1. Researching Gender Equality
Charoula Tzanakou,
University of Warwick
Certifying equality

2. The context
Women still under-represented in specific subject areas and in senior posts (full professors and decision making posts)
UK: 17% of full professors were women in 2013
EU: higher growth of women at PhD level ;20% Grade A – full professors in all disciplines(SHE Figures, 2015)
Renewed emphasis on addressing gender inequalities in the workplace incl. academia
UK: Athena SWAN Charter (ECU)–pilot in other countries: Ireland/Australia
EU: Strategic engagement for gender equality
EU level funding of 6.17 billion Euros to address those aims

3. Athena SWAN Charter
Equality Challenge Unit (ECU)/2005 //members growth
Critical incident: Chief Executive of NIHR (2011) Silver Athena Award – eligibility criterion for funding
Institutional/departmental
Bronze/Silver/Gold (level of achievement)
STEMM – 2014: Arts/Humanities/Social sciences

5. PLOTINA
“Promoting gender balance and inclusion in research, innovation and training’
Horizon 2020 European project (4y duration)
10 partners, 6 RPOs: diversity
Self-assessment, design, implementation and evaluation of gender actions
Online library of actions – tools for evaluation
Quantitative (data analysis/surveys) +Qualitative (Interviews and focus groups)

6. Three overall objectives
Removing barriers to recruitment, retention and career progression
Improving decision making by addressing gender imbalances
Integrating the sex/gender dimension in research/teaching

7. Qualitative research
Focus groups with female postdocs and assistant/associate professors and staff responsible for Athena SWAN (6 – 32 individuals)
Interviews with senior leadership team, HR, academic staff (8 female, 8 male)

8. Impact of Athena SWAN
Independent evaluation by academic team (ECU commissioned)
positive (Munir et al., 2013)- women’s perceptions of improvement in their career development, top level support, positive change in the work environment and culture change
No measurable improvement in careers of female employed in UK medical schools (Gregory-Smith, 2015)
More research to be done - (Gregory-Smith, 2015) – lack of systematic research

9. Benefits of the Athena SWAN
Data collection – building up the case
“we found when we showed academics in particular the statistics they were quite shocked by them’ (Senior administrator, female)
Push for data not readily available or publicised
Enhanced visibility of women/diversity and gender equality
Makes people think about diversity and gender issues
Can affects attitudes - challenge behaviour
Allowed conversations – work-life, culture
New initiatives : summer/Easter schemes/conference fund, academic returners fellowship, networks for support

10. A critical review -issues
Awareness/communication of AS
Resources
Data
Capacities
Financial
Concerns about sustainability and future of AS

11. Awareness/communication of AS
Academic staff
not aware/not clear about Athena SWAN –what it is about
not clear what is the impact/effects – no change
Tricky issue: how to communicate it (resistance)
Those directly involved – mostly affected
Despite continuous communication and various initiatives

12. Resources Data resources (data systems in place and human capacity)
Human resources – capacity at departmental level
High workload already –time consuming process
Not allocating time for involvement
Women mostly engaged - burden
Financial resources
‘Quick wins; have been replicated by HEIs
Funding required to follow up with actions, understand what works, what is the ‘real’ impact

13. Future of AS Concerns Success rate of AS applications (ECU)
Goal posts moving – demotivating
“AS threshold becoming relative rather than absolute and that potentially becomes demoralising […]feeling that you missed goalposts because somebody moved them” (Senior leadership team, female)
Success rate of AS applications (ECU)
2013: Nov: 71%
2014 : April: 69% - Nov:73%
2015: April :56% - Nov: 70%
2016: April: 66% - Nov :63%
‘Self-serving self perpetuating mechanism’
Diversity fatigue – Box ticking exercise (change agents/institutional catalysts /leadership)

14. Conclusions
AS process has been overall beneficial in allowing conversations and making people to think about – possibly changing behaviors slowly
But there is an imperative (due to adoption in other countries) to critically investigate in a systematic way what has the been the impact of AS and the unintended consequences that the process might have on the institutional context
Limitations: intersectionality, binary, engagement
Binary – range of femininities/masculinities
Naïve that AS will solve gender equality issue
Deep rooted
Bigger issue than a single policy
Decisions of the self-assessment team on what is included – on other people’s perception or on what is important

15. Athena SWAN will not solve a deep rooted issue as gender inequality but how should Athena SWAN be used to contribute towards this??? How can we link our research with the Athena SWAN towards this aim? How do we want Athena SWAN to evolve?

16. THANK YOU. More info on PLOTINA: http://www. plotina
THANK YOU! More info on PLOTINA: