1
Date of application 28 March 2018
Award level Bronze
Date joined Athena SWAN September 2015
Contact for application Professor Tim Wess
Executive Dean of Science
Email [email protected]
Phone +61‐2 6933 2510
2
Table of Contents Lists of figures and tables ........................................................................................................................ 4
Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Summary of word count ......................................................................................................................... 6
1. LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE VICE CHANCELLOR ............................................................ 7
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTION ................................................................................................ 9
i) Information on where the institution is in the Athena SWAN process ..................................... 11
ii) CSU’s teaching and research focus ........................................................................................... 12
iii) The number of staff; present data for academic, professional and support staff separately . 13
iv) The total number of departments and total number of students ........................................... 13
v) List and sizes of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM)
departments. Present data for academic and support staff separately ....................................... 14
3. THE SELF‐ASSESSMENT PROCESS .................................................................................................. 16
i) A description of the self‐assessment team ................................................................................ 16
ii) An account of the self‐assessment process .............................................................................. 19
iii) Plans for the future of the self‐assessment team .................................................................... 23
4. A PICTURE OF THE INSTITUTION ................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Academic and research staff data ............................................................................................... 25
i) Academic and research staff by grade and gender ................................................................... 25
ii) Academic and research staff on fixed‐term, open‐ended/permanent and casual contracts by
gender ........................................................................................................................................... 29
iii) Academic staff by contract function and gender: research‐only, research and teaching, and
teaching‐only ................................................................................................................................ 30
iv) Academic leavers by grade and gender ................................................................................... 35
v) Equal pay audits/reviews .......................................................................................................... 37
5. SUPPORTING AND ADVANCING WOMEN’S CAREERS ................................................................... 41
5.1 Key career transition points: academic staff .............................................................................. 41
i) Recruitment ............................................................................................................................... 41
ii) Induction ................................................................................................................................... 43
iii) Promotion ................................................................................................................................ 44
iv) Staff submitted to the Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) by gender ........ 47
5.2 Career development: academic staff .......................................................................................... 50
i) Training ...................................................................................................................................... 50
ii) Appraisal/development review ................................................................................................ 52
3
iii) Support given to academic staff for career progression .......................................................... 53
5.3 Flexible working and managing career breaks ............................................................................ 54
i) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: before leave ......................................... 54
ii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: during leave ........................................ 54
iii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: returning to work ............................... 54
iv) Maternity return rate ............................................................................................................... 55
v) Paternity, shared parental, adoption, and parental leave uptake ............................................ 57
vi) Flexible working ....................................................................................................................... 59
vii) Transition from part‐time back to full‐time work after career breaks ................................... 60
viii) Childcare ................................................................................................................................. 61
ix) Caring responsibilities .............................................................................................................. 61
5.4 Organisation and culture ............................................................................................................ 63
i) Culture ....................................................................................................................................... 63
ii) HR policies ................................................................................................................................. 64
iii) Proportion of heads of school/faculty/department by gender ............................................... 64
iv) Representation of men and women on senior management committees .............................. 65
v) Representation of men and women on influential institution committees ............................. 66
vi) Committee workload ............................................................................................................... 66
vii) Institutional policies, practices and procedures ..................................................................... 66
viii) Workload model ..................................................................................................................... 67
ix) Timing of institution meetings and social gatherings .............................................................. 68
x) Visibility of role models ............................................................................................................. 69
xi) Outreach activities ................................................................................................................... 70
xii) Leadership ............................................................................................................................... 70
6. SUPPORTING TRANSGENDER PEOPLE ........................................................................................... 71
