MONEY talks. That makes it an obvious tool with which to tackle the dearth of women in senior science positions. Now, academic institutions that win awards for tackling gender inequality are front runners for funding 鈥� an incentive if there ever was one. But does this system address the deeper, cultural challenges faced by women in science?
Women make up roughly half of the UK鈥檚 science, engineering and technology undergraduates, and just over 40 per cent of research postgraduates. At the senior level, however, the percentage falls dramatically. Just .
聯Women make up half of the UK鈥檚 science graduates, but 16.5 per cent of professors聰
Advertisement
A lack of policies supporting equal opportunities and the nature of the academic working environment are held responsible for this 鈥�leaky pipeline鈥�. The long hours put those who need to work flexibly or part-time at a disadvantage, making it difficult for female scientists to take career breaks to have children. At the same time, unconscious bias against women is rife in the scientific community. Even other .
The loss of female scientists could be hampering research, says Helen Wollaston, director of , a campaign to increase the proportion of women in science, technology, engineering and maths. 鈥淚t鈥檚 about getting the best brains working in science,鈥� she says. 鈥淚f you鈥檙e only attracting half of the population, then obviously you鈥檙e missing out on potential talent.鈥�
聯If you鈥檙e only attracting half of the population then you are missing out on talent聰
This is the logic behind 鈥� a charter launched by female academics in 2005 to tackle gender inequalities in science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine. So far, 97 universities and research institutes have signed up for the initiative. These members are eligible for bronze, silver and gold awards, depending on their progress. To be awarded bronze, for example, an institution must collect data on their workforce, identify barriers faced by women and formulate an action plan to overcome them. Silver awards are granted to those that implement such a plan, and provide evidence on its effectiveness. Gold awards are reserved for institutions that demonstrate sustained good practice, and which can be described as 鈥渃hampions for gender equality鈥�. Individual departments within the universities can apply for their own awards. An award lasts for three years, after which it must be renewed.
The promise of another accolade encouraged the slow and steady adoption of the charter. But things really kicked into gear when the Department of Health dropped a bombshell in 2011: . Frenzy ensued at Athena SWAN headquarters as the number of applications trebled.
Other funding bodies are following suit. In October last year, the Department of Business, Innovation & Skills announced a . And in January 2013, Research Councils UK issued a , hinting that making funds available exclusively to Athena SWAN award holders was a possibility in the future.
The resulting increase in the number of institutions signing up to the charter and gaining awards seems to be great news for boosting gender equality in science. The initiative provides universities with a clear framework for setting objectives, developing a strategy and monitoring its impact, says Wollaston. 鈥淚t lays the foundations for cultural change,鈥� she says.
But is this cultural change actually taking effect? Katie Perry, chief executive of the , which offers support to scientists returning to work after career breaks, thinks so. 鈥淚鈥檝e seen a marked difference in the attitudes of senior management groups towards equality issues,鈥� she says. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think they took them seriously four years ago, whereas now they all do.鈥�
There are certainly success stories out there. Cardiff University鈥檚 medical school, for example, was one of the departments spurred into action by the NIHR funding announcement. Last year, the department received a bronze award for researching equality in the workforce and finding, for instance, that only 37 per cent of applications for promotions came from women. In response, the school introduced professional development workshops and mentorships aimed at female staff members. 鈥淭he Athena SWAN process has facilitated discussions about equality in a way that has not been possible before,鈥� says , who researches cancer and genetics at the school.
However, the system isn鈥檛 perfect, and some people are concerned that the allure of funding could shift an institution鈥檚 focus onto getting an award rather than genuinely committing to gender equality. 鈥淭he mentality is that you get an Athena SWAN award by saying X, Y and Z, but not necessarily doing it,鈥� says an equality and diversity advocate working in higher education, who wishes to remain anonymous. It is also becoming more common for a department鈥檚 human resources team to handle the application process, rather than the academics themselves, she says. As a result, the academic staff can lose ownership of the process and fail to fully embrace the principles of the award. 鈥淭he HR team can impose change on a department, but if the department doesn鈥檛 own those changes, then the cultural change won鈥檛 happen,鈥� she says.
Athena SWAN manager disputes the claim. 鈥淲hen you look at the make-up of the teams that put the submissions together, it shows that the academic community is owning it,鈥� she says. Brennan, who has helped assess award applications, believes that those made solely by HR teams are easy to spot. 鈥淗R tend to be generic in their approach,鈥� he says. 鈥淪o you have to look at how bespoke the action plan is to the department.鈥�
Perry, who also assesses applications, agrees. 鈥淚t is clear if the applicants are treating it as a tick-box exercise,鈥� she says, although she admits that her judgements are based on gut feeling.
Maintaining a watertight process will be even more important as departments become reliant on an award for funding. 鈥淭here may well be appeals to the awards and questions about the process,鈥� says Brennan. With this in mind, the , which now manages the Athena SWAN charter, is developing an appeals process that will allow applicants to report procedural irregularities or contest a panel decision.
Another challenge for Athena is keeping up the momentum it has now created. 鈥淚t鈥檚 also absolutely vital that people don鈥檛 think 鈥業鈥檝e got my bronze award now I can sit back and do nothing鈥�,鈥� says , a physicist at the University of Cambridge who . 鈥淭he next challenge is to make sure that people go on aspiring, and keep raising the bar.鈥�
Perry believes that real change is on the horizon. 鈥淭here were little pockets of good practice around the country,鈥� she says. 鈥淏ut now we鈥檙e almost at the point where all the dots are being joined up.鈥�
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淐heques and balances鈥