IoPP onscreen PowerPoint slides

1
Women in University Physics Departments
Peter MainDirector, Education and Science, IOP
Heads of Mathematics Departments
Meeting Birmingham3rd April 2007 peter.main_at_iop.
org, www.iop.org
2
Plan of Talk

• Background
• Site Visit Scheme
• Some observations
• Next Steps

3


Background

4
The Leaky Pipeline
5
Leaky Academia 1999, 2000 and 2001
6


The Scheme

7
The Scheme

• By invitation only. Heads of all physics
  departments were invited to participate, with a
  copy of the invitation sent to the VC
• Visiting panel of 5 (including 1 man) secretary
• Paperwork (sent beforehand) included admissions
  statistics, gender disaggregated student numbers,
  pass rates, staff handbook etc.
• Visited 17 physics departments in all.

8
The Visit

• Meeting with departmental management , admissions
  tutor, director of teaching, HR representative
  etc
• Meetings with
• Female academic staff (where there were no women
  physicists at all, we met with staff from cognate
  subjects)
• Male academic staff
• Female RAs and PGs
• Male RAs and PGs

9
The Visit

• Lunch with female UGs. No staff were present
• Laboratory tour
• Informal feedback at the end from the chair of
  the panel to the HoD
• Confidential written report is sent to HoD with
  recommendations.

10


Observations

11
Observations from the Data

• Wide variations in women students between HEIs.
• In some places intake ratio is much lower than
  application ratio not due to any explicit bias
  in admissions but with female applicants refusing
  offers.
• Ratio of women higher in universities where a
  higher proportion of the students live at home
  (the same was true for ethnic minorities)
• Men have a higher drop-out rate
• Women underrepresented in seminars and colloquia

12
Observations from the Visits

• The vast majority of departments were not
  monitoring statistics
• Departments without women suffer in many ways (eg
  admissions, role models). Male staff are usually
  aware of this but are very reluctant to do
  anything about it.
• The fact that the visit took place meant that
  gender issues were discussed, perhaps for the
  first time.

13
The Best Departments

• Sympathetic Head of Department (they were all
  male). In some cases, it was clear that former
  HoDs had been very biased.
• Male participation in family-friendly policies.
  If they did not, women felt they were perceived
  as letting the side down by, for example,
  taking maternity leave or fitting their hours
  around the nursery.
• A high fraction of young staff. Young fathers
  appreciate the problems but younger men are
  generally more sensitive to gender issues.

14
The Best Departments

• Mix of people from different countries. Welcoming
  diversity is a positive step.
• Women involved in senior management. But women
  were often disinclined to get involved because
  they found the prevailing attitudes so
  unpleasant.
• Strong, informal social networks for women. (In
  some places found that men had unconsciously
  created an uncomfortable atmosphere by being so
  friendly among themselves).

15
Important Issues

• Formal, transparent procedures at all levels.
• Recruitment (no secret discussions, women on
  interview panels)
• Promotion (major issue)
• Appraisal (particularly for RAs)
• Workload allocation
• Women on serious committees
• Career breaks

16
Important Issues

• Even successful female RAs and PGs did not want
  an academic career
• Not consistent with starting a family
• Average age of academic appointment is 35.
• Effect of multiple short term contacts
• Lack of a well-defined career structure
• Lack of good careers advice
• Lack of role models
• Long hours culture

17
Important Issues

• Childcare facilities were usually thought to be
  inadequate and, where they were good, did not
  have enough places. The best matched their hours
  to those of the university.
• Harassment. Although almost every place had a
  procedure for dealing with harassment, the panels
  were told of several cases, almost none of which
  had been dealt with in a satisfactory manner.

18


Next Steps

19

General Report

• General report highlighting the issues and
  disseminating good practice has been published
• Created a lot of interest amongst other learned
  societies

20

Next Steps Industry Site Visits

• Working with other professional organisations to
  introduce a similar scheme in industry
• It is much more difficult to operate the scheme
  in that environment!
• They will have to pay.

21

Next Steps JUNO Code of Practice

• Introducing a Code of Practice for physics
  departments, based on the site visits report.
  Linked closely to the Athena-Swan awards.
• Departments are Supporters if they aspire to
  the principles in the Code and Champions if
  they can provide evidence that they are following
  them.

22

JUNO Code of Practice Principles

• A robust organisational framework to deliver
  equality of opportunity and reward.
• Appointment, promotion and selection processes
  and procedures that encourage men and women to
  apply for academic posts at all levels.
• Departmental structures and systems which support
  and encourage the career progression of all staff
  and enable men and women to progress and continue
  in their careers.

23

JUNO Code of Practice Principles

• A departmental organisation, structure,
  management arrangements and culture that are
  open, inclusive and transparent and encourage the
  participation of all staff.
• Flexible approaches and provisions that
  encompass, the working day, the working year and
  a working life in SET and enable individuals, at
  all career and life stages, to maximise their
  contribution to SET, their department and
  institution.

24


Promoting physics, supporting physicists