Appendix Three

Academic Review 2008/09

  1. This appendix analyses the outcomes of the 2009academic review in relation to age, disability, religion and belief, gender and ethnicity. A report was submitted to the Staff Policy Committee, held on the 7th October 2009, which analysed outcomes by gender. Additional information is contained within this report onethnicity, age, disability and religion.

Gender

Academic staffeligible to apply by gender

Gender / Sector / Total
Science and Engineering / Humanities, Social Sciences and Law / Barts and the LondonSchool of Medicine and Dentistry
Female / 30 (11%) / 124 (39%) / 147 (37%) / 301 (31%)
Male / 234 (89%) / 192 (61%) / 250 (63%) / 676 (69%)
Total / 264 / 316 / 397 / 977
  1. The entire Queen Mary workforce is 50% female and 50% male. Of the 977academic members of staff who wereeligibleto apply to the review, 301 (37%) were female. The School of Medicine and Dentistry had the largest number of academic staffeligible to apply to the review, with 397 (41%) of staff, of whom 147 (37%) were female. Science and Engineering had the lowest proportion of female(11%) academic staff eligible to apply to the review.
  1. Compared to the previous academic year, there has been a reduction in the number of female staff eligible to apply in all three sectors.

Submissions by gender[1]

Gender / Total
Female / 13 (22%)
Male / 47 (78%)
Total / 60 (100%)
  1. Of the 60 submissions made to the review, 13 (22%) came from women. There is a gender differential of 30% between those who were successful in applying for promotion and those who were eligible to do so.This was not the case in last year’sreview.

Successfulapplicationsfor promotion by gender[2]

Gender / Total
Female / 8 (19%)
Male / 34 (81%)
Total / 42 (100%)
  1. Of the 42successful applications made,8 (19%) were from women. Again this differs greatly from to the previous year where 42% of the successful applicants were women.

Unsuccessfulpromotion applications by gender

Gender / Total
Female / 5 (28%)
Male / 13 (72%)
Total / 18 (100%)
  1. Of the 22academic staffthat made unsuccessful applications for promotion,5 (28%) were female, which is slightly more than last year (23% of unsuccessful women) and is higher than the percentage of women who made a submission (22%).

Ethnicity

Academic staffeligible to apply by ethnicity

Ethnicity / Sector / Total
Science and Engineering / Humanities, Social Sciences and Law / Barts and the LondonSchool of Medicine and Dentistry
White / 204 (77%) / 280 (89%) / 289 (73%) / 773 (79%)
Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic / 35 (13%) / 16 (5%) / 69 (17%) / 120 (12%)
Mixed Race / 8 (3%) / 3(1%) / 6 (2%) / 17 (2%)
Info refused, unknown or not yet sought / 17 (6%) / 17 (5%) / 33 (8%) / 67 (7%)
Total / 264 / 316 / 397 / 977
  1. Of the 977academic staffeligible to apply to the review, 120 (12%) were from a Black, Asian or MinorityEthnic background (including MixedRace), which is a diminution compared to 2008. There were 773 (79%) academic staff from a White background.There were 67 (7%)of stafffor whom we did not have ethnicity information. Across Queen Mary as a whole, 21% of staff are from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background (including mixed race).
  1. The School of Medicine and Dentistry had the largest numberand proportion ofacademic staff from a Black,Asian or minority Ethnic background eligible to apply to the review with 69 (17%) of their academic staff within this group. Humanities, Social Sciences and Lawhad the smallest number and proportion of academic staff from this group.

Submissions by ethnicity

Ethnicity / Total[3]
White / 48 (80%)
Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic / 10 (17%)
Mixed Race / 1 (2%)
Information refused, unknown or not yet sought / 1 (2%)
Total / 60
  1. Of the 60 submissions made, 10 (17%) were from a Black,Asian or MinorityEthnic background, which is greater than the proportion of this group who are eligible to apply. Academic staff from a White background represented 48 (80%) of the group who made a submission to the review.

Successful promotion applicationsbyethnicity

Ethnicity[4] / Total
White / 33 (79%)
Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic (including mixed race) / 8 (19%)
Information refused, unknown or not yet sought / 1 (2%)
Total / 42
  1. Of the 42successful promotion applications made, 8 (19%) were made to academic staff from aBlack, Asian or Minority Ethnic background, which is a higher proportion than last year. 33 (79%) academic staff who were successful in gainingpromotion were White.

