institute of psychiatry, psychology and neuroscience · pdf fileecr early career researcher...

Athena SWAN Silver Department Award Application

Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience

28 November 2014

Celebrating academic success at the IoPPN

Athena SWAN Silver department award application

Name of university: King’s College London

Department: Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience

Date of application: November 2014

Date of university Bronze and/or Silver Athena SWAN award: King’s Bronze award 2008, renewed in April 2013

Contact for application: Professor Elizabeth Kuipers

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: 0207 848 0231

Departmental website address: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn

Athena SWAN Silver Department awards recognise that in addition to university‐wide policies the department is working to promote gender equality and to address challenges particular to the discipline.

Not all institutions use the term ‘department’ and there are many equivalent academic groupings with different names, sizes and compositions. The definition of a ‘department’ for SWAN purposes can be found on the Athena SWAN website. If in doubt, contact the Athena SWAN Officer well in advance to check eligibility.

It is essential that the contact person for the application is based in the department.

Sections to be included

At the end of each section state the number of words used. Click here for additional guidance on completing the template.

1

*Please note we were given an extra 1000 words because of the size of our Faculty*

Acronyms

APF Academic Performance Framework

AS Athena SWAN

BMS Biomedical Sciences

BRC Biomedical Research Centre

CDN MRC Centre for Developmental Neurobiology

DClinPsy Doctorate in Clinical Psychology

ECR Early Career Researcher

FTC Fixed Term Contract

GPC Good Practice Checklist (ratings of organisational and cultural practice to improve women’s experience at work)

HR Human Resources

ICAM Institute Central Administration Meeting

IE Institute Executive

IMB Institute Management Board

IoP Institute of Psychiatry

IoPPN Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience

iBSc Intercalated Bachelor of Science degree

King’s King’s College London

NIHR BRC/U National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit

PDN Post‐Doctoral Network

PDR Performance Development Review

PGR Post‐graduate Research

PGT Post‐graduate Taught

post‐doc Post‐doctoral researcher

RDU Researcher Development Unit

SAT Self‐Assessment Team

SLaM

South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust

WISE Women in Science and Engineering

Wolfson CARD Wolfson Centre for Age Related Diseases

2

Letter of endorsement from the head of department: maximum 500 words

An accompanying letter of endorsement from the head of department should explain how the SWAN action plan and activities in the department contribute to the overall department strategy and academic mission.

The letter is an opportunity for the head of department to confirm their support for the application and to endorse and commend any women and STEMM activities that have made a significant contribution to the achievement of the departmental mission.

Word count: 510

3

2. The self‐assessment process: maximum 1000 words

Describe the self‐assessment process. This should include:

a) A description of the self assessment team: members’ roles (both within the departmentand as part of the team) and their experiences of work‐life balance

The Institute of Psychiatry (IoP), a Faculty of King’s College London (King’s), became the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN) on 1st September 2014. To ensure changes are embedded throughout we have representatives on the IoPPN self assessment team (SAT) from all 14 departments, comprising 19 women and nine men (reflecting the 70% female junior staff) from all grades and also post‐docs (Table 1). Departments are now in three divisions (Section 3a) so we will reorganise the committee by the end of 2015 and recruit more male members. Action 1.1

The SAT includes nine women and six men with experience of parenting, and nine women with experience of other caring responsibilities. All SAT members now sit on their departmental management team. Professors Elizabeth Kuipers and Ann McNeill co‐chair the committee, and our Executive Dean, Professor Shitij Kapur, is a member. Ms Tina Donnelly managed the AS project from 2012 to December 2013 and in May 2013, the Institute invested in a full time projects officer, Ms Sabina Khanom. From 2013, we have had a dedicated annual AS budget of £60,000.

Table 1. An outline of SAT members’ roles and experiences of work‐life balance

Member Job title SAT role/IoPPN department Relevant experience

Richard Brown

Professor in Neuropsychology & Clinical Neuroscience and Head of Department (clinical)

Psychology Previous experience juggling work and child care demands.

Paola Dazzan Reader in the Neurobiology of Psychosis (clinical)

BRC joint rep (Psychosis Studies)

Balancing career/family with maintaining links as a long‐distance carer.

Susan Duty

Reader in Pharmacology & Neuroscience (non‐clinical)

Wolfson CARD

Two periods of maternity leave. Ongoing caring responsibilities. Works full time one day a week working from home. Recently promoted.

Christine Ecker Lecturer in Neuroimaging (non‐clinical)

Forensic & Neurodevelopmental Science

Informal flexible working arrangement.

Alice Egerton Senior Lecturer (non‐clinical)

Psychosis Studies

Previous part‐time working. Formal flexible full time working. Maternity leave. Recently promoted.

6

Thalia Eley

Professor of Developmental Behavioural Genetics (non‐clinical)

MRC Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Centre

Has three young children worked part‐time and increased to full time over four years. Flexible working. Recently promoted.

Caroline Formstone

Wellcome Trust Career Re‐Entry Fellow (non‐clinical)

MRC Centre for Developmental Neurobiology

Two periods of maternity leave, one for one year, four day working week as a post‐doc (over four years) and then a six year career break until late 2011.

Diane Hanger Reader in Neuroscience (non‐clinical)

Neuroscience Three periods of maternity leave. Ongoing caring responsibilities.

Lara Harris Postdoctoral Research Worker (non‐clinical)

Psychological Medicine Experience of informal flexible working.

Matthew Hotopf

Professor of General Hospital Psychiatry; Director of NIHR BRC (clinical)

NIHR BRC for Mental Health Flexible working, parental responsibilities.

Louise Howard Professor of Women's Mental Health (clinical)

Health Service & Population Research

Previously worked part‐time, two maternity leaves.

Shitij Kapur

Professor of Professor of Schizophrenia, Imaging and Therapeutics (clinical)

Executive Dean and Head of Institute

Parental responsibilities.

Sabina Khanom Projects Officer (professional services)

AS Professional Services lead

Carer responsibilities.

Elizabeth Kuipers Professor of Clinical Psychology (clinical)

Psychology/Chair of SAT

Brought up three children while working part‐time and full time. Carer responsibilities.

Sabine Landau Professor of Biostatistics (non‐clinical)

Biostatistics Recent experience of the institution’s promotion process.

Natalie Marchant Lecturer in Old Age Psychiatry (non‐clinical)

Old Age Psychiatry Part‐time carer responsibilities.

Lee McNally HR Manager (professional services)

Human Resources Dual career family.

Ann McNeill Professor of Tobacco Addiction (non‐clinical)

Addictions/Co‐Chair of SAT

Has worked part‐time and full time in and outside academia; two children; carer responsibilities.

7

Alex Nicholls

Campus Operations Manager (professional services)

Estates Parental responsibilities.

Juliana Onwumere Lecturer (clinical) Psychology Balancing significant carer responsibilities and work. Flexible working.

Annalisa Pastore

Professor of Molecular Basis of Neurodegeneration (non‐clinical)

Clinical Neuroscience Carer responsibilities.

Louise Pratt

Public Relations & Communications Manager (professional services)

Communications Carer responsibilities.

Martina Sattlecker

Post‐doctoral researcher development champion (non‐clinical)

Post‐Doc Network lead Dual career family.

Sukhi Shergill Professor of Psychiatry & Systems Neuroscience (clinical)

Psychosis Studies Recently promoted.

Argyris Stringaris Clinical Senior Lecturer (clinical)

Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Has a two‐year old and expecting twins.

Graham Thornicroft

Professor of Community Psychiatry clinical)

Health Service & Population Research

Previously job shared and has taken a career break.

Sandrine Thuret Lecturer in Neural Stem Cell Research (non‐clinical)

Neuroscience Two young children, supportive senior lecturer husband.

Federico Turkheimer

Professor in Neuroimaging Analysis & Statistics (clinical)

Neuroimaging Dual career family.

b) an account of the self assessment process: details of the self assessment team meetings, including any consultation with staff or individuals outside of the university, and how these have fed into the submission

8

Figure 1. Current SAT committee, October 2014

The SAT (Figure 1) first convened in September 2012 and monthly during term‐time thereafter. The Wolfson Centre for Age Related Diseases (CARD) and MRC Centre for Developmental Neurobiology (CDN) joined in December 2013. We have aligned action plans over the past nine months, however for clarity we present some departmental data separately. The IoPPN three‐year action plan includes both Institute‐wide and department‐specific actions e.g. Action 5.1

The SAT Chair, (1.5 days a week AS), SAT Co‐Chair (one day a week AS) and projects officer (full time AS), meet weekly. The Executive Dean of the IoPPN meets the projects officer fortnightly and the SAT Chair and Co‐Chair every six weeks. Professor Kuipers is a member of the IMB and AS is a standing item at IMB and all faculty, divisional and departmental meetings.

Figure 2 Milestones of the self‐assessment process

July 2012 to 2013 (Year 1)

SAT formed reporting monthly to IMB (Sept 12)

Baseline data collection and analysis: staff data from previous 3 years, Good Practice Checklist, first academic staff survey data (Dec 12‐ Feb 13)

‘Inspiring Women’ biannual initiative launched: inaugural event with Keynote from Dame Sally Davies and launch of ‘Inspiring Women’ photographic portrait exhibition (Mar 13 ‐ ongoing)

Committee structure assessed and recommendations made to increase diversity (Apr 13)

Focus group with staff who had recently taken a career break (May 13)

Promotion and Performance Development Review workshops (May 13)

AS webpages launched (Jun 13)

July 2013 to 2014 (Year 2)

Academic Mentoring lead in place and mentoring launched (Sept ‐ Oct 13)

All 14 departments rate departmental check list and re‐rate after 12 months (Sept ‐ Oct 13)

Faculty grant writing workshops begin (Sept 13 ‐ Jul 14)

Mothering room refurbished and re‐launched (Oct 13 ‐ Jan 14)

Parent Network lead in place and Inaugural Parent Coffee morning held (Jan ‐ Feb 14)

First Faculty (rather than departmental) induction held for all new staff (Feb 14)

Re‐audit of committee membership (Feb 14)

AS Intranet pages launched (May 14)

9

July 2014 to November 2014 (Year 3)

Restructuring at King’s influenced by AS principles (see section 1 and section 3a) (May 14)

SAT re‐rated the Good Practice Checklist (Jul 14)

Staff invited to complete new King’s exit interviews as they leave (Aug 14 onwards)

Three focus groups held with those who had taken a career break/mat leave/flexible working; post‐doc development; promotion/workload issues (Sept 14)

Departmental checklists re‐rated (Sept ‐ Oct 14)

Step into leadership initiative launched to increase number of women on IMB (Oct 14)

Flexible working and career break workshops and intranet pages (Nov 14)

AS roadshow (Nov 14)

Data collection and development of SAT strategies

First, the SAT collected baseline data in order to understand the issues, identify priorities for change, and to assess change over time. We used: quantitative and qualitative data from the 2012 staff survey (Section 5) and assessed for significant differences by gender and seniority; the GPC to look at institutional practice; and staff data from 2010‐12. The SAT immediately worked on high priority actions, for example: increasing places on our Early Career Faculty Development Series, launching local promotion workshops and refurbishing the mothering room. A focus group was held in May 2013 for career break returners to further inform our actions.

In June 2013 our recommendations were accepted by the IMB: our baseline report; our 11 point Faculty action plan, which focussed on our priority actions identified in the survey and the GPC; and a departmental checklist with five key areas for implementation by departments.

The 11 point action plan was circulated and departmental AS meetings held to raise awareness of the report, action plans and SAT representative’s role. Both the 11 point action plan and departmental checklists have been successfully implemented over the last 18 months meaning all the changes have been embedded. In November 2013 the SAT won a prestigious King’s Award for the changes they had already made.

Wolfson CARD and CDN carried out a staff survey in July‐August 2013, used a shortened version of the GPC, and implemented the 11 point action plan and departmental checklist from November 2013.

In September 2014, we commissioned an independent organisation to conduct and analyse three further focus groups with Faculty staff (post‐doc to professor), to explore the impact of our changes on career breaks, promotion, grant workshops, workload and flexible working. We found that participants were well aware of the SAT, understood SAT actions and appreciated the changes made to their work‐life balance and across the Faculty. Impact was specifically noted on committee structures, promotion, appraisal process and mothering facilities. Issues that were still causing problems such as the promotion process and workload, were reported to the IMB. These and our recent audits of the GPC and departmental checklists informed our new three‐year action plan, out of which we will develop new departmental checklists and re‐audit the GPC. One of our priorities is to run a second staff survey, a year after the IoPPN was formed. Action 2.5, 2.6; 7.1 and 7.2b

10

Table 2 shows a summary of the development and implementation of the action plans and the changes achieved:

Table 2. Summary of action plans and their outcomes 2012‐2014

Name of Action Plan

Description Process and Outcomes

Good Practice Checklist

90 item version of the Good Practice checklist (Oxford Research and Policy version)

2013: SAT rated current Faculty practice.

July 2014: repeated ‘blind’ rating in a sub‐group, discussed and agreed across the SAT.

We have evidenced substantial changes in our institutional practices over this time: from 66% of poor or not ‘on the radar’ practice we now have 98% adequate and above (Section 5). The 2014 results informed and helped us to prioritise our three‐year action plan. Action 2.6

11 point action plan

AS Faculty‐level action plan with 11 areas of action, each with an identified lead. 16 SMART actions in total, for example mentoring, grant writing workshops, promotion workshops, career break support, PDR completion, flexible working, webpages.

June 2013: agreed with SAT and IMB.

July 2013: formal launch; some actions had already been implemented.

We have implemented all 11 of our proposed actions.

Departmental checklist

Departmental‐level action plan to help departments implement and share good practice. 14 actions in five key areas: Organisation and Culture, Appointment and Selection, Career Development, Promotion and Workplace Flexibility.

July 2013: agreed with our SAT, IMB and each departmental head and business manager.

Sept 2013: Checklists disseminated to all departments in order to rate themselves on each action as: ‘we currently do this’, ‘we can implement this over the next 12 months’, or ‘we would like advice on how to do this’.

Dec 2013 and Sept 2014: audits. While some departments already had good systems in 2013 many did not. All departments have now implemented five key areas. Initiatives that are not embedded have been included in our new three‐year action plan. Action 7.2b

Three‐year action plan

AS Faculty‐level action plan for 2015, 2016 and 2017.

2015: This and a new departmental check list for our three divisions and their Vice Deans to implement as priority component of their role.

11

Internal communication and AS profile

We report our progress on the AS intranet and external web pages, in the bi‐termly Executive Dean’s updates for all Faculty staff (both electronic newsletter and IoPPN forum) and via divisional, departmental and Faculty meetings. We also have a communications plan which includes all staff emails, publishing web stories and signposting events and news using all forms of media. We run a termly AS Roadshow in our canteen giving both students and staff an opportunity to give feedback, learn about progress, new plans and initiatives, and tell us about any on‐going bad practice. We have worked with King’s AS Project Manager (Jo Lawton), Diversity and Organisational Development team, and will continue to raise our SAT profile and initiatives throughout IoPPN. Action 1.2 a‐d

External communication

SAT representatives have attended and fed back to us on a range of AS workshops including the London and Eastern Regional Network, seminars and discussions held at Equality Challenge Unit and other universities. We received detailed feedback on our silver application from three external University AS SAT members (Prof Judith Rankin, Athena Lead at Newcastle University; Ms Tina Donnelly, Athena lead at Heriot Watt; Professor Helen Killaspy at UCL) and Rachel Tobbell (Parigen Limited).

Silver submission process

To write this application, a SAT writing sub‐group met six times April to November 2014, with discussions also held via email. From September to November 2014, the SAT met fortnightly. A draft submission was circulated in October 2014 to the SAT, IMB and King’s AS Project Manager; and made available to all departments to allow everyone time to consider our plans and comment, and to ensure a transparent and inclusive process. We incorporated all feedback into this submission.

c) Plans for the future of the self assessment team, such as how often the team will continueto meet, any reporting mechanisms and in particular how the self assessment team intendsto monitor implementation of the action plan.

The SAT will meet monthly during term‐time and representatives will continue to sit on their department management boards and report monthly to the IMB, as well as to a new Institute Executive (IE). We will also disseminate good practice via reports to our Champions Network and to the King’s AS steering group.

The impact of our 3‐year action plan will be ascertained through another staff survey (October 2015 and then annually thereafter Action 2.5; and through event, induction and exit interview feedback. We will ensure implementation of our plans by consulting with the Post‐doc Network (see section 4), departmental checklist monitoring and by examining staff data e.g. promotion by gender, committee gender balance. We will use Red, Amber, Green reports and re‐rate our GPC in 2017 Action 2.6.

Word count: 1733 (including Figure 2 and Table 2)

12

3. A picture of the department: maximum 2000 words

a) Provide a pen‐picture of the department to set the context for the application, outlining in particular any significant and relevant features.

The IoP opened in 1923 and in 1997 became a School, now Faculty, of King’s College London. In September 2014 the IoP, Wolfson CARD and CDN merged to form the IoPPN, which is the largest academic community in Europe dedicated to increasing the understanding of how the mind and the brain work. The IoPPN pioneers research into new and improved ways of understanding, preventing and treating mental illness and brain disease; and offers advanced research training for psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists and other scientific and paramedical workers. It ranks second in the world in psychiatry/psychology citations.

IoPPN has over 600 academics and research staff, a research income of approximately £50M, and an overall turnover approaching £100M. The Faculty is led by Executive Dean Professor Shitij Kapur, the Executive Dean of Education, Professor Susan Lea and three Vice Deans who head up three new divisions: Neuroscience (Professor Mark Richardson); Psychiatry (Professor Tony David); and Psychology & Systems Sciences (Professor Til Wykes). Within divisions, 14 Departments (Figure 3) are located in two campuses in South London, Denmark Hill and Guy’s Hospital. We hold meetings and workshops at both campuses.

Figure 3. IoPPN structure and NIHR BRC/U

*

*The NIHR BRC/U is not a department: members are part of other IoPPN departments and also from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM).

13

A defining feature of the Institute is its partnership with the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM), which has an international reputation for training clinicians and developing and disseminating new treatments. 25% (127/513) of academic staff at the former IoP in 2012‐13 had clinical sessions as part of their job (see Table 6) the majority in SLaM. The lead and one of the deputies of the BRC is a member of our SAT. The BRC is fully supportive of the AS agenda.

Restructuring by King’s June to September 2014.

In June 2014 King’s announced that it would need to make reductions in staff costs due to the removal of capital funding, through the restructuring of three health Faculties. The IoPPN SAT made recommendations regarding process and, mindful of the values of our AS programme of work, King’s took the following measures using a variant of REF methodology (see Section 5), which had previously helped to ensure women were treated fairly and to ensure that the processes were as transparent as possible:

1. King’s considered the criteria on a pro‐rata basis for all staff who worked part‐time, had maternity or other caring responsibilities or sick leave

2. King’s undertook a full equalities impact assessment at each stage of the process.

3. King’s tracked any impact on groups with protected characteristics to ensure that any necessary corrective actions can be taken if unexpected issues arise

4. All of the King’s panel members who reviewed staff had undertaken unconscious bias training. The panel comprised four men and four women and one member had an exclusive AS remit. King’s included mechanisms to ensure staff at risk could disclose any complex circumstances in confidence.

The Chair, Co‐Chair and other members of the SAT offered support and local workshops to affected members of staff.

As a result, our data show that women were not at more risk than men in this process. To date, around 20 staff are still ‘at risk’ of redundancy, less than half are women.

b) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning.

Student data

(i) Numbers of males and females on access or foundation courses – comment on the data and describe any initiatives taken to attract women to the courses.

The Institute does not offer access or foundation courses.

(ii) Undergraduate male and female numbers – full and part‐time – comment on the female: male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the impact to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.

14

We only have one undergraduate course, an intercalated 1‐year BSc (iBSc) in Psychology, which is an additional degree for King’s and external students currently enrolled on Medical, Dental or Veterinary programmes or a module for BSc Biomedical Sciences. Data show no particular gender imbalances when compared with the combined national average for all Psychology and Medicine courses (Table 3): the national average for UG Psychology courses was 79.6% and in UG Medicine 56.3% in 2011/12 (HEIDI). The proportion of women has shown a small decline from 2010, so we will continue to monitor this, along with admissions and uptake to our new BSc Psychology course, starting September 2015 Action 2.1

Table 3. Number of female and male UG students on the intercalated iBSc Psychology programme

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Female 25 22 21

Male 4 6 9

% Female 86% 79% 70%

(iii) Postgraduate male and female numbers completing taught courses – full and part‐time – comment on the female: male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.

Approximately three‐quarters of full‐time and two‐thirds of our part‐time postgraduates on taught courses (PGT) are female and these percentages have been consistent over the last three years, even with increasing numbers of students (Table 4). The courses cover specific clinical and specialist diplomas and MSc degrees, such as mental health sciences, addiction science, mindfulness, neuroimaging, and do not have a readily accessible national comparison group; we looked at national PGT biological sciences as a benchmark (68.4% women, HEIDI 2011/12 data), which suggest no specific issues at present. Currently King’s does not track completion rates, so we have added this to our Action plan. Action 3.2

There are no PGT programmes in Wolfson CARD and CDN.

Table 4. Number of fulltime and part‐time female and male PGT students

PGT

Year Female FT/PT

Male FT/PT

% Female FT/PT

2010/11 249/ 154 82/ 84 75%/ 65%

2011/12 281/ 156 82/ 77 77%/ 67%

2012/13 352/ 160 96/ 84 79%/ 66%

15

(iv) Postgraduate male and female numbers on research degrees – full and part‐time – comment on the female: male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.

Approximately two‐thirds of postgraduates on research degrees (PGRs) at the IoP, both part and full‐time, are women (Table 5). We looked in detail at the data for each of the 25 degree programmes. The only research degree where there is a minority of women is the Neuroimaging PGR programme (25% women in 2012/13). This recruits students from Mathematics and Physics which typically have around 20% of women undergraduates. We will link with these disciplines to increase recruitment of females to our courses and continue to monitor the proportion of females for PGR courses. Action 3.2

In Wolfson CARD and CDN, over 70% of full‐time PGRs are women. There are no part‐time PGR males, and female part‐time PGRs are all technicians. We will monitor this. Action 3.2

Table 5. Number of full time and part‐time female and male PGR students at the IoP, Wolfson CARD and CDN

IoP PGR Wolfson CARD & CDN PGR

Year

Female Male % Female

FT/PT


FT/PT FT/PT FT/PT FT/PT FT/PT

2010/11 113/ 70 55/ 34 67%/ 67% 47/ 4 20/0 70%/ 100%

2011/12 92/ 58 58/ 33 61%/ 64% 47/ 3 14/0 77%/ 100%

2012/13 111/ 61 58/ 35 66%/ 64% 49/ 2 17/0 74%/ 100%

(v) Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender for undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research degrees – comment on the differences between male and female application and success rates and describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and their effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.

iBSc Psychology (UG) admissions data have not previously been recorded by gender at King’s. This was done only for offers and acceptances. Given the patterns so far, it seems likely there will not be large discrepancies, but we will collect and assess these data from now on. Action 2.1 PGT applications, offers and acceptances

PGT numbers are currently stable with a majority of women applying, being offered places and being accepted (Figure 4). There are no PGT programmes in Wolfson CARD and CDN.

16

Figure 4. Number of female and male application, offers and acceptances for IoP PGT programmes

PGR applications, offers and acceptances

For the DClinPsy course, IoPPN applications are dealt with nationally and not by King’s admissions. They are NHS commissioned and funded, and the degree does not have classifications. The numbers (around 22 per year, 82‐95% women) are included in the general figures for PGR.

For the remaining PGRs, admission is done locally (Figure 5), and there appears to have been a drop in 2011/12 in the proportion of women, although due to a new education strategy, there was a huge increase in applicants in 2012/3, of whom around two thirds of women were accepted. At Wolfson CARD and CDN, monitoring of applications, offers and acceptances by gender had not been routinely performed. We will now do this because they are part of the IoPPN. Action 3.2

1154 581 423 1179 625 435 1316 737 479

338 206 149 359 208 148 413 233 147

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Appl

ican

ts

Off

er

Acce

pt

Appl

ican

ts

Off

er

Acce

pt

Appl

ican

ts

Off

er

Acce

pt

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

PGT Recruitment over time

Men

Women

17

Figure 5. Number of female and male application, offers and acceptances for IoP PGR programmes

(vi) Degree classification by gender – comment on any differences in degree attainment between males and females and describe what actions are being taken to address any imbalance.