i) Current policy and practice ........................................................................................................ 71
ii) Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 72
iii) Further work ............................................................................................................................ 72
7. INTERSECTIONALITY ...................................................................................................................... 73
i) Current policy and practice ........................................................................................................ 73
ii) Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 74
iii) Further work ......................................................................................................................... 74
8. INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS .......................................................................................................... 75
i) Current policy and practice ........................................................................................................ 75
4
ii) Review ....................................................................................................................................... 79
iii) Further work ............................................................................................................................ 80
9. FURTHER INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 81
10. ACTION PLAN ............................................................................................................................ 82
1. Recruitment and induction ........................................................................................................... 82
2. Career progression and promotion ............................................................................................... 85
3. Gender pay gap ............................................................................................................................. 88
4. Research ........................................................................................................................................ 88
5. Leave and flexible work ................................................................................................................ 90
6. Promoting inclusivity ..................................................................................................................... 91
7. Embedding the Athena SWAN principles ...................................................................................... 93
Glossary ................................................................................................................................................. 96
Lists of figures and tables Figures
Figure 1 Location of CSU campuses and Indigenous lands ..................................................................... 9
Figure 2 Gender breakdown and reporting lines for CSU's SAT ........................................................... 11
Figure 3 CSU's research narrative ......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4 Stills from the video produced by the ACT SAGE Regional Network ...................................... 23
Figure 5 Percent female STEMM academics, 2014‐2016 ..................................................................... 26
Figure 6 Percent female non‐STEMM academics, 2014‐2016 .............................................................. 26
Figure 7 Percent of academic appointments with doctorate level qualifications, across gender and
level in STEMM and non‐STEMM, 2016 (headcount in brackets) ........................................................ 27
Figure 8 Gender proportions for academics by contract type in STEMM 2014‐2016 .......................... 29
Figure 9 Gender proportions for academics by contract type in non‐STEMM, 2014‐2016 ................. 29
Figure 10 Percent female STEMM academic staff by contract function, 2014‐2016 ........................... 30
Figure 11 Percent female non‐STEMM academic staff by contract function, 2014‐2016 .................... 31
Figure 12 Applicants for STEMM and non‐STEMM academic positions, by gender, 2014‐2016 ......... 42
Figure 13 Interviews granted for STEMM and non‐STEMM academic positions, by gender, 2014‐2016
.............................................................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 14 Appointments to STEMM and non‐STEMM academic positions, by gender, 2014‐2016 .... 43
Figure 15 Research grants secured in STEMM and non‐STEMM, by gender, 2014‐2016 .................... 47
Figure 16 Research income in STEMM and non‐STEMM, by gender, 2014‐2016 ................................ 48
Figure 17 Research publications by gender and STEMM/non‐STEMM, 2014‐2016 ............................. 48
Tables
Table 1 Campus locations of STEMM Schools ...................................................................................... 10
Table 2 Total number and percent female of research leadership roles at CSU, 2018 ........................ 13
Table 3 Number of academic, executive and professional staff by contract type, 2016 ..................... 13
5
Table 4 Number of students by Faculty, School and gender, 2016 ...................................................... 14
Table 5 STEMM staff by employment and contract type, 2016 ........................................................... 15
Table 6 SAT members and their roles, by location ............................................................................... 16
Table 7 Characteristics of current SAT members .................................................................................. 19
Table 8 Work of the SAT throughout the application process.............................................................. 20
Table 9 Proportion of academics by gender and STEMM ..................................................................... 25
Table 10 Breakdown of %F STEMM academic staff across schools (headcount), 2014‐2016 .............. 27
Table 11 Number and proportion of academics by contract function and employment type in STEMM
and non‐STEMM 2014‐2016 ................................................................................................................. 32
Table 12 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM research‐only academics by gender
and grade .............................................................................................................................................. 33
Table 13 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM teaching/research academics by
gender and grade .................................................................................................................................. 33
Table 14 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM teaching‐only academics by gender
and grade .............................................................................................................................................. 34
Table 15 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM teaching/professional academics by
gender and grade .................................................................................................................................. 34
Table 16 Academic leavers by STEMM/non‐STEMM and reasons for leaving 2014‐2016 ................... 35
Table 17 Academic leavers by gender, grade and STEMM/non‐STEMM 2014‐2016 ........................... 36