Unsuccessful promotion applications by ethnicity

Ethnicity / Total
White / 15 (83%)
Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic
(including mixed race) / 3 (17%)
Information refused, unknown or not yet sought / 0
Total / 18
  1. Of the 18academic staff who made a submission but did not receive a promotion,15 (83%) were White and 3(17%) were from a Black, Asian or MinorityEthnic background. This is less worrying than in the previous year where 64% of the unsuccessful applicants were from a white background and 32% were from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background.

Age

Academic staffeligible to apply by age

AgeCategory / Sector / Total
Science and Engineering / Humanities, Social Sciences and Law / Barts and the LondonSchool of Medicine and Dentistry
18-25 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
26-34 / 24 (9%) / 50 (16%) / 35 (9%) / 109 (11%)
35-50 / 151 (57%) / 176 (57%) / 211 (53%) / 538 (55%)
51 and over[5] / 89 (34%) / 90 (28%) / 151 (38%) / 330 (34%)
Total / 264 / 316 / 397 / 977
  1. The majority of academic staff eligible to apply to the review were aged between 35 and 50. There were 538 (55%) academic staff between these ages. There were 109 (11%) staff aged between 26 and 34 and 330 (34%) staff aged over 51. There were no staff eligible aged between 18 and 25. Compared to the previous year, there has been a reduction in the number of staff eligible aged between 26 and 34.

Submissions by age

Age bracket[6] / Sector / Total
Science and Engineering / Humanities, Social Sciences and Law / Barts and the LondonSchool of Medicine and Dentistry
26-34 / 5 (8%)
35-50 / 19 / 16 / 13 / 48(80%)
51 and over / 7 (12%)
Total / 60
  1. The majority of academic staff that made a submission to the review were aged between 35 and 50 (80%). There were 7 (12%) staff who made a submission who were over the age of 51 and 5 (8%) staff who were between the ages of 26 and 34. A larger proportion of staff between the ages of 35 and 50 made a submission (80%) compared with the percentage that were eligible to apply (55%).

Successful promotion applications by age

Age bracket[7] / Sector / Total
Science and Engineering / Humanities, Social Sciences and Law / Barts and the LondonSchool of Medicine and Dentistry
26-34 / 3 (7%)
35-50 / 13 / 11 / 10 / 34 (81%)
51 and over / 5 (12%)
Total / 42
  1. The majority of academic staff who were successfully promoted were between the ages of 35 and 50. There were 34 (81%) staff within this age group, which is a higher proportion than in the previous academic promotion review. Five staff (12%) were over the age of 51. The age profile of staff who were promoted reflected the age profile of staff that made a submission to the review.

Unsuccessful promotion applications by age

Age Category[8] / Sector / Total
Science and Engineering / Humanities, Social Sciences and Law / Barts and the LondonSchool of Medicine and Dentistry
26-34 / 2 (11%)
35-50 / 4 / 9 / 3 / 14 (77%)
51 and over / 2 (11%)
Total / 18
  1. Of the academic staff who made a submission to the review but were not successful in gaining promotion, the majority, 14 (77%), were aged between 35 and 50. Two (11%) were over the age of 51 and two (11%) were aged between 26 and 34.

Disability

Academic staff eligible to apply by disability

Disabled summary / Sector / Total
Science and Engineering / Humanities, Social Sciences and Law / Barts and the LondonSchool of Medicine and Dentistry
Known disability / 3 (1%) / 8 (3%) / 7 (2%) / 18 (2%)
No known disability[9] / 261 (99%) / 308 (97%) / 390 (98%) / 959 (98%)
Total / 264 / 316 / 397 / 977
  1. Of the 977 academic members of staff who were eligible to apply to the review, 18 (2%) had a known disability. This is an increase compared to last year’s review (2007/08).
  1. The number of academic members of staffwith a disability that made a submission to the academic review is too small to be reported here as individuals can be readily identified and sensitive personal information compromised.

Religion and Belief

Academic staffeligible to apply by religion and belief

  1. The forthcoming equality bill will introduce a duty on public bodies to eliminate discrimination on grounds of age, sexual orientation and belief. This duty is already in place in relation to gender, race and disability. As Queen Mary currently collects data on the religious beliefs of staff, it is included in the analysis, in anticipation of the requirements we will have to fulfil in the near future.

