Appendix Three
Academic Review 2008/09
1.
This appendix analyses the outcomes of the 2009 academic 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 on ethnicity, age,
disability and religion.
Gender
Academic staff eligible to apply by gender
Gender
Science and
Engineering
Female
Male
Total
30 (11%)
234 (89%)
264
Sector
Humanities,
Social
Sciences
and Law
124 (39%)
192 (61%)
316
Total
Barts and
the London
School of
Medicine
and
Dentistry
147 (37%)
250 (63%)
397
301 (31%)
676 (69%)
977
2.
The entire Queen Mary workforce is 50% female and 50% male. Of
the 977 academic members of staff who were eligible to apply to
the review, 301 (37%) were female. The School of Medicine and
Dentistry had the largest number of academic staff eligible 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.
3.
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 gender1
Gender
1
Total
Female
13 (22%)
Male
47 (78%)
Total
60 (100%)
Submissions cannot be displayed by sector as individual applications can be tracked.
1
V3 BC 09.02.10
N:\Employee Relations\Diversity\EO Reports\Annual report 08-09
4.
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’s review.
Successful applications for promotion by gender2
Gender
Total
Female
Male
34 (81%)
Total
5.
8 (19%)
42 (100%)
Of the 42 successful applications made, 8 (19%) were from women.
Again this differs greatly from to the previous year where 42% of
the successful applicants were women.
Unsuccessful promotion applications by gender
Gender
Total
Female
Male
13 (72%)
Total
18 (100%)
6.
2
5 (28%)
Of the 22 academic staff that 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%).
Awards cannot be displayed by sector as individual applications can be tracked.
2
V3 BC 09.02.10
N:\Employee Relations\Diversity\EO Reports\Annual report 08-09
Ethnicity
Academic staff eligible to apply by ethnicity
Ethnicity
Science and
Engineering
White
Black,
Asian
and
Minority
Ethnic
Mixed
Race
Info
refused,
unknown
or not yet
sought
204 (77%)
35 (13%)
Sector
Humanities,
Social
Sciences
and Law
280 (89%)
16 (5%)
Total
Barts and
the
London
School of
Medicine
and
Dentistry
289 (73%)
69 (17%)
773 (79%)
120 (12%)
8 (3%)
3 (1%)
6 (2%)
17 (2%)
17 (6%)
17 (5%)
33 (8%)
67 (7%)
977
Total
264
316
397
7.
Of the 977 academic staff eligible to apply to the review, 120 (12%)
were from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background (including
Mixed Race), which is a diminution compared to 2008. There were
773 (79%) academic staff from a White background. There were 67
(7%) of staff for 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).
8.
The School of Medicine and Dentistry had the largest number and
proportion of academic 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
Law had the smallest number and proportion of academic staff from
this group.
3
V3 BC 09.02.10
N:\Employee Relations\Diversity\EO Reports\Annual report 08-09
Submissions by ethnicity
Ethnicity
Total3
White
Black,
Asian or
Minority
Ethnic
Mixed
Race
Information
refused,
unknown
or not yet
sought
Total
9.
48 (80%)
10 (17%)
1 (2%)
1 (2%)
60
Of the 60 submissions made, 10 (17%) were from a Black, Asian or
Minority Ethnic 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 applications by ethnicity
Ethnicity 4
White
Black, Asian or
Minority Ethnic
(including mixed
race)
Information
refused, unknown
or not yet sought
Total
10.
3
4
Total
33 (79%)
8 (19%)
1 (2%)
42
Of the 42 successful promotion applications made, 8 (19%) were
made to academic staff from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic
background, which is a higher proportion than last year. 33 (79%)
academic staff who were successful in gaining promotion were
White.
Submissions cannot be displayed by sector as individual applications can be tracked.
Awards cannot be displayed by sector as individual applications can be tracked.
4
V3 BC 09.02.10
N:\Employee Relations\Diversity\EO Reports\Annual report 08-09
Unsuccessful promotion applications by ethnicity
Ethnicity
White
Black, Asian or
Minority Ethnic
(including mixed
race)
Information
refused, unknown
or not yet sought
Total
11.
Total
15 (83%)
3 (17%)
0
18
Of the 18 academic staff who made a submission but did not
receive a promotion, 15 (83%) were White and 3 (17%) were from a
Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic 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 staff eligible to apply by age
Age Category
18-25
26-34
35-50
51 and over 5
Total
12.
