Conclusions and recommendations
Business case for retention of women
in science
1. 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. (Paragraph 5)
2. 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. (Paragraph 7)
3. 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. (Paragraph
9)
The role of Government
4. 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. (Paragraph 13)
5. 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. (Paragraph 14)
6. 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.
(Paragraph 15)
7. 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. (Paragraph 17)
8. 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. (Paragraph 18)
Women in academia
9. 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. (Paragraph 29)
10. 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. (Paragraph 30)
11. 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. (Paragraph
31)
12. 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. (Paragraph 32)
13. 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. (Paragraph 37)
14. 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.
(Paragraph 38)
15. 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. (Paragraph 39)
The nature and funding of research
careers
16. Balancing
the benefits of short term contracts with the needs of Post-Doctoral
Researchers was examined by our predecessor committee in 2002.
We are disappointed at the lack of progress in the last decade.
The system of short term employment contracts for post-docs results
in job insecurity and discontinuity of employment rights that
is difficult for any researcher, but disproportionally deters
women from continuing with science careers. It also has implications
for workforce productivity. (Paragraph 45)
17. We
are pleased that some research funders are recognising the benefits
of long term contracts to academic careers and encourage others
to follow this example. We encourage Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) to provide longer term posts for post-docs, recognising
the benefit to scientific progress of continuing expertise. (Paragraph
46)
18. We
recommend that the Government should work with the Higher Education
sector to review the academic career structure and increase the
number of more stable and permanent post-doc positions. (Paragraph
47)
19. International
collaboration brings benefits to science but requiring researchers
to relocate is not the only way to promote it. We suggest that
research funders should remove from fellowship conditions any
requirements for researchers to move institute or country and
instead provide funding for shorter visits to other institutes
for collaboration purposes. We recommend that research funders
work with HEIs to create funding for permanent post-doc positions.
(Paragraph 48)
20. Wherever
possible, HEIs should provide three months of bridging funding
for post-docs, to allow them time to apply for new contracts.
(Paragraph 49)
21. We
appreciate that funding from research councils and the REF must
be based on scientific and research excellence and support the
continuation of this principle. We are satisfied that HECFE takes
seriously the issue of monitoring the gender impact of the REF.
(Paragraph 53)
22. We
recommend that HEIs and heads of research groups should ensure
that important non-research activities are recognised in performance
appraisals and promotion boards. (Paragraph 54)
23. There
appears to be a lack of coordination and communication between
research funders and HEIs which, exacerbated by the use of short
term contracts, results in women falling into cracks in the funding
system when maternity support is required. Research funders need
to make their maternity provisions clearer to researchers and
their employers. (Paragraph 58)
24. We
have recommended a review of the academic careers system which
should examine how to better support women taking maternity leave
and help them integrate back into the workplace. A move towards
longer-term employment of academic researchers should encourage
maternity provisions in line with other employment sectors. (Paragraph
59)
Management of research careers by
higher education institutions
25. We
support the shared parental leave system being proposed by the
Children and Families Bill, as shared parental leave is an important
step towards creating equality for everyone in the workplace.
However, simply introducing a new system will not in itself change
workplace attitudes towards maternity, or the difficulties caused
by taking parental leave. Academia will still need to address
the real and perceived career damage which can be caused by taking
parental leave. (Paragraph 60)
26. All
HEIs should review the working hours of their academic staff and
the management of research groups to ensure that practices are
in keeping with the needs of those employees with caring responsibilities.
Such matters should not be devolved down to research groups. Line
managers who pressure staff into working unreasonably long working
hours should be held to account by their employer. In addition,
every academic researcher should have a named contact within the
HEI's human resources team to whom they can confidentially direct
queries. (Paragraph 62)
27. Scientific
research cannot always take place within regular working hours.
However, we recommend that research departments should determine
and operate appropriate core working hours with flexibility outside
of those core hours. This would ensure that most staff members
are available for key meetings while ensuring that those with
caring responsibilities are not disproportionately disadvantaged.
Fellowships and academic positions should be advertised with the
option of working part time unless there are insurmountable obstacles
to such an arrangement. (Paragraph 63)
28. A
key way to increase the participation of women in STEM careers
is to enable them to return following career breaks. We are pleased
that the Government is providing financial support to the Daphne
Jackson Trust so that it can develop a new fellowship in engineering.
We encourage more HEIs to sponsor and host Daphne Jackson Fellows.
(Paragraph 66)
29. Careers
advice and support for academic STEM researchers is important
for both men and women, but a lack of it can affect women disproportionately.
HEIs and learned societies should encourage mentoring, support
networks and seminars at the research group level and monitor
this practice. We note that such activities are encouraged by
the Athena SWAN charter. (Paragraph 69)
30. Authoritative
and impartial careers advice on options outside academia should
be available to all undergraduate and postgraduate students, as
well as researchers. (Paragraph 70)
31. Identifying
the reasons why staff choose to end their employment in an organisation
is crucial to identifying and challenging where poor behaviours
and practices may exist. We are disappointed that information
on the reasons why women leave academic STEM careers is patchy
and largely anecdotal. (Paragraph 74)
32. Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) should routinely conduct exit interviews
and/or questionnaires with all researchers leaving their employment.
Each HEI should publish this data in a suitably anonymised form
so that organisations working to improve diversity in STEM can
make use of it. Organisations such as the WISE Campaign, Equality
Challenge Unit and national academies should advise HEIs on the
best way to gather and publish this data in a consistent manner.
(Paragraph 75)
Conclusions
33. Our
inquiry has not uncovered any new issues on the topic of gender
diversity in STEM subjects. This indicates that the problems and
solutions have long been identified, yet not enough is being done
to actively improve the situation. While competitiveness for jobs
is beneficial for science, careers should not be constructed in
such a way that talented women are deterred from remaining and
progressing in STEM. It is astonishing that despite clear imperatives
and multiple initiatives to improve diversity in STEM, women still
remain under-represented at senior levels across every discipline.
(Paragraph 76)
34. The
under-representation of women in STEM is caused by a wide range
of factors. Emphasis is often placed on inspiring young girls
to choose science, which is commendable, but such efforts are
wasted if women are then disproportionately disadvantaged in scientific
careers compared to men. It is disappointing that biases and working
practices result in systematic and cumulative discrimination against
women throughout STEM study and academic careers. (Paragraph 77)
35. Universities
and other HEIs are the employers of academic STEM researchers
so they have ultimate responsibility for employment conditions
and the greatest obligation to improve STEM careers for all researchers.
While there are many examples of good practice in diversity management,
some HEIs appear to be too content to devolve responsibility for
working hours, careers support and promotion down to research
groups. More standardisation is required across the higher education
(HE) sector. We encourage all HEIs conducting STEM research to
apply for Athena SWAN awards, or similar recognised schemes. (Paragraph
78)
|