Intercalated Psychology (iBSc)(UG). Not all students are given a separate degree classification and these data are therefore excluded. From the information available, there appears to be a decrease in the proportion of first class degrees achieved by women from 89% in 2010/11 to 60% in 2012/3 (Figure 6). However, the gender balance of the course has changed, and the proportion of all women on the course getting firsts, has remained approximately a third, apart from 2011/2. We will monitor this. Action 2.1

161 22 21 139 36 35530 65 62

84 11 11 94 30 29326 33 30

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Appl

ican

ts

Off

er

Acce

pt

Appl

ican

ts

Off

er

Acce

pt

Appl

ican

ts

Off

er

Acce

pt

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

PGR Recruitment over time

Men

Women

18

Figure 6. iBSc Psychology classification by gender

PGT degree classification. Whilst there was an inequity observed in degree classifications by gender in 2010/11, there has been a slight improvement in the proportion of women with distinctions in 2012/13 and a reduction at pass level (Figure 7). We will continue to monitor these data. Action 3.2

Figure 7. IoP PGT degree awards by gender

8 13 4 17

1

612

1 3 1 54

5

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1st 2:1 2:2 1st 2:1 2:2 1st 2:1 2:2

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

iBSc Psychology classification over time

Male

Female

79 12252

65 103

4963

195109

24 4427

27 33

1931

5829

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Pass

Mer

it

Dis

tinct

ion

Pass

Mer

it

Dis

tinct

ion

Pass

Mer

it

Dis

tinct

ion

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

PGT degree classification over time

Male

Female

19

(vii) Female: male ratio of academic staff and research staff – researcher, lecturer, senior lecturer, reader, professor (or equivalent). comment on any differences in numbers between males and females and say what action is being taken to address any underrepresentation at particular grades/levels

At the IoP, the total percentage of female staff has slightly decreased from 57% in 2010/11 to 52% in 2012/13. IoP data (Figure 8) show women are over‐represented at junior grades (63‐71% postdoctoral researchers, 61‐63% lecturers) and under‐represented at professor level (29‐30%), although the percentage of women professors compares well with national benchmarks for clinical medicine professors (24%) and psychology & behavioural sciences (31%) (HESA, 2012/13). We also note a decrease at the IoP in female senior lecturers from 51% in 2010/11 to 40% 2011/12 and 2012/13. This may reflect that more women are being promoted to reader; pleasingly, the percentage of female readers at the IoP increased from 31% in 2010‐11 to 42% in 2011/12 and 56% in 2012/13. We should have better information as to why we have fewer senior lecturer women once we have sufficient exit interview data (initiated August 2014). We will examine this to check if there are particular trends we need to take further action on. Actions 2.3

Within Wolfson CARD and CDN (Figure 9) we have fewer staff, so percentages are subject to more fluctuation. Women make up 51‐55% at post‐doc level, but are then under‐represented at all other levels except for reader (lecturer, 31‐39%; senior lecturer, 18‐20%; reader, 100% (two people); professor, 21‐26%). Again, the professorial figures compare well with national benchmarks for biosciences, 17% (HESA, 2012/13). We now offer promotion and grant writing workshops, as well as mentoring across the Faculty. We are working towards a substantial improvement in the female percentages in senior grades over the next few years. Actions 4, 5 and 6.

20

Figure 8. IoP staff numbers by grade and gender for 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13

21

Figure 9. Wolfson CARD and CDN staff numbers by grade and gender for 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13

Within Wolfson CARD and CDN, almost all staff are non‐clinical (there was one male and one female clinical senior lecturer in 2010/11 and 2011/12) whereas at the former IoP, 25% of academic staff are clinical. At the IoP (Table 6) there are far more non‐clinical post‐docs, but similar percentages are female between clinical and non‐clinical. For clinical staff, there is a drop in the percentage who are female lecturers/senior lecturers/professors, and for non‐clinical staff there is a drop in the percentage of female senior lecturers/professors. We will investigate this further via our exit interviews and set up a focus group for clinical lecturers Action 2. 3 and 5.1 For all staff there is a pleasing increase in the percentage of readers in 2011/12 onwards.

22

Table 6. IoP clinical and non‐clinical staff numbers by grade and gender for 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13

Clinical

Non‐clinical

Grade

Year

Female

Male

% Female

Total

Female

Male

% Female

Total

Post‐Doctoral Researcher

2010‐11 6 4 60% 10 166 67 71% 233

2011‐12 11 5 69% 16 152 81 65% 233

2012‐13 16 9 64% 25 135 81 63% 216

Lecturer

2010‐11 18 16 53% 34 34 15 69% 49

2011‐12 11 14 44% 25 38 18 68% 56

2012‐13 7 9 44% 16 38 21 64% 59

Senior Lecturer

2010‐11 15 26 37% 41 25 13 66% 38

2011‐12 10 22 31% 32 17 19 47% 36

2012‐13 11 16 41% 27 16 24 40% 40

Reader

2010‐11 2 5 29% 7 5 10 33% 15

2011‐12 2 3 40% 5 8 11 42% 19

2012‐13 4 3 57% 7 11 9 55% 20

Professor

2010‐11 13 33 28% 46 12 28 30% 40

2011‐12 14 34 29% 48 13 29 31% 42

2012‐13 15 37 29% 52 16 35 31% 51

Overall these data highlight the under‐representation of women at senior grades. To address this inequality we have instigated several on‐going and new initiatives, during appointment and selection Action 4, and in promotions Action 5 (see section 4 a ii and b ii).

Across the IoPPN, we will now monitor the fairness of job packages by gender, i.e. starting salaries and resources for similar jobs Action 4.1; encourage women to apply for posts and ensure application long‐lists on average include at least 40% women Action 4.2; encourage staff to attend unconcious bias training and monitor attendance Action 4.3; ensure female representation on selection and appointment panels Action 2.2. To provide benchmarking for change, HR is in the process of collating previous data on interview panel gender composition and gender balance on long‐lists. The records have required sorting by hand, but data should be available by the end of 2014. Unconcious bias training has been running since Jun 2014 and feedback from this tells us that it is already having an impact on staff decision‐making, by raising staff awareness of what they need to do in future to compensate for biases:

‘Enjoyed the course – useful mix of evidence based information and practical opportunity for change.’

23

‘Excellent ‐ even for one (me) who thought they were well aware and knew it all!’

While there is much left to do, we already have evidence of success, with the number of women in senior positions improving, as noted above. We are aiming for the percentage of female professors across the IoPPN to be above 30% by 2017. In Wolfson CARD, this was achieved in 2013/14. Actions 5 and 6.

(viii) Turnover by grade and gender – comment on any differences between men and women in turnover and say what is being done to address this. Where the number of staff leaving is small, comment on the reasons why particular individuals left.

Data for staff leaving are shown in Table 7. While there is variance by grade and year, overall a higher percentage of female (20%) than male (13%) staff have left, and this is linked to a higher percentage female leavers at all grades except senior lecturer.

Our HR data show that the most common reason for leaving amongst post‐docs and lecturers is expiry of FTCs, followed by resignation to take another job. The loss of four readers between 2010 and 2013 was due to resignation (two male, one female) or retirement (one female). As the number of leavers for Wolfson CARD and CDN is small we have used narrative to describe these data. In 2010/11, one female professor (retired); in 2011/12, one female professor (resigned) and one female senior lecturer (contract expired); two male professors left (retirement and expiry of FTC and severance).

We are now collecting and analysing exit interview data quarterly and will report these to the IMB in order to support women’s careers across the Faculty. To date, four academic staff (two women) have completed the exit interviews; reason given for leaving were leaving the area, new job, furthering education and end of fixed term contract. Action 2.3, 5, 6.2 and 7.7

Informally, we know that many post‐docs are successful in getting on to clinical training. We will be able to specify the issues and what further support post‐docs need from now on. Action 2.3 and 7.7

24

Table 7. Staff leaving by grade and gender for2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13

Total staff Leavers

Year Grade Female Male Female Male % Female

staff leaving

% Male staff

leaving

2010‐11

Post‐doctoral researcher 165 69 33 11 20% 16%

Lecturer 52 30 10 4 19% 13%

Senior lecturer 40 39 6 6 15% 15%

Reader 7 15 1 1 14% 7%

Professor 25 61 0 2 0% 3%

Total 289 214 50 24 17% 11%

2011‐12


Lecturer 49 31 7 4 14% 13%


Reader 10 14 1 0 10% 0%

Professor 27 63 3 4 11% 6%

Total 271 235 67 32 25% 14%

2012‐13


Lecturer 46 29 5 5 11% 17%


Reader 15 12 1 0 7% 0%

Professor 31 72 4 3 13% 4%

Total 266 241 46 32 17% 13%

TOTAL Post‐doctoral researcher 470 243 120 50 26% 21%

Lecturer 147 90 22 13 15% 14%

Senior lecturer 94 120 11 15 12% 13%

Reader 32 41 3 1 9% 2%

Professor 83 196 7 9 8% 5%

Total 826 690 163 88 20% 13%

For new appointments and promotions, see section 4.

Word count: 2081

25

4. Supporting and advancing women’s careers: maximum 5000 words

Key career transition points

a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning.

(i) Job application and success rates by gender and grade – comment on any differences in recruitment between men and women at any level and say what action is being taken to address this.

King’s has not recorded diversity data on panels nor recruitment data by gender for the period reported in this application, which we recognise is a significant shortcoming. As part of King’s Bronze AS plan, these data were collected for 2013/14 onwards, and will therefore be reported on in future. We have been retrieving available data by hand and for the four most recent appointments, due to start 2015, 51% of applicants and 60% of those shortlisted were women. Two men and two women were appointed on equivalent pay packages: two female and one male senior lecturer, and one male reader. We have made priority actions to improve data collection and appointment processes. Action 2.2 and 4

The Faculty has had a job freeze since 2011/12 requiring all new appointments to present a business case and seek the Dean’s approval. In July 2013, we developed text on ensuring diversity on appointment panels and circulated it through HR. The IMB agreed that the Dean would not sign off panels which did not comply. Since 2013, we have gender data on 10 panels: eight interview panels included both women and men, one panel was only men and one only women. The changes appear to be having a positive effect:

‘people are much more aware of the issues’ male Professor (October 2014)

26

ii) Applications for promotion and success rates by gender and grade – comment on whether these differ for men and women and if they do explain what action may be taken. Where the number of women is small applicants may comment on specific examples of where women have been through the promotion process. Explain how potential candidates are identified.

Table 8. Staff promotion applications, endorsement and success by grade and gender for 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14

Applied for

2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014

Female (% of those

applied)

Male (% of those

applied) %

Female

Female (% of those

applied)

Male (% of those

applied) %

Female

Female (% of those

applied)

Male (% of those

applied) %

Female

Female (% of those

applied)

Male (% of those

applied) %

Female

Senior lecturer

Applied 2 3 40% 5 5 50% 5 5 50% 7 2 78%

Endorsed 0

(0%) 3

(100%) 0% 2

(40%) 5

(100%) 29% 4

(80%) 4

(80%) 50% 3

(43%) 0

(0%) 100%

Promoted 0

(0%) 3

(100%) 0% 2

(40%) 4

(80%) 33% 4

(80%) 4

(80%) 50% 3

(43%) 0

(0%) 100%

Reader

Applied 6 0 100% 3 0 100% 6 2 75% 1 3 25%

Endorsed 5

(83%) 0

(0%) 100% 3

(100%) 0 100% 6

(100%) 2

(100%) 75% 1

(100%) 1

(33%) 50%

Promoted 5

(83%) 0

(0%) 100% 3

(100%) 0 100% 6

(100%) 2

(100%) 75% 1

(100%) 1

(33%) 50%

Professor

Applied 0 3 0% 2 5 29% 3 3 50% 4 5 44%

Endorsed 0

(0%) 1

(33%) 0% 2

(100%) 5

(100%) 29% 2

(67%) 2

(67%) 50% 3

(75%) 4

(80%) 43%

Promoted 0

(0%) 1

(33%) 0% 2

(100%) 5

(100%) 29% 2

(67%) 2

(67%) 50% 3

(75%) 4

(80%) 43%

TOTAL

Applied 8 6 57% 10 10 50% 14 10 58% 12 10 55%

Endorsed 5

(63%) 4

(67%)

56% 7

(70%) 10

(100%)

41% 12

(86%) 8

(80%)

60% 7

(58%) 5

(50%)

58%

Promoted 5

(63%) 4

(67%)

56% 7

(70%) 9

(90%)

44% 12

(86%) 8

(80%)

60% 7

(58%) 5

(50%)

58%

27

The promotion process at the IoPPN runs parallel to the appraisal system, in two stages: in the first stage, the promotion application is submitted to a Faculty panel. The applicant is now (see below) given detailed feedback by the Executive Dean, and advised as to whether they should proceed to the second stage (the King’s promotion panel) with their application ‘endorsed’ by the Faculty.

Table 8 shows that in 2010/11 no women applied for promotion to professor and none were appointed at senior lecturer level. We also knew from our 2012 survey that the promotion process was perceived as confusing and arbitrary:

‘It is unclear how the IoP decides how many and which people to put forward to KCL for promotion, and on which basis some are excluded.’ (female senior academic, comment from staff survey, 2012/13).

We made the following changes: i. We improved our appraisal system (see also career development a (i) below). All

departments now have a local promotion panel of senior staff to identify people who might not put themselves forward (usually women), and also to advise whether academics should delay applications, if improvement, support or training is advisable. From 2012, we encouraged all heads of departments to proactively consider all staff for readiness for promotion.

‘Encouragement of women going for promotion and influential positions is done in our dept.’ (female senior academic 2012) ii. We clarified the two‐stage system, to give applicants clear information as to the criteria

required and how to meet them. In 2012, we introduced annual ‘understanding promotion workshops’ organised by HR. Led by an academic from the Faculty promotion panel, they explain the process and criteria required by King’s for each grade. Recently promoted academics also give their feedback on the process. Workshops were evaluated via anonymous feedback questionnaires, and we have had extremely good attendance and feedback (around 70 members of staff each time). King’s will now run these for all Faculties from 2014/15, and evaluate them. We will also encourage staff and managers to consult ‘good practice on development and promotion’ video resources. Action 5

‘I took part in the annual pre‐promotion workshop and found the advice given there really helpful in completing my application’ female senior lecturer (June 2014).

iii. From 2012, we increased female representation on the Faculty promotion panel to 50%. When appropriate we included for the first time a more clinically‐informed assessment (e.g. commentary from a clinical panel member and an NHS clinical appraisal) and shortened the time between application and outcome from 18 to 12 months.

iv. The Executive Dean now offers feedback to all unsuccessful candidates and in 2013 our data show that everyone received helpful feedback within 48 hours of the panel meeting. The feedback advised on what further training, experience or support was needed.

v. In 2014, departmental promotions panels were instigated, to guide on applications and encourage potentially eligible staff to apply. Action 2.4 and 5.1

vi. Guidance to senior staff regarding best practice in promotions was included in Departmental checklists from Oct 2013 and reminders were sent from HR to coincide with

28

the PDR. This will continue annually. HoDs (three per annum) will now be invited to promotions panels to improve their understanding of promotion expectations Action 5.2.

As a result, in Table 8 it can be seen that more women are now applying for promotion, particularly at senior lecturer and professorial level, and in 2012/13 and 2013/14, 60% and 58% of those promoted were women.

In the Wolfson CARD & CDN between 2010 and 2014, six men and two women were promoted. Although only two women have applied for promotion since 2010/11, this is probably because from 2010 to 2012 three out of four tenured female staff at CDN were already professors. We will focus on this over the next three years. Action 5.1

b) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed.

(i) Recruitment of staff – comment on how the department’s recruitment processes ensure that female candidates are attracted to apply, and how the department ensures its short listing, selection processes and criteria comply with the university’s equal opportunities policies

Our 11 point plan and departmental checklist specify that female candidates who appear to fit the post profile should be encouraged to apply, and all our advertisements are attractive to women, e.g. at Wolfson CARD it is made clear that each research area is led jointly by a male and female academic. We also asked that departments ensure the average percentage of women on academic long‐lists is at least 40% by 2016. Action 4.2

In addition to including women (section 3), all shortlisting and appointment panel members will be required to have had ‘unconscious bias’ training and the following actions will be prioritised. Actions 2.2 and 4

(ii) Support for staff at key career transition points – having identified key areas of attrition of female staff in the department, comment on any interventions, programmes and activities that support women at the crucial stages, such as personal development training, opportunities for networking, mentoring programmes and leadership training. Identify which have been found to work best at the different career stages.

The ‘pipeline’ problems in our Faculty are at post‐doc to lecturer and senior lecturer, and reader to professor. We discovered from our survey that women were finding the requirements for these transitions confusing and unhelpful, and would welcome mentoring in key skills required for career progression, such as grant writing. As a result, we developed a strategic series of interventions.

i. A Post‐doc Network was developed (see below) with a lead person who is part of our SAT. Action 6.3c

ii. Sessions on grant‐writing, mock interviews for fellowship applications and ‘how to become a lecturer’ have been held. To date, over 250 people have attended these sessions, 76% are

29

women. Extremely positive feedback was received that indicated improved understanding of these areas. Action 6.3b ‘Excellent lecture. I wish I’d come earlier in my career’ ECR 2013

iii. Our 9 month Early Career Faculty Development Series has provided group support on key career issues for staff at lecturer level. To date, 71 staff have completed this. In the last two years, 55% and 62% of those participating were women. Action 6.3a

iv. In 2014, the BRC offered an Early Career Returner Award worth £40K and designed to help individuals re‐establish their research after a career‐break. Funds can be used flexibly to support the applicant or their research for a year. In 2014 this was awarded to a woman. We will evaluate the impact of this initiative by monitoring this and future award outcomes Action 8.2

v. In October 2013, an Academic Mentoring lead, Professor Khalida Ismail, was appointed, and 14 female academics participated in the King’s Gender Ambitions Mentoring programme. Additionally, a more informal programme was launched and senior staff were encouraged to become mentors. An intranet page was created, and a pilot ‘speed mentoring’ session held in November 2013 with nine senior women circulating among 40 junior staff. Evaluation was positive. Currently 30 informal mentoring pairs have been established currently. Action 6.2

vi. Feedback from our focus groups, and from our ‘Inspiring Women’ events (described below), highlighted a tendency for female staff to wait before applying for promotion or putting themselves forward for senior roles. We will therefore introduce developmental workshops encouraging women to identify themselves as leaders. Action 4.2, 5.1 and 6.4

vii. In 2014, the Faculty sponsored one woman’s participation in the Aurora programme. In addition, 22 post‐doc staff (and 16 PhD students) have participated in Springboard, the award‐winning international programme which helps women identify clear, practical and realistic steps in developing their careers; the feedback has been positive: ‘an incredibly useful course which gave me dedicated time and space to reflect not only on my career direction and progress, but also on life. I made a lot of changes following the course which has made me less stressed and much happier’ From 2014, Springboard will include academic and professional service staff. Action 6.3a

viii. The BRC/U recognised the need to support female academics in further developing leadership skills and implemented new initiatives (see section a (ii) below).

ix. To help women achieve more grant success, a 'Supporting Diversity' section on the Research Grants funding page was created to list grants open to women only, including career re‐entry fellowships.

x. We have been proactive and successful in identifying suitable awards and ensuring women who meet the criteria are nominated. In 2013 and 2014, Professor Francesca Happe was elected to the Royal Academy, Professor Kuipers received lifetime achievement awards from WISE and the BPS. Professor Janet Treasure was awarded an OBE and a lifetime achievement

30

award from the Academy for Eating Disorders. Professor Louise Howard received the Marcé medal for excellence in perinatal mental health research, Professor Veena Kumari a prestigious Humbolt award for research excellence and Dr Paola Dazzan received the Psychiatric Academic Researcher of the Year award. In 2012/13, 16 men and eight women were given awards. We are pleased to highlight in 2013/14 a doubling of the number of women receiving awards (42), compared to those conferred on men (20). This is the first time so many women have been honoured. Our 2012 survey found that women at early career stage were less likely to be nominated for, or receive, prizes or awards. As part of our departmental checklist we encouraged proactive consideration of all potential applicants, to ensure that a wider pool of candidates was considered routinely. Action 6.3d

xi. As part of King’s AS bronze award in 2013, a new Parental Leave Fund (£200K total) was set up. Staff can apply for up to £20K to be used to fund a full or part‐time member of staff to support their academic work on their return from parental leave; seven women from the IoPPN have been able to benefit from this. We will track these individuals to evaluate the longer term impact of this initiative. Action 8.2. See also (iv) above

Career development

a) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed.

(i) Promotion and career development – comment on the appraisal and career development process, and promotion criteria and whether these take into consideration responsibilities for teaching, research, administration, pastoral work and outreach work; is quality of work emphasised over quantity of work?

All staff should have an annual appraisal (PDR) conducted by their manager. In 2012/3, 62% were achieved, and a random sample appraised for quality revealed wide variation. Our 2012 staff survey showed that of those completing the survey, 85% of both male and female staff had been appraised and 71% felt it had been useful. However, it was highlighted, particularly by women, that there was no reliable link between PDR and promotion. One of the steps we took to remedy this (see also 4(ii) above) was to redesign the PDR form to include specific sections on readiness for promotion and on work‐life balance. The form covers responsibilities for teaching, research, administration, pastoral and outreach work so that all can be taken into account. The HR Director held workshops for managers and staff in 2013, to help improve understanding of best practice in completing PDRs. In 2013/14 we had 81% PDR completion rate at IoPPN. We now require that each area is adequately discussed, and 90% completion rate from 2015. Action 6.1

(ii) Induction and training – describe the support provided to new staff at all levels, as well as details of any gender equality training. To what extent are good employment practices in the institution, such as opportunities for networking, the flexible working policy, and professional and personal development opportunities promoted to staff from the outset?

Our survey highlighted that a Faculty induction would help staff feel welcome. We held an inaugural induction on February 2014 led by the Executive Dean, Dean of Education and Director of Administration. This biannual event includes a video, presentations on diversity and inclusion,

31

our AS commitment and initiatives, details of ‘unconscious bias’ workshops and flexible working, as well as an opportunity for networking. Departments also run local inductions and we plan to have divisional induction packs (see section 3) from 2015. Action 7.2a

‘Unconscious bias’ training was offered to senior staff as part of King’s Bronze action plan. It is now compulsory for IMB and appointment panel members, and available for all IoPPN staff. Around 100 staff have attended so far; we will have refresher courses annually and monitor sign up. All staff are also strongly encouraged to attend ‘inclusive training for managers’. Action 4.3

In 2013, the BRC funded a leadership programme for six female Deputy Cluster Leads. It includes a one‐year programme from Ashridge Business School offering personal coaching, group workshops and access to modules and courses, to help further develop personal authority and leadership impact. Informal feedback is very positive.

King’s Researcher Development Unit (RDU) introduced support for post‐docs and PhD students in 2012 including the Springboard programme (see vii above). We will continue to promote participation. Action 6.3a

As part of our Departmental checklist, we created networking initiatives such as departmental coffee sessions and a ‘Parent Network’ led by Dr Simone Reinders. Departments encourage junior academic staff to attend programmes including the IoPPN Early Career Faculty Development Series which was shortlisted in 2012 for the Times Higher Outstanding Support for Early Career Researchers award.

In February 2013, Dr Martina Sattlecker was recruited as our post‐doc Champion and formed a “Post‐doc Network” (PDN) with representatives from all departments. Martina sits on the Research Committee, the college development group, the SAT and on King’s Research Concordat Implementation Group. To date, the PDN has a dedicated website and has created opportunities for peer support and careers events, based on a 2014 post‐doc survey. We will increase awareness of the PDN’s activities. Action 6.3c

(iii) Support for female students – describe the support (formal and informal) provided for female students to enable them to make the transition to a sustainable academic career, particularly from postgraduate to researcher, such as mentoring, seminars and pastoral support and the right to request a female personal tutor. Comment on whether these activities are run by female staff and how this work is formally recognised by the department.

Almost all of our students are postgraduate, although we will start a new Psychology BSc in 2015 (see section 3). Women are not under‐represented in our current undergraduates. All of the comments here refer to our current post‐graduate data. Each PGR student has two supervisors and one personal tutor, who provide both formal and informal academic and pastoral support. Faculty students can access the King’s RDU, which provides career development opportunities, including training courses, career advice and personal coaching. Students have reported high levels of satisfaction with the RDU: it provides useful skills while helping to reduce isolation. Students can also access individual support through the King’s Careers Employability Department.