Sector
Science
and
Engineering
0
24 (9%)
151 (57%)
89 (34%)
264
Total
Humanities,
Social
Sciences
and Law
0
50 (16%)
176 (57%)
90 (28%)
316
Barts and
the London
School of
Medicine
and
Dentistry
0
35 (9%)
211 (53%)
151 (38%)
397
0
109 (11%)
538 (55%)
330 (34%)
977
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.
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.
5
V3 BC 09.02.10
N:\Employee Relations\Diversity\EO Reports\Annual report 08-09
Submissions by age
Age bracket6
26-34
35-50
51 and over
Total
13.
Sector
Science
and
Engineering
Total
Humanities,
Social
Sciences
and Law
19
Barts and
the London
School of
Medicine
and
Dentistry
16
13
5 (8%)
48 (80%)
7 (12%)
60
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 bracket7
26-34
35-50
51 and over
Total
14.
6
7
Sector
Science
and
Engineering
13
Total
Humanities,
Social
Sciences
and Law
Barts and
the London
School of
Medicine
and
Dentistry
11
10
3 (7%)
34 (81%)
5 (12%)
42
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.
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.
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.
6
V3 BC 09.02.10
N:\Employee Relations\Diversity\EO Reports\Annual report 08-09
Unsuccessful promotion applications by age
Age Category8
Sector
Science
and
Engineering
26-34
35-50
51 and over
Total
15.
Total
Humanities,
Social
Sciences
and Law
4
Barts and
the London
School of
Medicine
and
Dentistry
9
3
2 (11%)
14 (77%)
2 (11%)
18
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
Known
disability
No known
disability9
Total
16.
Humanities,
Social
Sciences
and Law
3 (1%)
8 (3%)
Barts and
the London
School of
Medicine
and
Dentistry
7 (2%)
261 (99%)
308 (97%)
390 (98%)
959 (98%)
264
316
397
977
18 (2%)
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).
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.
7
V3 BC 09.02.10
N:\Employee Relations\Diversity\EO Reports\Annual report 08-09
17.
The number of academic members of staff with 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 staff eligible to apply by religion and belief
18.
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
Christian
Jewish
Muslim
Hindu
Other religion
No Religion
Information refused
or not known
Total
19.
Total
351 (36%)
35 (4%)
21 (2%)
19 (2%)
33 (4%)
358 (37%)
160 (16%)
977
Of the 977 academic staff eligible to apply to the review a large
proportion 351 (36%) identified as Christian, followed by 358 (37%)
who had 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.
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.
8
V3 BC 09.02.10
N:\Employee Relations\Diversity\EO Reports\Annual report 08-09
Submissions by religion and belief
Religion or
Belief
Christian
Jewish
Muslim
Hindu
Other religion
No Religion
Information refused
or not known
Total
20.
Total
27 (45%)
2 (3%)
3 (5%)
1 (2%)
2 (3%)
16 (27%)
9 (15%)
60
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
Christian
Jewish
Muslim
Other religion
No Religion
Info refused or not
known
Total
21.
Total
18 (43%)
2 (5%)
2 (5%)
2 (5%)
13 (31%)
5 (12%)
42
Of the 42 successful applications for promotions, a large proportion,
18 (43%), were made to academic staff who identified as Christian.
13 (31%) academic staff who received promotion had no religious
beliefs.
Unsuccessful promotion applications by religion and belief
Religion or
Belief
Christian
Jewish
Muslim
Hindu
Other
No Religion
Info refused or not
known
Total
Total
9 (50%)
0
1 (5%)
1 (5%)
0
3 (17%)
4 (22%)
18
9
V3 BC 09.02.10
N:\Employee Relations\Diversity\EO Reports\Annual report 08-09
22.
Of the 18 academic staff who made a submission but did not
receive a promotion 9 (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
23.
Unlike the 2007/08 academic promotion review, a smaller
proportion of women were successful in gaining promotion (19%)
compared to the proportion of women who made a submission to
the review (22%). This is a matter that the College should keep
under review.
24.
In relation to ethnic background, the proportion of White staff who
gained promotion, (79%) is in line with the proportion that 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.
25.
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 the proportion that made a
submission to the review (43%).
26.
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.
10
V3 BC 09.02.10
N:\Employee Relations\Diversity\EO Reports\Annual report 08-09