women do apply, they are minimally but systematically less successful than men in being awarded a grant, even in fields where they are well represented, such as Life Sciences and Social Science".[133] The Open University (OU) stated that "current research suggests that women are not put forward or encouraged to put themselves forward [for European Research Council grants] because the criteria stipulate excellence and future leadership, and women are less confident about making those sorts of claims for themselves at an early career stage".[134] By applying for smaller grants, women researchers "have less money to engage additional researchers in their projects (e.g. to provide statistical or data analysis support)".[135]


26. The Open University (OU) stated that "publication is key to successful career development for women in STEM but evidence shows women are less likely to get published, to be first author [and] to be on editorial boards".[136] The Royal Society of Chemistry stated that "generally, women write more comprehensive and concise journal papers than men, resulting in fewer publications but ones that are more widely cited".[137] The British Medical Association stated that "there is anecdotal evidence that men are more likely to repeatedly submit their research for publication, despite initial rejection, and women less likely to resubmit their research after rejection".[138] Double-blind peer review, where the identities of authors and reviewers of articles are anonymised, is intended to reduce bias.[139] The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) stated that "double-blind peer review for publications and grant applications may be necessary to help to minimise discrimination", although it recognised that "the process of peer review itself makes true "blind" review difficult to attain".[140] We investigated measures being taken to reduce publication bias as part of our 2011 inquiry on Peer review in scientific publications.[141]

Working patterns

27. Women are "more likely than men to take a career break for parental leave and are more likely to be working on a part-time basis".[142] Professor Dame Julia Higgins, who gave evidence on behalf of the Royal Society, stated that in her experience working at Imperial College London, "the departments have been quite readily flexible" around working hours.[143] She added that "the interesting thing has been persuading the women to ask for the flexibility, which, of course, is partly a perception of what the culture will be like".[144] Sarah Dickinson, Equality Challenge Unit, stated that "quite often the senior management and the head of department know that these policies are in place, that there is flexible working, core hours and things like that, but when they survey the staff there is a large proportion who are not aware of these policies".[145] She considered that "it is just a case of making sure that everyone knows about them".[146] Not everyone agreed that it was simply a case of increasing awareness of flexible working options. STEM careers "are often portrayed to be both all-consuming and overwhelmingly competitive" with a "strong preconception that one cannot participate in science on anything other than a completely immersive basis".[147] The "aggressive" academic environment where there is "a general belief that individuals are working against one another" contributes to "a feeling that part time working and parental leave is frowned upon and will compromise a woman's career".[148] The BMA stated that women working part time are "more likely to encounter perceptions that they are less dedicated and less productive than full time colleagues, with the result that they are passed over for promotion".[149]

Improving diversity and equality


28. Evidence submitted to our inquiry suggested that gender biases in STEM are likely to be largely unconscious rather than intentional. Referring to the Yale study (see paragraph 20), the IMarEST stated that "the sexism exhibited was unconscious, as scientists would give other reasoning for their decision" and suggested that "we need more awareness of this, so that a conscious effort can be made to overcome any such bias; obviously there are academics who would want to change this, if only they knew they were doing it".[150] However, there is some denial of the existence of bias amongst scientists. Professor Jo Handelsman, the lead author of the Yale study, has stated that whenever she gives "a talk that mentions past findings of implicit gender bias in hiring, inevitably a scientist will say that can't happen in our labs because we are trained to be objective".[151] Dr Valerie Bevan and Professor Mark Learmonth stated that "most scientists have little or no background in feminism or qualitative research; in fact they eschew anything that is not deemed to be objective, rational or evidence based".[152] Dr Bevan highlighted her personal experience working for a "major employer of healthcare scientists" where "the majority of senior staff did not see equality and diversity issues as part of their core activities" and therefore "all white male appointment panels were common and [...] seen to be fair because the panel was composed of 'objective scientists'".[153] Portia Ltd explained that "scientists may be rigorously trained to be objective, but just like the society at large, hold gender beliefs that tend to valorise men's progress".[154] There was strong support for diversity bias training. The London Mathematical Society highlighted that "there are many practicalities that would make it difficult to ensure that application processes in academia were gender blind" and suggested that "those involved in selection panels and grant review panels could, however, be required to undergo training on unconscious bias".[155] The Society for General Microbiology similarly suggested that "all academic staff should receive unconscious bias training [...] before they can run a research group" because "individual principal investigators responsible for developing their research team members' careers may not be" trained.[156] Many supported the view that "such training can force people to face up to their prejudices and examine the ways that their behaviours, intentional or otherwise, can affect others, especially minorities".[157] Cardiff University stated that "universities need to mainstream and make mandatory equality and diversity training, with particular emphasis on the phenomenon of the potential consequences of unconscious bias in recruitment and promotion".[158] Many universities do offer unconscious bias training.[159] However, the University of Manchester cautioned that while "many institutions are starting to deliver training" there could also be "a lack of take-up of this training by those who need it most".[160]

29. Scientists are susceptible to the same unconscious gender biases as the rest of the population and it is unfortunate that some are unwilling to accept this simply because their professional research requires them to be objective. It is important to recognise that biases that harm women are held by both men and women.

