Part 1: Liaison Group Business

1

Notes of ECU Scottish HEI Liaison Group meeting, 16 June 2016, University of the West of Scotland

Part 1: Liaison group business

Attendance

Apologies: Sharan Virdee (HWU); Helen Duncan (UHI); Adrian Lui (GCU); Kirstie Adams (Glasgow); Ajit Trivedi (Dundee); Sukhi Bains (St Andrews); Janine Chalmers (Aberdeen); Mark Wild (US), Fiona Caldwell and Eilidh Fraser (Abertay).

1. Welcome and introductions

=ECU welcomed members and thanked the University of the West of Scotland for hosting the meeting.

2. Notes of last meeting

The notes of the meeting were approved with the following being discussed:

=Race network – There had been low bookings for the meeting planned for 30 June, which colleagues felt was due to the time of year. Several group members said they intended to attend.

Action: All who intend to attend to book on ASAP.

Action: ECU to send final reminder email.

=Weblinks to resources – Several links had been circulated since the last meeting. If anyone missed these or is new to the group FD can send these again.

3. ECU briefing paper

The following discussion took place:

=ECU’s 2016 conference – The clash of dates with the HESA training session in Edinburgh was highlighted. ECU explained that it had set its date earlier than the HESA session and had highlighted the clash to HESA, who could not move it but promised to consult re dates of equality events in future. The group was positive about the conference programme, but felt the day was a little too long.

=Athena and Race Equality Charter fees – These were discussed, with ECU explaining that its SFC funding does not cover the Charters and management of the process and submissions is resource intensive for ECU, regardless of the size of institution, hence the set fee.

Action: ECU to ensure Athena SWAN invoices are sent this budget year.

=Governing bodies – ECU’s new handbook for Scottish governors had been published and sent to secretaries for distribution to governors. ECU was aware of, but not involved in the current review of the Scottish Good HE Governance Code.

=Pay gap and occupational segregation – ECU proposed to run a workshop on this topic in September to help HEIs prepare for the 2017 reporting duties, including the extension to disability and race. The group welcomed this, but suggested that September was not a good month and that the SLG meeting on 6 October could be used for this session. As HR colleagues would likely be interested, it was suggested that it would be good if each HEI could send two delegates.

Action: ECU to look into feasibility of running the session at the next SLG.

4. Trans project – University of Strathclyde

Naseem Anwar spoke to the paper that had been circulated to the group. The following discussion took place:

=The 12 month SFC funded project will fill a gap in evidence about trans staff and students’ experiences and institutional practice in Scottish FE and HE. It will produce good practice guidance, case studies and a community for sharing practice.

=The project will build on ECU’s updated trans guidance, to be published this summer.

=Stonewall Scotland was about to launch some new trans guidance.

=Collection of data and records – ECU’s updated trans guidance will cover this, and the Strathclyde project will also research practice and provide examples on this.

Action: SLG members to expect a call for examples and to help facilitate their institution’s participation.

Action: Research Associate for the project to attend a future SLG meeting.

Part 2: Equality outcomes workshop

Session 1: What have we learnt from last time?

This session aimed to help institutions to reflect on their previous sets of outcomes to extract lessons to inform their new outcomes. It focused on:

=How well outcomes had met all the duty requirements

=The process used for setting the previous outcomes

=How well the outcomes had been progressed/achieved

Group activity notes

1. What worked well? What would we repeat this time?

=The outcomes raised the profile of equality and the Equality Act.

=The process of consultationhad positive results. People appreciated it.

=Getting outcomes into the organisational structures from the beginning so they were embedded. Reporting was embedded, so saved work.

=Athena SWAN put gender equality higher up on the agenda in departments and schools. Translating to other areas was more difficult.

=To ensure senior commitment, equality and diversity was put in personal objectives.

=At the Open University, UK wideequality objectives were assigned to individual executive officers.

=Used outcomes as bargaining tool.

2. What would we do differently this time?

=Make outcomes more specific, narrower, focused.

=Measurable outcomes. Realistic and achievable. Prioritised. Don’t do too much.