32

The Faculty has a formal support system, provided by an academic PGR co‐ordinator (female), who as part of her academic role, meets with individuals to raise awareness of career opportunities post PhD, in academia and elsewhere. She organises an annual PGR showcase event to which staff, students and sponsors are invited. Feedback is requested via a dedicated website. An inaugural careers day was held for PGT and PGR students in November 2014. We have an active Student Forum chaired by a PGR student which in 2014 introduced peer support through PhD Tea @ Two; more women than men PhD students attend these sessions. A PGR parenting network had its first meeting in October 2014. For 2014/15, as part of the King's Access to the Professions Scholarship Scheme for PGT students, the Faculty offered 10 fully funded postgraduate scholarships in partnership with SLaM. The scholarships, aimed at under‐represented groups, offer unique mentoring and internship opportunities and all 10 were awarded to women. We will evaluate via a feedback questionnaire. Action 3.1 Organisation and culture


(i) Male and female representation on committees – provide a breakdown by committee and explain any differences between male and female representation. Explain how potential members are identified.

In our survey, staff were concerned at how people were selected for informal and formal internal roles; there was no process and people were just asked.

As a first step, in October 2012 (Table 9), we reviewed committee membership and, where appropriate, asked committees to put an action plan in place to address gender imbalance. In October 2013 and 2014 (Table 9), we reviewed the committees again. We were pleased to see a significant improvement in gender balance on most committees: all were more than 30% female. The IMB and IE are still imbalanced and specific actions are being taken to address this (section b (i) below). We are aiming for at least 40% female in all committees by September 2016. Action 7.6

We also reviewed how roles were allocated. The pool has been widened to include readers as well as professors and deputies are now in place to support succession planning and provide more opportunities for women to participate. Fixed time periods have been introduced for all roles since 2014. Since 2012, HoD roles have been advertised and interviews held Action 7.5. The most recent HoD appointment (November 2014) was the first ever female head for that department.

We also assessed how roles on college committees and other relevant posts are allocated. All role requirements are now defined inclusively with a diversity statement used to encourage women to apply, and are advertised widely.

Advertising of roles, expressions of interest and appointments, will continue to be monitored; role rotations and committee membership will also be evaluated annually. We will ensure via our PDRs and a new workload model (see below) that women are not overloaded with new committee work. Action 4.2, 6.1 and 7.

33

Table 9. Committee composition by gender: October 2012 to October 2014

Committee

Oct‐12 Oct‐13 Oct‐14 %

change


Female Male% Female


Female

IMB (formerly EMB) 7 17 29% 13 28 32% 10 20 33% +4%

IE (formerly ICAM) 3 5 38% 3 6 33% 2 4 33% -5%

IoP Academic Promotions Review Panel

3 8 27% 5 5 50% 5 5 50% +23%

AS Self-Assessment Team 19 4 83% 19 7 73% 19 9 68% -15%

Research Committee 4 18 18% 9 11 45% 9 13 41% 23%

School Education Committee

6 15 29% 12 19 39% 11 22 33% +4%

Education Programme Leaders Forum

22 13 63% 21 18 54% 23 17 58% -5%

Operations Committee 12 9 57% 18 14 56% 22 12 65% +8%

Biological Safety Committee 4 10 29% 5 9 36% 6 7 46% +17%

Health and Safety Committee

15 14 52% 14 19 42% 13 21 38% -14%

Laboratory Users Group 3 15 17% 13 20 39% 12 20 38% +21%

Staff/Student Liaison Committee

6 7 46% 7 9 44% 4 7 36% -10%

(ii) Female: male ratio of academic and research staff on fixed‐term contracts and open‐ended (permanent) contracts – comment on any differences between male and female staff representation on fixed‐term contracts and say what is being done to address them.

We have staff at all grades on FTCs (Table 10). At junior grades where around 70% of staff are women, it might be expected that more women than men are on FTCs, however it is not clear why this is so for senior women too. There are similar issues for Wolfson CARD and CDN (Table 11).

We have an action point to investigate this: to understand and to correct gender imbalances for new appointments so that there is a reduction in FTCs for lecturers upwards and parity at each grade by 2016. Action 7.7

34

Table 10 IoP staff on fixed term contracts by grade and gender for 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13

Total staff Fixed‐term contract

Grade Year Female Male Female Male % Female % Male


2010‐11 172 71 160 69 93% 97%

2011‐12 163 86 152 85 93% 99%

2012‐13 151 90 142 86 94% 96%

Lecturer

2010‐11 52 31 21 11 40% 35%

2011‐12 49 32 21 13 43% 41%

2012‐13 45 30 15 9 33% 30%

Senior Lecturer

2010‐11 40 39 7 12 18% 31%

2011‐12 27 41 4 15 15% 37%

2012‐13 27 40 8 15 30% 38%

Reader

2010‐11 7 15 1 1 14% 7%

2011‐12 10 14 2 1 20% 7%

2012‐13 15 12 2 0 13% 0%

Professor

2010‐11 25 61 1 2 4% 3%

2011‐12 27 63 1 3 4% 5%

2012‐13 31 72 4 6 13% 8%

35

Table 11. Wolfson CARD and CDN staff on fixed term contracts by grade and gender for 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13

Total staff Fixed‐term contract

Grade Year Female Male Female Male % Female % Male


2010‐11 42 35 37 33 88% 94%

2011‐12 45 44 40 43 89% 98%

2012‐13 51 47 46 39 90% 83%

Lecturer 2010‐11

5 10 1 1 20% 10%

2011‐12 7 11 1 0 14% 0%

2012‐13 5 11 0 0 0% 0%

Senior Lecturer

2010‐11 2 8 1 1 50% 13%

2011‐12 2 8 1 1 50% 13%

2012‐13 2 9 0 1 0% 11%

Reader

2010‐11 1 0 0 0 0% 0%

2011‐12 1 0 0 0 0% 0%

2012‐13 2 0 0 0 0% 0%

Professor

2010‐11 5 14 1 1 20% 7%

2011‐12 4 15 1 2 25% 13%

2012‐13 4 13 1 0 25% 0%


(i) Representation on decision‐making committees – comment on evidence of gender equality in the mechanism for selecting representatives. What evidence is there that women are encouraged to sit on a range of influential committees inside and outside the department? How is the issue of ‘committee overload’ addressed where there are small numbers of female staff?

36

The most senior decision‐making committees are the IMB, and now the IE (formerly ICAM), comprising ex‐officio roles which historically have been male. As a result, we have introduced the following actions:

i. Amended IMB Terms of Reference to specify AS commitment, and addition of an AS representative to the membership (October 2012 onwards).

ii. Advertised for BRC Cluster Lead deputies with a specific reference to diversity and offered leadership training to deputies (2013/14)

iii. Introduced ‘Step into Leadership’ (October 2014) to give women professors the opportunity to become a member of decision‐making committees, such as the IMB, for six months and feedback their experience.

We will monitor membership of committees and redress committee overload for women through PDRs and also through a new workload model‐ see below. Action 6.1, 7.1 and 7.6

(ii) Workload model – describe the systems in place to ensure that workload allocations, including pastoral and administrative responsibilities (including the responsibility for work on women and science) are taken into account at appraisal and in promotion criteria. Comment on the rotation of responsibilities e.g. responsibilities with a heavy workload and those that are seen as good for an individual’s career.

The Faculty has an Academic Performance Framework (APF) which outlines expectations of academics at different grades and informs criteria for promotion. There are four domains: research, education, administration and impact. The framework recognises that individuals will contribute across the spectrum but staff are not expected to excel at everything. Recognition is given to pastoral and administrative responsibilities, alongside teaching, organisation and delivery of courses, and research activity. The APF is currently being updated to reflect IoPPN structures and expectations. Revised PDRs provide an opportunity for annual evaluation, and this is where workloads are monitored; staff are asked to comment on their workload, and any relevant change in circumstance. As a proxy for workload, we analysed Faculty TRAC (Transparent Approach to Costing) data by gender. These data (valid returns received from 248 men and 163 women in 2013) suggest that overall women spend less time on teaching and management activity, and more on PGR support and research, than men. We recognise the limitations of TRAC data and the development of a more accurate workload model is in our action plan. We have been consulting with other universities and will run a focus group and pilot a new model in one division Action 7.1

(iii) Timing of departmental meetings and social gatherings – provide evidence of consideration for those with family responsibilities, for example what the department considers to be core hours and whether there is a more flexible system in place.

37

Our departmental checklist specified that meetings should be kept between the core hours of 1000‐1500, and if academic meetings were held at other times, staff should be given sufficient notice to allow for appropriate childcare or other arrangements to be made. Our checklist audit in October 2014 showed some success with this. Systems are now in place in all departments for staff working at home to dial in to meetings. Where meeting times have not changed, staff have agreed that particular times remain for the present. We will continue to audit this via new departmental checklists. Going forward we will pilot out‐of‐hours work expectations, such as not being required to reply to emails. Action 8.1c

(iv) Culture –demonstrate how the department is female‐friendly and inclusive. ‘Culture’ refers to the language, behaviours and other informal interactions that characterise the atmosphere of the department, and includes all staff and students.

Another result of our survey was that women at all grades were significantly less likely than male counterparts to feel valued in research, teaching and administrative roles. The SAT, the Executive Dean and the IMB therefore implemented the following:

Visibility of women

i. Our 2013 ‘Inspiring Women’ photographic exhibition of women professors was extended to represent our new structure. The exhibition is situated prominently outside the main Iecture theatre and on the web. It is the first time that women have been featured on the walls of the Faculty and informal feedback has reflected a successful promotion of our senior women scientists.

ii. Our ‘Inspiring Women’ events, inaugurated by Professor Dame Sally Davies in March 2013, increase accessibility to female role models and improve networking opportunities. They are now embedded into the Faculty’s annual calendar. Other speakers were: Dr Clare Gerada MBE, Dr Ruth McKernan CBE, and Professor Jackie Hunter CBE. We will also improve the proportion of female speakers in all Faculty events. Action 7.3 and 7.4

iii. The first Inaugural Lecture for newly appointed professors was held in 2013 (after a three year gap), and Professor Rona Moss‐Morris was chosen to raise the profile of women in the organisation. In 2014 these public lectures were given by two females and one male.

iv. Our annual ‘Parade of Stars’ event highlights current research. To enable a 50:50 gender balance, the format was changed to include readers as well as professors. In addition, a new element ‐ Rising Stars – showcases presentations and posters from junior faculty, to allow for more women to be promoted.

Boosting female representation in the media

The Faculty Press & Communications Office proactively promotes women via the media, digital and public engagement channels. Female researchers are supported to join the King’s Directory of Experts, to increase accessibility to the media. We ensure to promote the achievements of women internally and externally, and our female scientists regularly appear in high profile media.

38

In Autumn 2012, the BBC Academy put out a call for female experts interested in media to apply for limited places on a bespoke training day, with a view to increasing the number of female experts on television and radio. We supported 20 of our female scientists in their applications and out of 2,000 applicants, two won places. Dr Sally Marlow has since appeared regularly on Radio 4 and has made two science documentaries with BBC Science. She is shortlisted for a King’s Award for Media Personality of the Year 2014.

IoPPN offers informal and formal intensive media training. The gender balance for the formal training has improved since September 2012: 2012/13 eight (42% of those trained) were women, 2013/4, four (67%). We will continue to encourage women to attend both forms of training and are preparing workshops for junior faculty members. Action 6.4

Finally, PGR students attended the 2013 Royal Society Ada Lovelace day event where they created Wikipedia pages for our women professors. Emma Palmer, a PGR student was on Women’s Hour to discuss this event. A Wikipedia edit‐a thon now runs biannually at the IoPPN. Figure 10. Women in Science Wikipedia edit‐a‐thon on Friday 11th October 2013

(v) Outreach activities – comment on the level of participation by female and male staff in outreach activities with schools and colleges and other centres. Describe who the programmes are aimed at, and how this activity is formally recognised as part of the workload model and in appraisal and promotion processes.

We are committed to encouraging engagement between our academics and the public, to improve understanding, prevention and treatment of mental health issues which are frequently stigmatised and misunderstood. In addition to Inaugural Lectures (see iii above) we run a number of public events. Such activities are noted and formally recognised in PDRs but data have not been collated centrally to assess gender balance. We will monitor PDRs to ensure there is an equitable gender balance in outreach activities in the future. Action 7.8

39

We have given some examples below which illustrate women’s involvement in outreach activities: Parkinson’s Disease Open Day for patients and carers is run by two female PhD Students from Wolfson CARD. In 2014, four staff (two male, two female) and two PhD students (one male, one female) gave talks. Wings for Life Supporters Evening in October 2014 is hosted and organised for 30 guests (spinal research supporters, spinal injured patients, charitable donors). Presentations from Head of Wings for Life (one female) and research scientists (one female, one male) are followed by poster presentations, lab tours and demonstrations (three male, three female) In 2012 two female post‐docs raised funds to run Café Scientifique events for the local community. They now have secured further funds to continue the project and have a team of six female PhD student volunteers. Dr Margaret Heslin (Health Service and Population Research) was shortlisted for a WISE Advisor Award for creating Awards for Young Women in Science. These encourage 15 ‐ 18 year olds from the local area to focus on science.