30. We recommend that diversity and equality training, including unconscious bias training, should be provided to all STEM undergraduate and postgraduate students by their Higher Education Institution (HEI). In addition, such training should be mandatory for (i) all members of recruitment and promotion panels for STEM jobs in HEIs; and (ii) all line managers and supervisors of staff.

31. All research funders should also ensure that diversity and equality training is provided to all members of grant application review panels. This is particularly important where women are under-represented on those panels and in the STEM discipline being considered.

32. The University of Manchester also highlighted an additional recruitment stage where bias could occur: search committees,[161] which are "often dominated by men who only access their own networks (which usually are made up of other men) so potential female candidates do not get identified or approached early on in the recruitment process".[162] This could be only partly excused by the under-representation of women in the pool of potential candidates. In many cases, "senior academic roles do not even have search committees".[163] Positive action may provide some solutions. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) defines positive action as "the steps that you can take as an employer to encourage people from groups with different needs or with a past track record of disadvantage or low participation to apply for jobs".[164] For example, positive actions included "encouraging applications from under-represented groups, such as through targeted advertising".[165] Positive action "is not the same as positive discrimination, and does not involve treating particular groups more favourably when recruiting".[166] Universities should ensure that recruiters and search committees identifying potential candidates for senior roles give particular consideration to encouraging suitably qualified female candidates, in line with the principles of positive action.


33. Girlguiding UK stated that "it's hard to consider what career you want to pursue or what you want to achieve in life if you don't have strong role models to inspire you".[167] It explained that:

    many older girls (16 plus) are alert to high-profile figures with interests and ambitions that reflect their own, male and female, but there are few examples from politics or male-dominated fields such as engineering, where girls' professed lack of interest means that they pay little attention. Those who consider such careers tend to be independent minded and positive about standing out from their peers.[168]

The University of Oxford stated that the "lack of women perpetuates the masculine culture of many science departments, in turn deterring female undergraduates and graduates from remaining in academia".[169] The Russell Group Equality Forum stated that the "distinct lack of successful female role models with families" means that "graduates see academia as somewhere not to have a successful career and a family".[170] The "low numbers of women in senior positions often leads to a perceived 'invisibility' of successful women in academic STEM careers".[171] This is likely to discourage "the anticipation of success among female scientists who wish to progress further" and to perpetuate "current cultural norms".[172] Role models are essential to "evidence the possibility of success" and to "encourage women to actively advance their own careers".[173] Mentors and role models also "have a vital role in setting cultural norms".[174] Women who have mentors "publish more, carry out more research and have greater career satisfaction than those without".[175] Queens University, Belfast, highlighted how increasing the transparency of promotion processes and providing mentoring to encourage women to apply for promotion meant that "over time, we have found that women's chances of being successfully promoted match, and even outweigh, those of men".[176]

34. Role models cannot simply be women in senior positions; the University of Oxford stated that "women consistently report that they have few 'ordinary' role models available", that is, "women who are juggling a career in science with some form of work-life balance and/or having a family".[177] There is a perception "that to succeed in a STEM career, women have to be 'super-human' which deters many from staying".[178] UCL Engineering considered that "more examples of positive work-personal life balances and plenty of role models need collecting - especially across engineering to showcase the 'normal' over the super women".[179] It also suggested that "diverse stories—including how dual career couples have managed—should be included".[180] The Open University (OU) suggested that "role models should not only include women but also role models of successful men who work part time and take on caring roles, so that it is not only women who are always seen as being responsible for childcare".[181] The OU explained that "women scientist role models are problematic as they are often intertwined with personal biographies about their partners and children in a way that men's stories are not, so parity about how role models are portrayed is needed".[182] The Royal Academy of Engineering stated that "having high profile men who take advantage of flexible work contracts or who have made it to senior positions via non-traditional routes is really important".[183]