Religion or Belief[10] / Total
Christian / 351 (36%)
Jewish / 35 (4%)
Muslim / 21 (2%)
Hindu / 19 (2%)
Other religion / 33 (4%)
No Religion / 358 (37%)
Information refused or not known / 160 (16%)
Total / 977
  1. Of the 977 academic staffeligible to apply to the review a large proportion 351 (36%) identified as Christian, followed by 358 (37%) whohad no religion. There were 35 (4%) academic staff who identified as Jewish, 21 (2%) Muslim, 19 (2%) were Hindu, 10 (1%) and 33 (4%) were other religion.

There are no major changes compared to the 2007/08 academic promotion review.

Submissions by religion and belief

Religion or Belief / Total
Christian / 27 (45%)
Jewish / 2 (3%)
Muslim / 3 (5%)
Hindu / 1 (2%)
Other religion / 2 (3%)
No Religion / 16 (27%)
Information refused or not known / 9 (15%)
Total / 60
  1. Of the 67 submissions made by academic staff a large proportion 27 (45%) identified as Christian, followed by 16 (27%) who had no religion. 3 (5%) were Muslim.

Successful promotion applications by religion and belief

Religion or Belief / Total
Christian / 18 (43%)
Jewish / 2 (5%)
Muslim / 2 (5%)
Other religion / 2 (5%)
No Religion / 13 (31%)
Info refused or not known / 5 (12%)
Total / 42
  1. Of the 42successful applications for promotions, a large proportion, 18 (43%), were made to academic staff who identified as Christian.

13 (31%) academic staff who received promotionhad no religious beliefs.

Unsuccessful promotion applications by religion and belief

Religion or Belief / Total
Christian / 9 (50%)
Jewish / 0
Muslim / 1 (5%)
Hindu / 1 (5%)
Other / 0
No Religion / 3 (17%)
Info refused or not known / 4 (22%)
Total / 18
  1. Of the 18academic staff who made a submission but did not receive a promotion9 (50%) were Christian, which is an increase compared to last year and 3 (17%) had no religion. We do not hold information for 4 (22%) staff, which is a different proportion (but not number) from last year.

Conclusions

  1. Unlike the 2007/08 academic promotion review, a smaller proportion of women were successful in gaining promotion (19%) comparedto the proportion of women who made a submission to the review (22%).This is a matter that the College should keep under review.
  1. In relation to ethnic background,the proportion of White staff who gained promotion, (79%) is in line with the proportionthat made a submission to the review (80%).Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic academic staff made up 16% of the submissions compared with 19% of those who were successful in gaining promotion, which is an increase compared to the previous review.
  1. The analysis of religion and belief shows that the proportion of academic staff that identified with the Christian faith who gained promotion, (45%),is in line with theproportionthat made a submission to the review (43%).
  1. The age profile of academic staff that were successful in gaining a promotion reflects the age profile of staff that made a submission to the review. Similarly to last year, there were some variations in those who chose to make a submission. Staff aged between 35 and 50 made up 55% of eligible staff and 80% of the submissions. This may be explained by the fact that sustained performance over a significant period of time needs to be demonstrated in order to gain promotion as an academic.

1V3 BC 09.02.10

N:\Employee Relations\Diversity\EO Reports\Annual report 08-09

[1]Submissions cannot be displayed by sector as individual applications can be tracked.

[2]Awards cannot be displayed by sector as individual applications can be tracked.

[3]Submissions cannot be displayed by sector as individual applications can be tracked.

[4]Awards cannot be displayed by sector as individual applications can be tracked.

[5]Academic staff over the age of 65 have been grouped together with staff aged between 51 and 65. This is because individual applications could readily be tracked.

[6]Submissions by academic staff aged between 26 and 34 and 51 and over should not be disclosed by sector as the data set is too small to do so without endangering the confidentiality of sensitive personal information.

[7]Successful promotion applications of academic staff aged between 26 and 34 and 51 and over cannot be disclosed by sector as the data set is too small.

[8]Unsuccessful promotion applications of academic staff aged between 26 and 34 and 51 and over cannot be reported by sector as the data set is small and the privacy of employees may be compromised by tracking individual applications.

[9]No known Disability data refers to those 'not known to be disabled', and includes those for whom we do not yet hold data.

[10]The provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998, are designed to prevent the disclosure of personal or sensitive information about any individual. The numbers of academic staff who were eligible to apply to the review from some faith backgrounds is too small to disclose by sector within this report. This is because individual applications could readily be tracked.