In February 2014 Sandrine Thuret’s lab was selected for an interactive exhibit on Adult Neurogenesis at the Science Museum Late’s, monthly events in collaboration with the Francis Crick Institute. Sandrine is also a STEM Ambassador. We have nominated Sandrine for a King’s Public Engagement award. We will continue to record data on ‘widening participation’ activities through PDRs and monitor by gender. Action 7.8

Flexibility and managing career breaks


(i) Maternity return rate – comment on whether maternity return rate in the department has improved or deteriorated and any plans for further improvement. If the department is unable to provide a maternity return rate, please explain why.

Between 2010‐2013, 48 IoPPN staff took maternity leave and all except one (a post‐doc, in 2010‐2011) returned to work (Table 11).

40

Table 11. Maternity uptake at IoPPN for 2010‐11, 2011‐12 and 2012‐13

Grade Year Maternity Leave


2010‐11 12

2011‐12 6

2012‐13 11

Lecturer

2010‐11 1

2011‐12 9

2012‐13 4

Senior Lecturer

2010‐11 2

2011‐12 2

2012‐13 0

Reader

2010‐11 0

2011‐12 0

2012‐13 1

Despite the near 100% maternity return rate, our focus group of these staff (May 2013), highlighted the need for better support during pregnancy and return to work. Examples of comments relating to pregnancy included:

‘I was always rushed off my feet while at work (not to mention the commute was so tiring) and it would have been really great if there was somewhere I could go to just wind down for half an hour,’ and

‘A lot of (pregnant) women do not know what their rights are so it is important to raise awareness around these issues.’

Typical comments on return to work included:

‘Knowing that there wasn't any place I could express (milk) contributed to my decision to stop breastfeeding’

‘I think it would be great if there was an informal ‘mothers meeting’ at the IoP. I was lucky in that two close colleagues had children not too long before me but I know that isn’t always the case.’

41

In response to these comments, which reflected our survey findings, we implemented several initiatives to improve support during pregnancy and on return to work. There was an existing room for breastfeeding, which was not advertised, and only one person had used it. We have now redecorated the mothering room and equipped it with a nursing chair, fridge, kettle and toys, and key access has been implemented to ensure privacy. The facility is now advertised on the Faculty and King’s websites, and highlighted in the updated information pack provided by HR on pregnancy and on return from maternity leave. Since re‐launching the room, January 2014, seven women have registered for keys and another 15 women have used it on an ad‐ hoc basis, including during ‘Keeping In Touch’ days. We have also installed baby‐changing facilities within unisex toilets at Denmark Hill. We will replicate these facilities at Guy’s campus. Action 8.1a

Figure 11. Mothering Room at Denmark Hill

We have improved peer support and information for parents. In February 2014, we set up the Faculty Parent Network (Section 4). Annual ‘Parenting and Academia’ events have included a panel discussion of personal experiences of parental leave and flexible working, followed by a presentation by the head of HR on the relevant policies. The King’s Parent Buddying Scheme was implemented in 2013/14. Updated information is sent out from HR to staff intending to take maternity, paternity or adoption leave, to summarise resources, support and polices and to provide links for further information. At the same time, a similar email is sent out to their managers. These initiatives are additional to the updated King’s ‘Maternity Guidance for Managers’ document. Completion of career‐break checklists is now included in departmental audits. The Faculty has introduced a ‘welcome back’ information pack, for staff returning from leave again providing summaries and links to relevant information. The Faculty website has also been redesigned so that resources and policies related to supporting parents are easy to find. Following this, King’s launched a new Supporting Parents and Carers good practice workshop for all academic managers, and will monitor attendance and evaluate. Action 8.1a

To determine the impact of these changes, a second focus group was held in September 2014. It was clear that awareness of, and use of, the mothering room had increased as had awareness of the new information and materials. We will continue to promote awareness of these. Action 8.1b

42

(ii) Paternity, adoption and parental leave uptake – comment on the uptake of paternity leave by grade and parental and adoption leave by gender and grade. Has this improved or deteriorated and what plans are there to improve further.

We do not have detailed data for paternity leave as it is not recorded by HR if it is two weeks or less. Anecdotal evidence suggests that men are taking leave informally. To improve uptake, we have increased provision of information and support around parental leave as described (see above), will run a focus group for new fathers to find out the barriers, and encourage men to report paternity leave. We will make paternity leave more visible on the family friendly webpages by including case studies. Action 8.2

One female reader took adoption leave in 2012/13.

(iii) Numbers of applications and success rates for flexible working by gender and grade – comment on any disparities. Where the number of women in the department is small applicants may wish to comment on specific examples.

Our survey confirmed low rates of formal flexible working but high informal flexible working, for example: ‘Flexibility has been given for my working hours around my family life‐ good practice’ (female post‐doc) 2012 survey.

From our survey data, only 6% of staff (15 people) had ever applied for formal flexible working. Two were men (one professor, one ‘other’), 13 women (two professors, three readers, three senior lecturers, three lecturers and two post‐docs). From the self‐reported survey data, 13 of the 15 requests (87%) were approved. HR has not previously monitored applications and success rates for flexible working so we will now do this Action 8.1b


(i) Flexible working – comment on the numbers of staff working flexibly and their grades and gender, whether there is a formal or informal system, the support and training provided for managers in promoting and managing flexible working arrangements, and how the department raises awareness of the options available

43

Figure 12. Results of 2012 IoP staff survey: informal flexible working, across grades and gender

The low number of formal flexible working requests may reflect the currently embedded culture and high availability of informal flexible working. In the staff survey, 88% of respondents reported that informal modes of flexible working were readily available to them (Figure 12). There is a high uptake of informal flexible working, across grades and genders; most staff work flexibly to some extent.

However, we need to promote formal flexible working (only 60% of 2012 survey respondents were aware of its availability), and encourage people to apply. On‐going actions have included provision of a checklist and guidance for flexible working requests for staff and managers, so that the process is straightforward and recipients feel supported; increasing the visibility of the flexible working policy on the Faculty website, and highlighting flexible working at the annual ‘Parenting and Academia’ event, and in the information sent to staff and managers before and after parental leave. Most recently, September 2014, we have introduced bespoke information and training for managers around responding to flexible working requests, to be provided through the external company ‘My Family Care’. This training is available online and via ‘webinars, and uptake will be monitored via PDRs. The number, nature and outcome of formal flexible working requests will also be monitored 2014 onwards. Action 8.1b

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

Professor SeniorLecturer/Reader

Lecturer Post DoctoralResearcher

Prcentage of respondents

Frequency of informal flexible working by gender and grade

Frequently

Occasionally

Rarely

No

Not available

44

(ii) Cover for maternity and adoption leave and support on return – explain what the department does, beyond the university maternity policy package, to support female staff before they go on maternity leave, arrangements for covering work during absence, and to help them achieve a suitable work‐life balance on their return.

Cover during leave: Funds for cover during leave are available centrally. We introduced several actions to ensure that University policies around parental leave are clearly accessible, visible and used by staff, as our survey suggested managers would appreciate more clarity. On notification that a member of staff intends to take maternity or adoption leave, a meeting is arranged with an HR advisor to talk them through King’s policies. At later stages, this information is also highlighted in the ‘taking parenting leave’ and ‘welcome back to work’ emails from HR. We have collated links to all relevant information and resources from King’s in one ‘easy to find’ area of the website. Additionally, HR presents this information at an annual Faculty Parenting Event, with emphasis on discussion and answering questions. Managers are given practical advice on practical and financial arrangements for cover in the ‘Maternity leave, Guidance for Managers’ document and checklist. We also have a Parent Network (see earlier this section) which provides additional support. We are continuing to monitor the impact of these initiatives (including utilisation of funds for cover). Action 8.1b

Support on return to work: We encourage and support applications to the King’s Parental Leave Fund (see above) and seven Faculty staff have successfully applied for this so far. The Faculty R&D department advertises, by circular emails and the Faculty website, links to funding opportunities which are specifically aimed at staff returning from career breaks or otherwise promoting diversity. Advice and support on submitting such applications is available through Faculty grant writing workshops. Flexible working policies are encouraged as outlined above. Action 8.1b

Word count: 5387

5. Any other comments: maximum 500 words

Please comment here on any other elements which are relevant to the application, e.g. other STEMM‐specific initiatives of special interest that have not been covered in the previous sections. Include any other relevant data (e.g. results from staff surveys), provide a commentary on it and indicate how it is planned to address any gender disparities identified.

Staff survey

December 2012 to February 2013. Academic and post‐doctoral research staff were surveyed online. Fifty questions covered appointment, selection, promotion, career development, workplace flexibility and culture. When concerns about confidentiality arose, we provided an anonymous route, which meant we could not track all responses. We had an impressive 65% return rate, (N=298/458). Of these (N=264) had usable data. Quantitative analysis is based on these (58% response rate), 119 male and 145 female respondents; broadly reflecting the gender spilt at the IoP.

45

Staff were invited to add free text at the end of each section. Thematic Analysis was undertaken. After removing 57 ‘no comments’, 500 comments were used from both male and female respondents; only 50 comments were positive, however all feedback was very useful and has informed changes. Future surveys will include all IoPPN staff.

Good Practice Checklist (GPC) ‐ 2012 and 2014

In December 2012 the former IoP SAT compared processes with best practice as advised for STEMM departments. The GPC has five key areas: • Fundamentals for Action • Appointment and Promotion • Career Development • Department Organisation and Culture • Sustainable Careers

It provides 30 benchmarks and 90 exemplar statements are provided.

Self‐assessment compared current practice with each exemplar, with a value from A (best) to E (worst). The Chair and Projects Officer initially rated all the domains, and then members of the SAT were asked to add comments. Consensus ratings and actions were then agreed. Findings at that time, 2012, were that we needed to improve most areas of our employment practice. We repeated the assessment in July 2014 across the whole IoPPN, with a sub group who were ‘blind’ to the original results. We showed improvements in all areas. The table below shows the IoPPN ratings in 2012 and 2014 and the changes to date (2014 re‐rating include the new divisions): we are no longer rating E, have only 2% of Ds, the majority of practice is now C and above. This is an encouraging amount of change from 66% D and below, 18 months ago.

We have incorporated remaining required actions into the 3 year plan, and we will re‐rate the IoPPN on the GPC by July 2016 Action 2.6

Table 13: GPC ratings 2012 and 2014 Level 2012 2014

A 1% 21%

B 12% 50%

C 21% 27%

D 26% 2%

E 40% 0%

REF data 2013

Encouragingly, an equality analysis of our REF (Research Excellence Framework) submissions showed that very similar numbers of men and women were submitted by the Faculty in December 2013 ‐ 84% of women and 90% of men. Staff on fixed term contracts were as well represented as those who were not; 93% of people who had been on maternity leave were also submitted. All of these numbers were above King’s averages and a considerable improvement on our 2008 figures, when only 43% of eligible women academic staff were submitted.

Word count: 451

46

6. Action plan

Provide an action plan as an appendix. An action plan template is available on the Athena SWAN website.

The Action Plan should be a table or a spreadsheet comprising actions to address the priorities identified by the analysis of relevant data presented in this application, success/outcome measures, the post holder responsible for each action and a timeline for completion. The plan should cover current initiatives and your aspirations for the next three years.

7. Case study: impacting on individuals: maximum 1000 words

Describe how the department’s SWAN activities have benefitted two individuals working in the department. One of these case studies should be a member of the self assessment team, the other someone else in the department. More information on case studies is available in the guidance.

Dr Alice Egerton, Senior Lecturer in Psychosis Studies

I joined the Department in 2008 as a non‐clinical post‐doctoral researcher on an MRC‐funded study for 4 years and am currently employed by the NIHR BRC. I joined the IoPPN SAT two years ago, on return from maternity leave after the birth of my first child, and am now preparing to go on leave with my second in January. I have noticed enormous positive change at the IoPPN over this time. In relation to parenting, for example, this period has seen the introduction of our mothering room, buddying scheme and parenting network, such that I have been able to share my experiences with other parents and parents‐to‐be. Openness around work‐life balance and parenting has encouraged me to apply for flexible working; I worked 0.6% FTE for the first couple of months after maternity leave before returning to working full‐time, and since December 2013 I have been working full‐time with flexible hours, so I have Fridays off to spend with my daughter. This flexibility has allowed me to find the work‐life balance that works best for my family and me.