35. Women in senior positions in academia can experience disproportionate pressure to act as a role model or to participate in activities designed to improve the visibility and influence of women. Dr Katherine Sloyan stated that "there is pressure on high-achieving women to act as role models, which, while sometimes flattering, can lead to additional unwanted stress: it is not pleasant feeling like you're representing all women all of the time".[184] While greater representation of women in committees provides "more visible role models for junior staff", it can also "have the unintended consequence of further burdening talented female staff with administrative activities".[185] This can mean that "male counterparts are free to pursue activities that are perhaps more highly valued by senior managers".[186] ScienceGrrl considered that "successful mentors and sponsors can be male or female".[187] However, Newcastle University stated that while "there is no reason why a female should not have a male mentor", a senior male academic "is less likely to fully appreciate the impact of work and family responsibilities women frequently have to deal with".[188] It was also highlighted that there may be "some stigma against senior men associating with junior women (either real or perceived)".[189]

36. The Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) highlighted that "quick wins" for universities wanting to support their staff included "induction, networking and mentoring".[190] The ECU report, Mentoring: progressing women's careers in higher education makes recommendations on how to implement mentoring in HEIs and highlights the benefits of mentoring schemes.[191] Athena SWAN "does not have a check-list of objective essential activities that universities must do to retain women academics", but it highlights activities such as improving the "visibility of women" and "induction and training, [for example] all staff given a comprehensive induction and may be assigned a mentor".[192]

37. Role models are important for inspiring males and females to study STEM subjects and pursue STEM careers. The lack of senior or high-profile women scientists reduces the availability of female role models, which particularly affects girls and women.

38. The National Academies, learned societies and HEIs should emphasise both male and female role models who have successfully combined a STEM career with family life. In particular, highlighting male scientists who have combined career with childcare and family responsibilities could help to counter perceptions that these are women's issues rather than matters that concern all parents.

39. There is strong support for mentoring schemes and evidence that it encourages women to apply for promotions and other opportunities. We recommend that HEIs and other STEM employers should implement mentoring schemes for all staff, with particular attention paid towards mentoring for women and other groups that are under-represented at senior levels.

89   Archer, L., Osborne, J. & DeWitt, J. (2012). Ten Science Facts & Fictions: The Case for Early Education about STEM Careers, London: The Science Council.  Back

90   WSC06 [TISME] para 2.2 Back

91   WSC13 [Portia Ltd] para 12 Back

92   WSC 75 [Girlguiding] para 7 Back

93   WSC06 [TISME] Summary point 7 Back

94   WSC06 [TISME] Summary point 6 Back

95   WSC06 [TISME] Summary point 5 Back

96   WSC06 [TISME]; Archer, L., Osborne, J. & DeWitt, J. (2012: The Case for Early Education about STEM Careers, p.8, London: The Science Council. See also Institute of Physics, Closing Doors: Exploring gender and subject choice in schools, Dec 2013 Back

97   WSC 79 [Government] para 50 Back

98   For example, written evidence to Engineering inquiry ev 71 (SEMTA), School Science practicals inquiry, ev 48 (British Science Association) Back

99   Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2012-13, Educating tomorrow's engineers: the impact of Government reforms on 14-19 education, HC 665, para 86 Back

100   WSC 29 [UCL] para 2 Back

101   WSC 17 [Plymouth Marine Laboratory] para 7 Back

102   WSC 29 [UCL] para 18 Back

103   WSC 50 [British Pharmacological Society] para 5 Back

104   WSC 85 [British Medical Association] para 8 Back

105   WSC 55 [Newcastle University] para 2.8; see also WSC 64 [Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools] para 4.5.2 Back