Table 18 Academic leavers (fixed‐term and continuing) by STEMM Schools, (n=total staff), 2014‐2016
.............................................................................................................................................................. 37
Table 19 CSU gender pay gap 2016‐2017 all sub‐groups by employment type ................................... 38
Table 20 Comparison of WGEA and CSU staffing categories ................................................................ 38
Table 21 CSU gender pay gap 2016‐2017 by sub‐group ....................................................................... 38
Table 22 Full‐time Professional sub‐group ........................................................................................... 39
Table 23 Casual and part‐time Professional sub‐group ........................................................................ 39
Table 24 Overview of information from CSU's Equity & Diversity webpage ........................................ 44
Table 25 Evidence of the impact of the new academic promotion process ......................................... 45
Table 26 Overview of academic promotions at CSU 2014‐2016 .......................................................... 45
Table 27 Promotion applications and successes for part‐time staff in comparison to full‐time staff,
2014‐2016 ............................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 28 Staff perceptions of learning and development (L&D) at CSU ............................................... 51
Table 29 Staff perceptions of the EDRS process ................................................................................... 52
Table 30 Formal support schemes that assist with academic career progression ............................... 53
Table 31 Women taking maternity leave, 2014‐2016 .......................................................................... 56
Table 32 Average days on maternity leave per person ........................................................................ 56
Table 33 Parental leave by STEMM/non‐STEMM, gender and employment type, 2014‐2016 ............ 58
Table 34 Staff taking additional government paid parental leave ........................................................ 59
Table 35 Flexible work arrangements ................................................................................................... 59
Table 36 Overview of CSU's childcare centres ...................................................................................... 61
Table 37 Staff perceptions of CSU's flexible work conditions............................................................... 62
Table 38 Staff perceptions of equity and gender equality at CSU ........................................................ 63
Table 39 Proportion of females in university leadership roles ............................................................. 65
Table 40 Overview of membership of CSU's most influential committees (2017) ............................... 66
Table 41 Staff perceptions of workload ................................................................................................ 67
6
Table 42 CSU policies and procedures that address issues relating to transgender people ................ 71
Table 43 Indigenous Australians employed as % of total staff ............................................................. 76
Table 44 Key programs within CSU’s Indigenous Australian Employment Strategy ............................ 76
Table 45 CSU staff numbers who have completed the Indigenous Cultural Competency Program (all
years) ..................................................................................................................................................... 77
Table 46 Indigenous‐focused education programs at CSU ................................................................... 78
Summary of word count
Section Recommended word count
Actual word count
1. Letter of endorsement 500 530
2. Description of the institution 500 932
3. Self‐assessment process 1,000 1,272
4. A picture of the institution 2,000 1,174
5. Supporting and advancing women’s careers
5,000 4,590
6. Supporting transgender people 500 494
7. Intersectionality 500 282
8. Indigenous Australians 500 1,071
9. Further information 500 0
Total 11,000 10,345
7
VICE-CHANCELLOR
The Grange Chancellery Panorama Avenue Bathurst NSW 2795
Tel: +61 2 6338 4209 Email: [email protected]
1. LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE VICE CHANCELLOR Recommended word count: 500 words
Actual word count: 530 words
An accompanying letter of endorsement from the Vice Chancellor, Director or equivalent should
be included. If the Vice‐Chancellor/Director is soon to be succeeded, or has recently taken up the
post, applicants should include an additional short statement from the incoming leader.
28 March 2018
Dear SAGE Team
As Vice-Chancellor of Charles Sturt University (CSU), it gives me great pleasure to support this application for an Athena SWAN bronze award, and endorse the action plan. Through association with a very active Women in Engineering program at Central Queensland University more than 20 years ago, I was fortunate to be exposed early in my career to training on unconscious bias and gender equity issues. I have made improving gender equity and diversity a priority ever since.
Charles Sturt University is a regional institution with campuses in Albury-Wodonga, Bathurst, Canberra, Dubbo, Goulburn, Orange, Parramatta, Port Macquarie and Wagga Wagga. The University ethos, Yindyamarra Winhanganha, is a Wiradjuri phrase meaning, ‘the wisdom of respectfully knowing how to live well in a world worth living in’. Our University Values of Inclusive; Impactful; Inspiring and Insightful are built from this ethos and drive us to be leaders in gender equity within the University and more broadly in the regions in which we live and work and send our graduates out into the work force.
At CSU over 54 per cent of our managers are female including a balanced female representation on our executive team and a slight majority on our University Council. We recognise the value of gender diversity in our leadership and work to maintain it through succession planning and the decision to implement a Gender Equity Strategy by the end of 2018. This links to our overall University Strategy and endeavours to make gender equity embedded in the University’s normal business.
We have already taken action towards gender equity, implementing a new academic promotion process in 2015 which saw our success rate for female applicants rise from 60 per cent in 2014 to 83 per cent in 2017. We are also trialling a return to research pilot in the Faculty of Science that provides research support funding for academics returning from leave.
While Athena SWAN focuses on STEMM, the work we have done in putting this application together resonates across the institution. When I became a Pay Equity Ambassador, I pledged the University would “analyse and monitor our pay and talent management data, and take action to address any
8
inequalities that are found.” Our current gender pay gap of 14.6 per cent is unacceptable. As part of our planned actions, we have tasked the Self-Assessment Team with conducting further analysis into areas like the pay gap, the return rates from maternity leave and the number of women in fixed-term or casual academic positions so that the University can steer a course to reducing that gap. As a large institution, we need to adopt a broad approach to gender equity and further analysis will educate the process.