In these 2 years I have also been awarded my first grants as principal investigator ‐ a young investigator award and a larger MRC research grant. These were made possible through detailed and helpful feedback on early drafts of my applications, with input from local collaborators, but also, crucially, encouragement to ‘go for it’ from senior members of staff. I have also recently been promoted to Senior Lecturer (Sept 14), which was facilitated through transparency and feedback regarding the applications process and encouragement from my line manager to apply.

We have recently launched several new initiatives in our Department to support early career researchers, in which I am involved due to my role on the SAT. This year has seen the launch of our Junior Academic committee, which hosts career events as well as (the very popular) coffee and cake every Monday morning; our Prizes committee which recognised in February winners of our departmental ‘PhD of the year’ and ECR ‘paper of the year’; and our Promotions committee, providing advice and encouragement on applications. In my six years at the IoPPN I have experienced a gradual and on‐going change towards a more encouraging, open and friendly workplace. New initiatives eased my return from my previous maternity leave, have encouraged

47

me in my career and chosen working pattern, and have provided forums for open discussion amongst colleagues. I feel far more supported and relaxed about taking maternity leave this second time. I am confident that increasing support will be available for me, and my colleagues, in the next stages of our careers and family lives.

Word count: 451

Jennifer Lau, Reader in Developmental Psychopathology

I have been in the Psychology Department of the IoPPN in my present position since September 2013 – having previously completed my PhD at the IoP between 2001 and 2005. In the period between these, I worked as a post‐doctoral fellow at the National Institute of Mental Health and also a University lecturer at the University of Oxford. The primary reason for choosing to return was the high quality of scientific research being conducted at the IoPPN and the value placed on it. However, another major reason was a sense that relative to many other institutions, female scientists seemed to flourish, and at seemingly little cost to their other life priorities. As a PhD student I had seen how my supervisor managed to balance her career aspirations with the demands of a young family – and how she was supported by colleagues in this.

At the time of accepting the job offer for my present position, I had not expected to be asking for maternity leave so soon into my contract. While some women in this position elsewhere might have experienced resentment and hostility from employers and colleagues, I received only congratulatory responses, help and support over the logistics of teaching cover during my leave, and constructive advice from colleagues on issues relating to work‐life balance and starting a new family. Moreover, despite not having been an employee for long enough to qualify for the College’s maternity package, the IoPPN offered to provide the equivalent support and leave entitlement. As I had not asked for this, the offer came as a complete but very pleasant surprise.

Since my return to work in June 2014, I have applied for and been granted the option to have flexible working hours. This has allowed me to have a more gradual return to full‐time work which was especially helpful as our initial childcare arrangements had fallen through. As we are currently still settling into a work‐life routine, knowing that there is an option and a precedent to work part‐time also sets my mind at rest.

I have also benefited from other Athena SWAN initiatives: having a mixed interview panel of male and female colleagues for my appointment, regular and structured appraisals, career development advice, and mentorship/buddying schemes. I have also been encouraged to apply for the Parenting Leave Fund, which is to help individuals who have taken parental leave to get back on track with their careers. I am aware, but have not yet had the opportunity to take advantage, of the mothering room and various networking opportunities to meet other colleagues facing similar issues of balancing science and family. Perhaps what I have valued most in taking up my position at the IoPPN is an environment that formally and informally nurtures and encourages female scientists to reach their full potential.

Word count: 471

48

No. Objective Achievements by November 2014 Actions going forward Responsibility Success measure

11.1 Have a better

gender balance

on the SAT

We appointed 4 more males to join the

SAT in December 2013 which increased

male membership from 5 to 9 in

December 2013.

We will restructure SAT membership to

reflect the new IoPPN structure and in doing

so invite more men to attend and one

student representative

Executive Dean Nov‐14 Sep‐15 An increase of male

colleagues on SAT from

32% to 40%.

1.2a Raise awareness

of SAT's work

amongst all staff

and students

All departments held Athena SWAN

meetings and discussed the departmental

checklist in November 2013.

Termly SAT newsletter and quarterly Gender

Ambitions bulletin will be distributed

electronically to all staff as part of the Dean's

updates

Sabina Khanom

and SAT reps

Nov‐14 Jan‐15 &

termly

thereafter

1.2b SAT work is discussed as a standard item

at IMB, Dean's Updates and department

executive boards.

SAT departmental representative photograph

on departmental boards at Denmark Hill and

Guy's Campuses

Committees/

department

admin

Jan‐15 Mar‐15

1.2c Started Athena SWAN lunchtime sessions

in canteen to discuss SAT work and gauge

feedback October 2014

Hold a termly open session in communal

places (such as IoPPN canteens) and market

as Athena SWAN roadshow

Sabina Khanom

and SAT reps

Nov‐14 Dec‐14 &

termly

thereafter

Athena SWAN Silver action Plan (2014‐2017)

Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London

Abbreviations

AS (Athena SWAN); BM (Business Managers); BRC (Biomedical Research Centre); CDN ( Centre for Developmental Neurobiology); ECR (Early Career Researcher); FTC (Fixed Term

Contracts); GPC (Good Practice Checklist); HoD (Head of Department); HR (Human Resources); IMB (Institute Management Board); IoP (former Institute of Psychiatry); IoPPN

(Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience); PDR (Performance Developmental Review); PGT (Postgraduate Taught); PGR (Postgraduate Research); SAT (Self‐Assessment

Team); THE (Times Higher Education); UG (Undergraduate); Wolfson CARD (Centre for Age‐Related Diseases)

Timescale

(high priority)

Start End

SAT and awareness of SAT's work

70% or more staff

report in 2nd staff

survey, Oct 2015‐ Jan

2016, that they are

aware of their SAT rep

and the work of the

SAT.

49

1.2d We profile SAT objectives and details of

our SAT members on the Faculty AS web

and intranet pages. Minutes and Terms of

Reference available on intranet pages.

Induction packs include SAT objectives and

SAT member details

Business

managers

Nov‐14 Jun‐15

as above

22.1 Be able to access

data on student

applications,

enrolments and

degree awards on

new

Undergraduate

Psychology and

iBSc Psychology

programmes

Director of new programme has attended

unconscious bias training

Monitor applications using annual

admissions reports by gender. Monitor

degree awards by gender.

UG admissions

tutor/ Head of

Education Support

Oct‐15 Oct‐17 Accurate data

collected.

2.2 Improve

shortlisting and

interview panel

data records

We have manually collected and collated

data for 2013/14. Currently, at least one

women on all interview panels.

Statement from Dean that no offer letters

sent unless all paperwork including panel

composition is sent to HR

To ask all departments to accurately record

panel data and monitor gender balance on

shortlisting and interview panels

HR and Dean's

Office

Nov‐15 Jun‐16 Accurate data

available. Women

make up at least 30%

of every panel.

2.3 Implement exit

interview

questionnaires to

assess why staff

are leaving and

where they are

going at end of

post or on leaving

IoPPN

Online exit interview questionnaire was

launched in the IoPPN in August 2014 as

a part of King's Bronze action plan

Dean's office to continue collecting data from

leavers and collate quarterly.

Annual report compiled for IMB with

recommendations

Dean's office and

IMB

Nov‐14 May‐15 &

quarterly

thereafter

Good quality data

collected.

Annual report to

highlight reasons staff

are leaving and IMB to

take on

recommendations

Data and supporting evidence

50

2.4 Accurately collate

promotion data

Data have been collected for the last 4

years at IoP for this AS submission.

Monitor promotion data annually by gender

and grade for all staff across IoPPN, including

new departments

HR and Dean's

Office

May‐15 Jun‐15 &

annually

thereafter

Accurate data

collected.

2.5 Assess how staff

experience

working at the

IoPPN

Staff and post‐docs were surveyed in Dec

2012 closing in Feb 2013 with a 65%

return rate.

Three focus groups for post‐docs and

academic staff were held in Sep 2014

To run a 2nd academic staff survey including

postdocs to assess the impact of changes in

organisational culture implemented through

AS SAT work

Dean's office Oct‐15 Jan‐ 16 &

annually

thereafter

Survey completed by

70% of IoPPN staff

(postdocs and

academic). Up to date

data available to allow

us to compare progress

since 2012 (which

results from all the

actions in this Plan)

2.6 Review our GPC

ratings

In 2012 and 2014 Faculty practices were

rated using A‐E. Improvement in ratings.

Use GPC to rate practice at IoPPN SAT Apr‐17 Jul‐17 Up to date ratings

available to allow us to

compare progress since

2014 (which results

from all the actions in

this Plan)

33.1 Develop new

opportunities to

increase overall

diversity of PGTs

Set up new PGT Professional Scholarships

(aimed at improving diversity) as part of

the King's Access to the Professions

Scholarship Scheme

To evaluate PGT Professional Scholarship

scheme

Dean of Education Nov‐14 ongoing At least 10 new PGT

Professional

Scholarships annually,

positive feedback

received and evidence

of employment

collected.

Postgraduate students

51

3.2 Assess student

numbers and

gender for

applications,

recruitment and

completions on

PGR and PGT and

improve

imbalances.

Data collected show that nearly all PGR

and PGT disciplines have a high % of

women with a significant proportion of

part‐time as well as full‐time PGRs.

Work with relevant UG courses to increase

the profile of PGR Neuroimaging so as to

increase the number of women applying and

enrolling for PGR Neuroimaging.

Monitor proportion female applying, offered

and accepted and part‐time and full‐time

PGT/PGR for both genders.

Monitor completion rates by gender.

PGR/PGT/

Education lead

Oct‐14 Oct‐17 An increase of 10% of

females on

Neuroimaging PGR

programme ‐ from

25% female to 35%.

Addressed any

imbalances in

applications,

recruitment and

completion rates.

44.1 Ensure equity of

offer in starting

salary and

additional

resources made

available (fair job

packages).

Endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to access

data on salary packages.

Develop IoPPN good practice guidance

document for salary negotiations.

Communicate widely.

Monitor data on salary packages of new

academic appointments.

HR, Dean and Vice

Deans

Nov‐14 Jan‐16 High awareness among

academic staff of good

practice guidelines (as

shown in 2015 survey).

Gender equity

achieved in salary

packages for new

appointments (from

Sep 2015)

4.2 Encourage

women to apply

for jobs and

senior roles at the

IoPPN

Depts. were asked that the percentage of

women on any academic longlist should

be at least 30% and difficulties had to be

discussed with the IoPPN Dean.

Depts. were asked to identify female

candidates who appear to fit the post

profile and encourage them to apply.

Develop guidance on IoPPN's commitment to

advertising posts widely and monitor.

Develop guidance on how to write job

advertisements in non‐gendered ways such

as by avoiding masculine and feminine terms

and disseminate widely.

Audit job advertisements.

HoDs/ senior staff

/HR

Nov‐14 Jan‐16 Longlists to have an

average of at least

40% women applicants

Appointment and selection

52

4.3 Ensure an

equitable

selection process

Selection panel participants are required

to attend King's training on unconscious

bias.

Encourage all staff (including professional

services) to attend unconscious bias training;

new starters to attend within 12 months of

start date.

Chairs of selection panels to complete online

refresher training every 2 years.

Encourage managers and staff to attend

inclusive training.

To monitor uptake on all of the above.

Departmental

administrators

Nov‐14 Jul‐16 90% staff have

attended unconscious

bias training and been

offered and

encouraged to attend

inclusive training.

Selection panel staff to

have completed

refresher training in

the last 2 years.

Unconscious bias

training offered

through induction and

Early Career Faculty

Development series

53

55.1 Improve staff

awareness and

understanding of

what is needed

for promotion to

next grade in

order to improve

successful

applications by

women for

promotion

As part of their PDR, managers discuss

with academic staff their current

readiness for promotion and areas that

may need further development.

Inaugural promotion workshop ran in

May 2013 and two further ones were

held in May 2014 at IoP/Wolfson CARD

and CDN.

Departmental promotions panels

established 2014.

Continue running annual promotion

workshops and encourage staff to attend the

annual IoPPN academic promotions briefing

session.

Promote workshops in IoPPN new

departments and at particular transition

points e.g. to lecturers and professors.

Divisions to establish a panel with 50%

women to identify academics who are ready

for promotion, and support development of

applications.

Carry out focus groups with: clinical

lecturers/senior lecturers/readers.

