Athena SWAN and gender diversity: a UK-based retrospective cohort study

Abstract

ObjectivesTo promote gender diversity and equity in higher education, Athena Scientific Women’s Academic Network (SWAN) supports and recognises higher education institutions (HEI) in advancing the careers of women through charter commitment, awards, training and advocacy since 2005. Most evaluation studies, however, are based on qualitative assessments. This study sought to (1) examine the relationship between Athena SWAN accreditation/awards in the UK and gender diversity of leaders and senior academics using quantitative data from 2012/2013 to 2016/2017, and (2) explore the associations between Athena SWAN awards and university performance as measured by overall scores in global ranking systems.DesignRetrospective cohort study based on the UK HEIs.SettingHigher education sector in the UK provided by the Higher Education Statistics Agency.Participants148 HEIs who provided employment data on female-to-male ratios (55% complete data) for each academic year between 2012/2013 and 2016/2017.Primary and secondary outcome measuresGender diversity, defined as female representation rates of positions in managerial leadership (eg, heads of institutions, department heads) and professors. The Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings scores, an indicator of research, teaching, employability and internationalisation, were collected to measure university performance.ResultsGender diversity of managerial leaders and non-managerial professors at all levels of Athena SWAN status has improved over the 5 years. Linear mixed effects models identified that Athena SWAN awardees had lower female representation than non-awardees in managerial leadership positions (p<0.05), while the gap was narrowed among Silver awardees over time. Athena SWAN Charter members had increasingly higher female representation than those not in the Charter (p<0.05). Silver-award institutions ranked higher in QS rankings than Bronze-award institutions (β=11.80, p<0.05).ConclusionsThere are overall rising trends in gender diversity from 2012/2013 to 2016/2017. Athena SWAN members showed greater and faster growth in female representations. Silver awardees had greater university performance than Bronze awardees.

Is there gender bias in research grant success in social sciences?: Hong Kong as a case study

“…For example, the Athena SWAN initiative requires HEIs to obtain an Athena SWAN silver awards as a pre-requisite for certain large-scale funding from the National Institute for Health Research in the UK (Advance HE, 2019; Equality Challenge Unit, 2019b). The initiative was found to encourage gender equity and to be associated with increased rates of female leaders in managerial and professoriate positions (Ovseiko et al, 2016;Xiao et al, 2020). In China, recent studies found raising the maximum age for applying for the Young Scientist Fund by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) has increased the representation of female applicants from 37% to 48% since 2011, and female awardees also increased from 33% to 43% (Ma et al, 2018).…”

“…Upon funding awarded, celebrating women's achievement publicly and across platforms can enhance the recognition and visibility of excellent female researchers (Boyle et al, 2015). Lastly, social campaigns, such as the Time to Change (TTC) program launched in 2009 in the UK, have been found to reduce stigma, discriminatory behaviors while improving public attitudes toward people with mental illness (Henderson and Thornicroft, 2009;Xiao et al, 2020). Hence, gender-equity national and regional campaigns could also bring together funding agencies, a consortium of prominent universities, and societies to develop coordinated approaches to reducing gender inequalities across social sciences and STEM disciplines in science.…”

“…ender disparity has been noted and debated across research domains, disciplines, and countries for over two decades (Ding et al, 2006;Symonds et al, 2006;Larivière et al, 2013;Shen, 2013;West et al, 2013;Sheltzer, 2018;Grogan, 2019;Witteman et al, 2019a;Xiao et al, 2020). Women in academia take longer to publish and receive less credit (Symonds et al, 2006;West et al, 2013;Grogan, 2019).…”

“…Woman-led articles get fewer citations even in high impact journals (Larivière et al, 2013;Ghiasi et al, 2015), and women are less represented among journal referees (Lerback and Hanson, 2017). In terms of recruitment and promotion, women academics are not only less likely to be hired as new faculty members (Moss-Racusin et al, 2012;Sheltzer, 2018), but also under-represented in senior professorial and managerial roles in higher education institutions (HEIs; Ovseiko et al, 2016;Xiao et al, 2020). In particular, gender disparity persists in biomedicine (Edmunds et al, 2016;Sheltzer, 2018), science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; Holmes et al, 2008;National Research Council, 2010;Finkel, 2013;Latimer et al, 2019).…”

Narrowing the gap in careers in clinical research and academia for healthcare professionals

“…The Athena Swan Charter attempted to reduce some of this gender disparity in a number of ways. (17) The 2011 announcement by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to only shortlist clinical academic departments with a 'silver' Athena Swan award for (certain) research grants, resulted in an increase in the number of female clinical academics in senior positions. (14) An independent review of impact suggested the Charter was successful in bringing about cultural and behavioural change for the benefit of women in research and academia, but questioned whether the pace at the 'most senior levels' was fast enough.…”