Promoting excellence through race equality
Contents
Glossary 2
Submission notes 3
1 Letter of endorsement from the principal 4
2 The self assessment team and process 6
3 Institution and local context 11
4 Staff profile 15
5 Recruitment and selection 58
6 Career progression and development 74
7 Student pipeline 95
8 Diversity in curriculum and pedagogy 129
10 Action Plan 131
(Word count 12, 632)
Glossary
2
Promoting excellence through race equality
A&H Arts and Humanities
A&S Arts and Sciences
ALI Academic Learning Institute
ASC Academic Staff Committee
BHM Black History Month
BME Black and Minority Ethnic
BS Biomedical Sciences
CI Cultural Institutes
DISG Diversity & Inclusion Steering Group
E&F Estates and Facilities
ECR Early Career Researcher
EMA Ethnic Minority Association
EMDP Extended Medical Degree Programme
ePET Extended Principal’s Executive Team
ER External Relations
F&P Finance and Planning
F&SD Fundraising and Supporter Development
FTC Fixed Term Contract
GTA Graduate Teaching Assistant
GI Global Institutes
HoD Head of Department
HEI Higher Education Institution
HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency
HR Human Resources
HSS Health School Services
ITS Information Technology Services
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LSM Life Sciences and Medicine
N&M Nursing and Midwifery
NMS Natural and Mathematical Sciences
NSS National Student Survey
PC Permanent Contract
PET Principal’s Executive Team
PGCAP Post-graduate Certificate in Academic Practice
PGR Postgraduate Research
PGT Postgraduate Taught
PDR Performance Development Review
PPN Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience
PS Professional Services
REM Race Equality Charter Mark
RDU Researcher Development Unit
RM Research Management
SAT Self Assessment Team
S&E Students and Education
SSPP Social Science and Public Policy
SU Students Union
UG Undergraduate
VP Vice Principal
WP Widening Participation
2
Promoting excellence through race equality
Submission notes
Staff data
In most cases, staff data counts Full-time equivalent (FTE) instances and is taken from the HESA return. This data covers 3 years, 2011-12 to 2013-14. Data for both UK and Non-UK staff is provided.
Throughout the document, where numbers are small, findings should be treated with caution.
Student data
This counts Full-person equivalent (FPE) instances. The student data covers 4 years, 2010-11 to 2013-14. Only data for UK students is provided, as ethnicity categories are not considered to be meaningful for Non-UK students.
Staff and student data
A range of benchmarks have been provided to enable a comparison of our position with that of other HEIs/groups of HEIs. The benchmarking data has been drawn from the Heidi database for 2012-13 and counts FPE instances. It is not comparable to the internal data used elsewhere. PLEASE NOTE: Our institution is indicated as ‘HEI1’ in these tables to protect anonymity. We have selected 3 comparable benchmark institutions, labelled ‘HEI2-4’. Also considered is an average for the HEIs in our local geographical area, labelled ‘Local’.
The majority of staff and student data are drawn from our internal databases. Where data has been provided from other sources, this has been indicated.
An * has been used in the tables where the numbers of individuals counted in that cell is equal to or less than 5, to prevent identification.
Survey responses
The staff survey responses for Academic and Profession services are provided separately. UK and Non-UK responses have been combined, as a review suggested that these were closely aligned.
The student survey is broken down by UG and PG and separated for UK and Non-UK.
To aid analysis, all the ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’ responses were combined.
A summary of response rates for both surveys is below.
1 Letter of endorsement from the principal
2 The self assessment team and process
2a A description of the self-assessment team
The SAT was established in September 2014 and was chaired by the VP (Research and Innovation), the university Diversity Champion. It had a diverse ethnic membership and included Academic and Professional Services representatives from across the grades and from the SU.
The DISG, our governing body for equalities, recommended a SAT membership that would allow us to understand our race equality practice at different levels of the organisation. Academic and Professional Services areas were selected to take a macro and micro view of our performance and were approached by our Diversity Champion to identify representatives. Managers canvassed their staff to identify interested participants who were then approached. See table 2a.1 below for an overview of the membership.