Divisional vice‐

deans/HR and

promotions panel

May‐15 Apr‐16 Panels are in place and

positive feedback on

awareness of process

received in 2nd survey

from 70% of staff.

A 10% increase of

women successfully

applying for promotion

(e.g to professor) and

improvements

demonstrated at key

transition points.

Identify and address

issues for clinical staff

pipeline.

5.2 HoDs to observe an IoPPN academic

promotions meeting in order to understand

the process when they put candidates

forward

We will also encourage staff and managers to

consult ‘good practice on development and

promotion’ video resources and monitor

uptake

Dean's office/HR May‐15 May‐17 By May 2017 all HoDs

observed promotions

meeting

50% of staff and

managers to report

consulting video

resources

Promotion

54

66.1 Ensure all staff

receive a

Performance and

Development

Review (PDR) and,

for academics,

that SMART

objectives against

the Academic

Performance

Framework are

set

In 2013/14 promotion was added as a

section on the PDR form and managers

discussed with all academic staff their

current readiness for promotion and

areas that may need further development

Encourage all staff including post‐docs to

complete PDRs and include career

development plan as part of PDR.

Guidance given via workshops at IoPPN as to

what constitutes a good quality appraisal

HoDs and Vice‐

deans and BMs

May‐15 Jul‐15 90% completion of

good quality appraisals

(all sections

appropriately

completed including

career development

plans) 2014/15

onwards

6.2a All staff to have a

mentor if they

would like one

IoPPN mentoring lead appointed Oct

2013. IoPPN mentoring launched Jan

2014 and speed mentoring session held.

30 pairs currently.

Two departments (psych med &

addictions) launched informal mentoring

programme wanting specialist mentoring.

IoPPN to continue informal mentoring

arrangements and matching of

mentor/mentee pairs via ‘speed mentoring’

workshops.

IoPPN Mentoring

lead

Nov‐14 Nov‐15 To increase IoPPN

mentoring pairs to 50

by 2015 and maintain

or improve this number

in 2016, 2017.

Academic satisfaction

with mentoring from

PDRs.

6.2b Academic and post‐doctoral researchers

also encouraged and directed to the

King's AS mentoring programme. 14 pairs

in 2013.

Encourage more King's AS mentoring pairs

(Gender Ambitions Mentoring Programme ‐

GAM)

GAM/ Sabina

Khanom

Nov‐14 Mar‐15 Positive feedback

received from post

docs via feedback

sessions. Academic

satisfaction with

mentoring from PDRs

and staff survey.

Career development

55

6.3a Advance and

support the

careers of early

career

researchers

In 2011/12 an annual Early Career Faculty

Development Series was launched and

was shortlisted for THE prize. Ten IoPPN

participants in Springboard and Aurora

programmes.

Continue running programme from 2014

onwards, and monitor uptake and feedback

each year.

Continue encouraging IoPPN applicants for

Springboard and Aurora programmes.

Dean of Education Nov‐14 Jul‐15 Positive feedback

received from staff

through evaluation

questionnaires.

Increase of 20 for

Springboard and

Aurora programmes.

6.3b IoP wide grant‐writing workshops

launched in Sep 2013/14 and ran again

this year to include new IoPPN

colleagues. Mock grant‐funding panel

event also ran this year, with review and

discussion of previous funding

applications.

To continue running programme and acting

on feedback

Thalia Eley/Paola

Dazzan/ Gill Dale

Nov‐14 Jul‐17 Positive feedback

received from staff and

audit of grants received

for those participating

in workshops 2017

6.3c Post‐doctoral champion since Feb 2014

who established a post‐doc network with

reps from each dept. Post‐doc network

created their own webpages and run

career focussed events including:

parenting and academia, teaching at

King's, ECR fellowships.

Increase awareness of the post‐doc network

and the Research Development Unit and

their activities via webpages and promotion

at AS roadshows and Dean's update.

Post‐doc

champion/comms

/Sabina Khanom

Nov‐14 Jan‐16 Staff survey shows

increase in awareness

of post‐doc network,

Research Development

Unit and positive

feedback.

6.3d BRC Post‐doctoral award was launched

and interviews will take place in

November 2014.

Prizes and awards‐ establish a diversity‐

friendly method (departmental panels) to

consider proactively departmental

nominations for awards/prizes

Divisional vice‐

deans

Nov‐14 Nov‐15 An increase in the

nominations of ECRs

for prizes and awards

from 4 to 8.

56

6.4 Public

Engagement,

media and

leadership

training

A larger proportion of women had

attended Media training at the IoP.

Increase in female 'Directory of Experts'

profiles

To run and promote further media and public

training courses at the IoPPN.

To develop leadership and public speaking

workshops.

Comms and PR Mar‐15 Sep‐15 High satisfaction and

positive feedback

received from

workshops through

evaluation

questionnaires.

77.1 To ensure an

improved

workload model

Focus group on workloads held in Sep

2014 highlighted perceived inequities in

workloads and recognition for some staff.

Working on collating information on

workload models from other universities.

To work with the Dean's office to develop a

workload model which should ensure

equitable workloads across gender in

particular that administrative responsibilities

and student supervision marking workloads

are allocated fairly.

To ensure pastoral roles within the

department are taken up by men as well as

women.

To monitor women committee workload and

run a second focus group.

Dean's office Nov‐14 Sep‐16 Workload model

piloted successfully in

one division and

implemented across

IoPPN by 2017.

7.2a Increase

representation

and sense of

belonging within

the organisation

An inaugural Induction was held the IoP

on Feb 2014 to welcome staff. A further

one took place on Oct 2014 for IoPPN.

Establish Departmental induction

programmes for new staff in which they

meet key departmental academic and

administrative personnel, in addition to

IoPPN inductions.

Female research staff should meet at least

one female senior role model from their

division as part of their induction.

Include Unconscious Bias training in induction

programmes.

Create divisional induction packs

Dean's

office/divisional

vice deans

Jan‐15 Sep‐15 All staff offered and

70% new staff

attended induction.

Feedback received

from new staff through

feedback

questionnaires.

Unconscious bias

training included in

induction

Organisation and culture

57

7.2b Departmental checklists were used to

audit good practice within departments

in 2013 and 2014

To create new departmental check lists with

Vice deans

SAT/Vice Deans Jan‐15 to be

audited

annually

2015

onwards

Audit of departmental

checklists to show good

practice in all divisions

7.3 To profile and

celebrate and

recognise women

in science

Launch of the Inspiring women portraits

in March 2013; exhibition was updated in

October 2014 to include new colleagues

from IoPPN. Inspiring women series also

held biannually. Wikipedia edit‐a‐thons

also held twice.

Collect data on gender diversity of speakers

at seminar series/conference.

Improve visibility of women researchers e.g.

on webpages: imagery, contact details and

information about projects to reflect the

broader team.

Events/comms

office

Nov‐14 Jun‐16 Data to show a parity

of speakers at IoPPN

seminars/conferences

are women.

Increase in visibility of

women on

social/digital media

7.4 To ensure ECR

representation

within

departments

ECRs (post‐doctoral fellows and

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer) are represented

on the Departmental Management

Board, or have an alternative method of

representation/communication with

senior management e.g. a biannual

meeting of postdocs and HoD.

ECRs given the opportunity to present at

departmental seminars or via another

medium.

HoDs/ vice deans Nov‐14 May‐15 ECRs presenting in

appropriate fora,

audited using

departmental checklist

in May 2015

7.5 To ensure

transparency in

the way staff are

recruited for

senior leadership

roles

Three vice‐dean roles for each new

division were advertised

BRC cluster deputy leads and new theme

leads were advertised

Recruitment of HoDs will be advertised

internally and selection process clearly

explained

Vice‐deans/

Dean's office

Nov‐14 Nov‐15 Annual audits show

that all roles were

advertised.

58

7.6 Committee

gender balance

Circulated the good practice in

committees paper. Liaised with

committee chairs to address gender

balance and ToRs. Monitored gender

balance over the last two years.

Continue to review committee gender

breakdown and maintain or improve women

membership to 40% (minimum) for senior

committees 2015 onwards. Implement 'Step

into Leadership' programme for IMB and

other senior committees.

Dean's office Nov‐14 Sep‐16 An average of 40% of

women on all senior

committees, with

further improvements

year‐on ‐year.

7.7 Reduction of fixed

term contracts for

new staff

We assessed fixed term contracts and

identified proportionally more senior

women were given these.

Discuss with HR reasons for FTCs for senior

staff and develop guidance to eliminate this.

Make sure people aware of range of options

for support for career development and

equity of starting packages (see 4.1). Ensure

unconscious bias training (see 4.3)

BMs/ HoDs Nov‐14 Nov‐16 Reduction in fixed term

contracts for newly

employed lecturers

and above, and parity

by gender across all

grades of staff.

7.8 Ensuring women

are well

represented in

public

engagement

activities and

recognised for

doing so

We have examples of women taking part

in public engagement activities in section

4 of the submission.

Record and monitor public engagement

activities

Comms office Nov‐14 ongoing Parity in women's

representation in

outreach activities. This

activity recognised in

PDRs

59

88.1a Encourage a

family‐friendly

culture and

flexible working

environment

An intranet page was developed with all

of King's family friendly policies.

A webinar on flexible working was held

and the recording was made available on

this page.

A parent network and lead were put in

place in Jan 2014. Mothering room was

launched and advertised.

Baby changing facilities were installed in

Denmark Hill campus.

All academic managers attend training on

work/life balance and are aware of King's

policy for flexible working for carers and non

carers.

Mothering room established and baby

changing facilities will be enhanced at our

Guy's campus. Add family friendly case

studies on our website.

Monitor attendance at and evaluate King's

new Supporting Parents and Carers good

practice workshop

HoDs/ Vice deans

Estates/comms

Sabina Khanom/

King's HR

Nov‐14 Jan‐16 Positive feedback on

awareness of family

friendly initiatives

received from staff

survey in 2015.

90% of line managers

and PIs attend the

flexible working

training

Established mothering

room and baby

changing facilities

enhanced at our Guy's

campus

8.1b Managers liaise with HR to access King's

maternity guidance and use the King's

maternity checklist, working through this

in collaboration with the employee.

Encourage managers to offer a range of

flexible working and part‐time working

arrangements to help women and men

balance work and family commitments

through the PDR process.

HR to monitor formal flexible working

uptake.

Publicise access to funding for maternity

cover

To organise annual parenting event.

HR and Divisional

BMs

Nov‐14 Sep‐16 Flexible working

arrangements being

discussed in PDRs.

Annual parenting event

implemented and

received positively.

Increased uptake of

maternity cover

funding.

Staff survey to show

awareness of formal

flexible working

arrangements.

Workplace flexibility

60

8.1c Where possible, key departmental

meetings and events are held between

10am‐3pm. Key department

meetings/events are set at least several

weeks in advance to allow staff to

organise their time.

Minimising time away from home ‐ to

provide Skype support and equipment as

standard.

Encourage and support use of Skype rather

than international travel where appropriate.

Disseminate expectation that staff do not

need to reply to emails out of hours across

IoPPN.

HoDs/BMs Nov‐14 Nov‐15 Departmental

checklists indicate that

use of Skype and other

similar mechanisms to

increase flexibility

implemented.

Staff survey indicates

awareness and use of

these mechanisms.

Staff survey to show

staff are not expected

to reply to emails

outside of core hours.

8.2 Increase

knowledge of

King's funding

available for

parents/carers

8 women successfully applied for the

college parenting fund in 2013/14.

BRC made Early Career Returner Award

with a value of up to £40K to one female

academic.

Emails were circulated advertising the

new King's carer career development

fund and the BRC Returner Award

Encourage women to apply for King's

Parental Leave Fund, development fund and

Early Career Returner award.

Encourage men to take paternity leave.

Run a focus group with men who have

recently taken informal paternity leave to

establish barriers to formal applications.

Add paternity case studies to family friendly

webpages.

Monitor and evaluate these initiatives.

To encourage managers to be flexible with

workload for recent returners.

HoDs, BMs, HR

and Sabina

Khanom

Sep‐14 Oct‐15 8 or more women

receive awards from

Kings Parenting Fund.

PDRs show flexibility in

workload for recent

returners.

Increase in men

recording taking

paternity leave in PDRs

from 0 to 20%.

61

IoPPN Inspiring Women Exhibition 2013www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/women-in-science/index.aspx

institute of psychiatry, psychology and neuroscience · pdf fileecr early career researcher...

Documents