=Look at the broader picture – link with local partnerships (CPPs).

=Embed in the outcome agreement.

=Create greater ownership of the outcomes, make them a shared responsibility.

=Create greater understanding of the outcomes across the HEI. Make them relevant to people.

=Avoid consultation fatigue. Piggy back on to other consultation processes.

=Don’t be isolated while developing the outcome - consult more.

=Don’t lose momentum.

=Communicate more with different campuses.

=Produce an annual report on equality.

Session 2. Planning the outcome setting process

The aim of this section was to give institutions a head start in planning the process they would use and the steps they would take to set their outcomes. ECU presented its draft suggested process for setting outcomes to inform the session. This will be published in a guidance document in July.

Overview of process presented:

1. Investigate equality issues

=Review previous outcomes

=Involve people

=Gather and consider evidence

2. Identify equality outcomes

=Prioritise

=Formulate

3. Disseminate equality outcomes

=Seek approval

=Publish

The group approved of the suggested process, saying that is captured the key activities they would be undertaking and was a helpful guide.

From discussions throughout the day, ECU reflected that Stage 2 required greater content in relation to putting in place senior commitment and responsibility for the outcomes, so this will be amended in the final version.

Group activity notes

Stage 1: Investigate equality issues

Reviewing previous outcomes:

=Look at previous outcomes and identify gaps in progress. Could use a reporting progress template (Edinburgh to share their template).

=Ask leads with responsibility for certain outcomes for their views on progress. Talk to relevant committee members.

=Prepare a report on progress on current objectives for relevant committees to consider.

=Ask through existing engagement mechanisms whether staff / students want to become involved in setting new outcomes.

Involvement:

=Include students and staff unions in wider consultation.

Evidence:

=NSS results.

=Action plans and evidence of equality issues and work already in progress, e.g. Athena SWAN.

=Consult with networks already established.

=Look at analysis of equality outcomes (e.g. HEA 2015 report on E&D in L&T).

=Complaints.

=Exit surveys / destination surveys.

=Data on employee composition and pay data that will be collated for other publishing requirements.

Stage 2: Identify equality outcomes

Prioritising:

=Look for recurring themes.

=Aligning with strategic plan themes (including language).

=Getting committee members to discuss (and hope their thinking aligns with yours!).

=Have outcome in thematic areas, e.g. learning and teaching, staff satisfaction, student satisfaction.

Formulating:

=Do as part of a team.

=Team involves a senior member of staff.

=Use equality committees.

=Student committees?

Stage 3:Disseminate equality outcomes

=Use heads of schools (include E&D in job descriptions).

=Use innovative ways of disseminating (see Ayrshire College easy-read version) so that it engages wider audience e.g. screen savers.

=Student representatives changing is a challenge.

Session 3: Equality in outcomes agreements

The third session of the day focused on strategic alignment and mainstreaming, with the conversation concentrating on embedding equality outcomes in new SFC outcome agreements.

Discussions points:

=Embedding outcomes in outcome agreements helps increase senior and governing body accountability for the outcomes as they are linked to funding.

=With new outcome agreements for 2017-20 being negotiated in autumn, it is a great opportunity to include the new equality outcomes for 2017-21 (where they fit outcome agreement themes).

=Group members were linked with their outcome agreement author in their institution, but previously were not asked to feed into the whole document, or to do an equality impact assessment.

=Recognise the differences in the outcome agreement population of focus and equality outcomes (just Scottish domiciled students in OAs). Will mean different sets of data in each.

=If SFC required equality and diversity leads to be involved in the OA process, e.g. signing-off the document, this could ensure equality is more fully embedded.

=SFC should require HEIs to undertake the equality impact assessment at the start of the OA process and frame it as a policy development tool.

=While OAs and equality outcomes have different deadlines, HEIs could mention that new equality outcomes were being developed and provide a weblink.

=If OAs take institutional strategy as their starting point, and equality outcomes are adequately matched against these strategies, then embedding of equality should happen more naturally.

Close of meeting

Dates of future SLG meetings:

=6 October 2016, University of Stirling