In addition to the individual contributions identified in the table, the SAT members’ role description included:
· participating in a working group to review the data, identify priorities, existing best practice and actions, and
· promoting and encouraging staff and student involvement in relevant activities.
Although members’ time was not protected, the DISG, Deans of faculty and Heads of directorate endorsed participation in relevant activities, stating that ‘Senior managers, where it is possible, will release any relevant and interested staff to attend REM-related events’.
As a consequence, there was a positive level of attendance and excellent engagement from SAT members in our programme of meetings/activities.
Table 2a.1 – SAT membership
Constituency represented / Job Title, Faculty/Directorate / Specific role/contribution to the SATSenior management / Vice Principal (Research and Innovation) / Chair, Diversity Champion
BME Network Steering Group – Co-Chair / Senior Lecturer, LSM / Member of Academic working group
BME Network Steering Group – Co-Chair / Senior Lecturer, PPN / Member of Academic working group
BME Network Steering Group – Professional Services rep / Departmental Administrator, Health Safety / Member of Professional Services working group
Faculty level representative – Health Schools / Head of Business Services, N&M / Member of Professional Services working group
Faculty level representative – A&S / Professor, Law / Member of Student working group
Faculty level representative – A&S / Senior Lecturer, Law / Member of Student working group
Department level representative – Health Schools / Professor, PPN / Member of Academic working group
Department level representative – A&S / Senior Lecturer, A&H / Member of Academic working group
Department level representative – A&S / Professor, NMS / Member of Academic working group
Directorate level representative – Professional Services / Employment Relations Policy Adviser, HR / Lead for Academic working group
Department level representative – Professional Services / Admissions Policy Enquiries Manager, SED / Lead for Professional Services working group
Curriculum issues Representative / Research Associate, SSPP / Lead for Student working group
Curriculum issues Representative / Lecturer, LSM / Member of Student working group
Students Union representative / Vice President for Education (A&S), Sabbatical Officer, SU / Member of Student working group
Students Union representative / Activities Development Manager, SU / Publicity student engagement/Member of Student working group
Equalities representative / BME Attainment Officer, HR / Project lead for BME Success Project/Member of Student working group
Equalities representative / Equalities Officer , HR / Project Communications and Engagement/Member of Miscellaneous working group
Equalities representative / Equalities Manger, HR / REM Project Lead/Lead for Miscellaneous working group
Staff Data representative / Data Manager, HR / Provision of Staff Data/Member of Miscellaneous working group
Staff Data representative / Data Analyst, HR / Provision of staff data/Member of Miscellaneous working group
Student Data representative / Head of Student Data and Analytical Services, SED / Provision of student data /Member of Student working group
2b The self assessment process
The SAT held 3 meetings (September2014, December 2014, March 2015). Each was facilitated by an external facilitator and, to maximise engagement, was conducted in an informal workshop style.
The first meeting aimed to build a knowledgeable and energised team who could contribute to the process and act as ambassadors for race equality. A common framework for discussing race issues was established to provide a platform for future work. The submission process was outlined, members shared expertise they could contribute and signed up to participate in a working group: Academic, Professional Services, Students and Miscellaneous. Each working group identified a lead; responsible for convening the meetings and writing up reports. Feedback from this meeting suggested members were motivated and enthused.
During November, each working group met to discuss a pack of data prepared by HR, including findings from staff/student surveys and student focus groups. They produced a report, highlighting key issues and possible interventions. These were shared with the wider SAT.
At the second meeting, members remained in working groups to revisit their reports and prioritise SMART actions. Each group was given the opportunity to comment and challenge the proposed actions of other groups until a consensus was reached. The final actions were reflected in the first draft of the submission.
The third meeting in March allowed SAT members to review and approve the final draft of the action plan and discuss and agree the governance structures to support its implementation.
The SAT reported to the PET and provided regular updates to the DISG.
2c The process of involvement, consultation and communication
July 2014 - ‘Promoting Excellence through Race Equality’, REM launch event for senior colleagues, SAT and BME Network members. To raise awareness of the REM and current race equality projects.