106   WSC 13 [Portia] para 14 Back

107   WSC 13 [Portia] para 14 Back

108   WSC 96 [Bournemouth University] para 2.11 Back

109   Q 79 Back

110   Q 79 Back

111   Q 79 Back

112   Q 114  Back

113   WSC 64 [Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools Council] para 4.5.3 Back

114   WSC 29 [UCL] para 2 Back

115   WSC 18 [Valerie Bevan and Mark Learmonth] para 15 Back

116   WSC 54 [Dr Bryon Jones] para 2.6 Back

117   WSC 54 [Dr Bryn Jones] paras 2.6-2.7 Back

118   WSC 54 [Dr Bryn Jones] para 2.9 Back

119   WSC 54 [Dr Bryn Jones] para 2.10 Back

120   WSC 54 [Dr Bryn Jones] para 3.2 Back

121   WSC 14 [University of Manchester] para 3.7 Back

122   WSC 85 [British Medical Association] Para 20 Back

123   WSC 43 [NPL] para 4 Back

124   WSC 43 [NPL] para 4 Back

125   WSC 64 [Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools Council] para 4.2.1 Back

126   WSC 14 [University of Manchester] para 3.8 Back

127   WSC 32 [Athena SWAN Committee, Institute of Health and Society (IHS),Newcastle University] para Back

128   WSC 49 [ScienceGrrl] para 13 Back

129   WSC 49 [ScienceGrrl] para 14 Back

130   WSC 90 [STFC WiSTEM Network] para 5.6 Back

131   WSC 42 [University of Oxford] para14 Back

132   WSC 42 [University of Oxford] para14 Back

133   WSC 13 [Portia Ltd] para 4 Back

134   WSC 102 [Open University] para 9 Back

135   WSC 13 [Portia Ltd] para 5 Back

136   WSC 102 [Open University Supplementary] Para 10 Back

137   WSC 72 [Royal Society of Chemistry] para 24 Back

138   WSC 85 [British Medical Association] para 21 Back

139   Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2010-12, Peer review in scientific publications, HC 856 paras 15-20 Back

140   WSC 98 [Campaign for Science and Engineering]  Back

141   Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2010-12, Peer review in scientific publications, HC 856  Back

142   WSC 72 [Royal Society of Chemistry] para 15 Back

143   Q 62 Back

144   Q 62 Back

145   Q 62 Back

146   Q 62 Back

147   WSC 90 [STFC WiSTEM NETWORK] para 5.3 Back

148   WSC 80 [IMarEST] para 3.3 Back

149   WSC 85 [BMA] para 10 Back

150   WSC 80 [The Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology (IMarEST)] para 3.7 Back

151   Yale News, Scientists not immune from gender bias, Yale study shows, Press Release, 24 September 2012  Back

152   WSC 18 [Dr Valerie Bevan and Professor Mark Learmonth] para 15 Back

153   WSC 18 [Dr Valerie Bevan and Professor Mark Learmonth ] para 17 Back

154   WSC13 [Portia Ltd] para 14 Back

155   WSC 73 [London Mathematical Society] para 5.7 Back

156   WSC 39 [Society for General Microbiology] para 3 Back

157   WSC41[DrKatherineSloyan]para12 Back

158   WSC19[CardiffUniversitywithcontributionsfromtheCardiffWomeninScienceNetwork]para26 Back

159   Forexample,WSC29[UCL]para22;WSC61[University of Stirling]para11;WSC44 [Imperial College London] para 17 Back

160   WSC14[TheUniversityofManchester]Para3.7 Back

161   Panels of high-level academics who search for good candidates for available posts Back

162   WSC 14 [The University of Manchester] Para 3.4 Back

163   WSC 14 [The University of Manchester] Para 3.4 Back

164   Equality and Human Rights Commission, Positive Action in Recruitment, http://www.equalityhumanrights.com  Back

165   Equality and Human Rights Commission, Positive Action in Recruitment, http://www.equalityhumanrights.com  Back

166   Equality and Human Rights Commission, Positive Action, http://www.equalityhumanrights.com  Back

167   WSC 75 [Girlguiding] para 15 Back

168   WSC 75 [Girlguiding] para 13 Back

169   WSC 42 [University of Oxford] para 26 Back

170   WSC 71 [Russell group equality forum] para 3 Back

171   WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para 14 Back

172   WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para 14 Back

173   WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para 14; WSC 80 [IMarEST] para 6.5 Back

174   WSC 91 [Wellcome Trust] para 23 Back

175   WSC 85 [British Medical Association] para 21 Back

176   WSC 88 [Queens University, Belfast] para 13 Back

177   WSC 42 [University of Oxford] para 26 Back

178   WSC 42 [University of Oxford] para 26 Back

179   WSC 59 [UCL Engineering] para 22 Back

180   WSC 59 [UCL Engineering] para 22 Back

181   WSC 102 [Open University] para 7 Back

182   WSC 102 [Open University] para 7 Back

183   WSC 95 [Royal Academy of Engineering] para 22 Back

184   WSC 41 [Dr Katherine Sloyan] para 9 Back

185   WSC 61 [University of Stirling] para 10 Back

186   WSC 61 [University of Stirling] para 10 Back

187   WSC49 [ScienceGrrl] para 12 Back

188   WSC 55 [Newcastle University] para 2.4 Back

189   WSC 80 [IMarEST] para 3.4 Back

190   WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit] para 9 Back

191   Equality Challenge Unit, Mentoring: progressing women's careers in higher education, April 2012, p.21 Back

192   WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit] para 8 Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2014
Prepared 6 February 2014