One ongoing challenge for science concerns the poor representation of women in senior positions.  Women are underrepresented at full professor level in virtually all areas of science, in the USA, Europe, Canada—as we learned yesterday during this digital event—and around the world. The field of Psychology presents a particularly striking example of this disparity.  Students studying Psychology are overwhelmingly women (nearly 80% in the UK and USA), and women have earned at least half of the Psychology doctorates since the mid-1980s. Yet, under half of psychologists working at associate professor level are women, and women make up only around a third of psychologists working at full professor level. In light of these statistics, it is unsurprising that women are underrepresented in scholarly leadership roles (e.g. society governing boards, editorial boards), and in conference symposia.  Estimates suggest that it will be many years before gender parity is achieved across the sciences.

Several potential causes have been proposed for the poor representation of women in academic science.  These proposals have spurred a number of initiatives across university departments, including the introduction of more transparent promotion processes, reporting of the gender pay gap, the availability of childcare, and unconscious bias training.  However, these initiatives are often sporadic and introduced outside of a larger framework for creating positive change. Further, without external monitoring, it is easy to brush the equality agenda aside, in favour of challenges with more immediate consequences.  The purpose of this post is to introduce Psychonomic Society members to the Athena SWAN process – a national framework in the United Kingdom for advancing gender equality in the academy – and my experiences with it.

The Athena SWAN equality charter began in 2005 as an initiative to advance the representation of women in science, technology, engineering, medicine and mathematics (STEMM).  More recently, the charter has expanded to non-science disciplines and is focused on gender equality more broadly.  The Athena SWAN process is managed by the Equality Challenge Unit, an organisation whose mission is to advance equality and diversity in universities and colleges.  Universities and departments who are committed to advancing gender equality are able to apply for and earn bronze, silver and gold awards given for a period of five years.  These awards serve as a public mark of achievement within this area.

Applications involve a lengthy institutional or departmental self-assessment process, and commitment to an action plan comprising a set of SMART objectives (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-limited).  Self-assessments are normally based on statistical data, staff and student survey data, focus groups, and case studies.  Engagement with the process has been building over the past decade, and this accelerated further in 2011, when the National Institute for Health Research (the largest clinical research funder in Europe) took the decision to limit particular grants to departments with Athena SWAN silver status.

The self-assessment and application process for these awards is resource intensive, and there is no guarantee that an award will be granted.  However, as someone concerned about and responsible for equality and diversity (as a Head of Department, or “Chairperson” in U.S. lingo), I’ve found several aspects of the process to be quite effective in moving our performance in this area forward.

• One requirement of having an award is that the application must be made public (our redacted version is here). The public availability of this document means that staff and students thinking of joining our department can see what our commitment looks like and how we are doing. This provides an additional incentive to take the process seriously, and to keep our eyes on the ball.
• The self-assessment process requires analyses of 3-5 years of statistical data regarding a wide range of measures pertaining to gender equality. The act of recording data, and knowing that data will be recorded and made public, keeps colleagues focused on these issues on an ongoing basis.  Further, while it is easy to explain away one metric showing gender bias, it is not so easy if several metrics go in the same direction, or the bias occurs year after year.
• The data analyses that underpin the self-assessment are broad in scope. We conduct detailed analyses of all aspects of processes around recruitment and selection, promotions, and pay.   But we also analyse the less obvious areas where gender biases can creep in, such as teaching workload, the allocation of leadership roles, the size of start-up packages, investment into pump priming research awards, and the gender of invited seminar speakers.  Small biases in these areas are important because they accumulate over time.
• The process requires sustained commitment to an action plan against which performance will be measured at the next renewal. The action plan must be focused, realistic, and deliverable. Further, the commitments that we make for that five-year period go into my objectives as a Head of Department. This means that dealing with specific challenges around gender equality becomes part of what success looks like.

When my department committed to this process around a decade ago, we had few women in the full professor band, a very substantial gender pay gap, and lack of confidence that women could develop their careers in the department.  Through the process, we have increased the percentage of women full professors to over 50%, totally eliminated the pay gap at all levels, and improved staff satisfaction.  But maintaining and enhancing these gains requires constant vigilance; and of course, equality issues go beyond gender.

We are just one department, and evidence is mixed as to whether the Athena SWAN initiative is effective.  Survey data have been positive, but whether the process has had measurable impacts on women’s representation is less clear.   Anecdotal reports suggest that the process is sometimes viewed as a “tick box” exercise, or left to junior women staff members to push forward without strong commitment from senior levels.  But if there is a strong commitment to gender equality at senior levels, my view is that the Athena SWAN process provides the tools to turn that commitment into positive change.

I have introduced the Athena SWAN process to Psychonomic Society members because it provides a potentially effective framework for addressing the poor representation of women in academic science.  I recognize that many members who are concerned about these issues may not have access to a similar process, or to a national organisation such as the Equality Challenge Unit.  However, it should be clear that the principles that I’ve highlighted above, such as ongoing data collection and publication of data, can be adopted by any organisation committed to gender equality.  Indeed, these are even principles that could be adopted by the Psychonomic Society.