October 2014 – a series of 8 campus-based student and staff events to raise awareness of REM, led by a Co-Chair of the BME Staff Network, SU Vice President or Diversity Champion.
October/November 2014 – on-line all-staff and student surveys, publicised via all staff/student emails from the Diversity Champion, intranet and Staff News articles.
November 2014 – Campus-based student focus groups to contribute qualitative information to the submission (see section 7c below for more information).
26 January 2015 - A breakfast meeting for Deans, Heads of directorates, BME Network and SAT members, to improve engagement with REM work, to highlight barriers to engagement and the need for cultural change. Included an audio presentation of BME staff and student experiences/voices gathered through our REM work. Leading to the identification of one cross-institutional Underpinning Action to generate a cultural shift, to ensure that the REM action plan falls on more fertile ground (see more in section 4a).
February 2015 – All Deans and Heads of directorate invited to contribute information for the submission covering local race equality practice via completion of a template.
4 February 2015 – SAT receive first draft of submission for comment.
4 February 2015 – Separate focus groups for Academic and Professional Services staff facilitated by ECU, to clarify and supplement responses received from the survey.
19 February 2015 – Submission circulated for consultation to the SAT, ePET (outlining their key responsibilities and resource considerations) and all staff and students.
27 February 2015 – All staff and student consultation event.
12 March 2015 – Third SAT meeting to finalise the submission.
19 March 2015 – Meeting with representatives from faculties and directorates to take forward the Underpinning Action above.
End March 2015 – Sign off of submission by DISG and PET.
Our BME Staff Network, open to all staff that self-identify as BME was closely involved in the activities above. Colleagues in the SU supported our engagement activities, particularly around our BME Student Success Project (see section 7c).
Despite our wide and varied programme of engagement, attendance at some events was disappointing. The SAT registered this as a concern and started to take action (see 26 January meeting above) to increase engagement. On the student side, the newly appointed BME Student Attainment Officer has forged closer links with the SU which is helping to improve awareness and engagement (see section 7c).
Table 2c.2 summarises key communications occurring throughout the process.
Table 2c.2 Communications to support REM activity
2d The ongoing role of the self assessment team
At its final meeting it was recognised that the SAT had played an invaluable role in producing the submission and that it had fulfilled its remit. Members were invited to individually contribute to the delivery of actions where they had a specific interest and the following was agreed regarding the future governance and implementation of the REM action plan:
Actions
[Action 9.1] DISG to have governance responsibility for the implementation of the REM action plan.
[Action 9.2] Consult a selection of senior managers to identify appropriate structures/ support required for successful implementation.
[Action 9.3] Resource plans to support implementation to be received as part of the annual budget setting process for 2015/16.
[Action 9.4] Remit of colleagues working on Athena SWAN in faculties would be extended to include REM where possible.
[Action 9.5] Review overlaps between REM and Athena SWAN action plans and align activities where possible.
[Action 9.6] Establish relevant institutional and local KPIs that are relevant to the achievement of the action plan.
[Action 9.7] REM surveys to be repeated in 3 years as a benchmarking exercise to inform revised action plan.
3 Institution and local context
3a An overview of our institution
We are a research-intensive institution with over 26,000 students from 140 countries and over 7,000 employees.
We comprise eight academic faculties spanning a broad range of disciplines, with a distinguished reputation in the humanities, law, social sciences and the sciences (including psychiatry, medicine, nursing and dentistry).
Tables 3a.1 and 3a.2 provide a breakdown of our 6,723 FTE staff by job type, faculty and nationality for 2013-14. Tables 3a.3 and 3a.4 provide similar information for our 27,639 students.
Table 3a.1 – All staff by faculty – FTE – 2013/14 (INSTITUTION)
Table 3a.2 – All staff by nationality – FTE – 2013/14 (INSTITUTION)
No. / %UK / 4621 / 69%
Non-UK / 2106 / 31%
Total / 6729 / 100%
Table 3a.3 – All students by faculty – FPE – 2013/14 (INSTITUION)
Table 3a.4 - All students by nationality – FPE – 2013/14 (INSTITUTION)