Gender equity requires conscious focus to ensure it forms part of our core business on a daily basis. While our aim is to normalise gender equity there is a lot to overcome. However through the ongoing work of our Self-Assessment Team and our commitment to action I believe that we are headed in the right direction.
The information and data presented in this application is an honest, original, accurate, and true representation of our institution. This work has my complete commitment.
Sincerely
Professor Andrew Vann Vice-Chancellor
9
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTIONRecommended word count: 500 words
Actual word count: 932 words
Please provide a brief description of the institution, including any relevant contextual information
Charles Sturt University (CSU) is Australia’s largest regionally‐based university, enrolling 42,000
students from Australia and 120 countries around the world. CSU has campuses in Albury‐Wodonga,
Bathurst, Canberra, Dubbo, Goulburn, Orange, Parramatta, Port Macquarie and Wagga Wagga
(Figure 1), and Study Centres for international students in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne.
Staff gender distribution by
campus is generally balanced.
Canberra and Dubbo campuses are
the exception with 36% and 86%
females respectively, reflecting the
smaller size of these campuses and
the gender profile of the courses
taught.
CSU is an experienced leader in
online distance learning, which
affords flexibility for both students
and academic staff. In addition,
CSU offers students the option to
study across three sessions/year.
These features and the associated
demands and deadlines of teaching
within these timeframes, including
the potential expectation of
continual engagement for
academic staff, can affect
academic work‐life balance if not
well managed.
Figure 1 Location of CSU campuses and Indigenous lands
Academic staff, especially sessional lecturers, are often recruited from local professions, without
doctoral qualifications. While our staff PhD program supports staff to gain doctoral qualifications,
this starting point has a flow‐on effect on academic career trajectories and pipelines (explored more
in Section 4).
Biripi
country
Ngunnuwal
country
Wiradjuri
country
10
STEMM Schools are spread across multiple campuses (Table 1); staff travel between campuses is
time‐consuming, often requiring time away from family. The University provides assistance with
travel, and videoconferencing is used wherever possible.
Table 1 Campus locations of STEMM Schools
School Campuses
Agriculture & Wine Sciences Orange Wagga Wagga
Animal & Veterinary Sciences Wagga Wagga
Biomedical Sciences Bathurst Dubbo Orange Port Macquarie Wagga Wagga
Community Health Albury Orange Port Macquarie Wagga Wagga
Computing & Mathematics Albury Bathurst Orange Port Macquarie Wagga Wagga
Dentistry & Health Sciences Orange Port Macquarie Wagga Wagga
Engineering Bathurst
Environmental Sciences Albury Port Macquarie Wagga Wagga
Exercise Science, Sport and Health Bathurst Port Macquarie Wagga Wagga
Nursing, Midwifery & Indigenous Health Albury Bathurst Dubbo Orange Wagga Wagga
11
i) Information on where the institution is in the Athena SWAN process
CSU is in the first cohort of the SAGE pilot. The Self‐Assessment Team (SAT) reports to the
University’s leadership team via the Equity and Diversity Committee. Both the SAT and Equity and
Diversity Committee are chaired by the Executive Dean of Science, Professor Tim Wess (Figure 2).
Reporting structure for the SAT at CSU
Figure 2 Gender breakdown and reporting lines for CSU's SAT
CSU is developing its first Gender Equity Strategy and will apply for a Workplace Gender Equality
Agency (WGEA) Employer of Choice Award this year, hence Athena SWAN principles will be adopted
across the University. The Manager of Equity and Diversity, Division of Human Resources, who is
leading the strategy development and WGEA application, has contributed significantly to this
application and Action Plan, therefore issues uncovered during Athena SWAN self‐assessment will
inform the Gender Equity Strategy.
Vice‐Chancellor's Leadership Team
5 Female; 5 Male (50% Female)
Equity & Diversity Committee Chair: T Wess2 Female; 4 Male (33% Female)
Self Assessment
Team Chair: T Wess17 Female; 8 Male (68% Female)
SAGE ACT Regional Network
ANU CSIRO UC Geoscience
12
ii) CSU’s teaching and research focus
CSU has a strong emphasis on workplace learning and practical skill development to produce
workplace‐ready graduates. More than 70% of our suite of courses are delivered in areas of
identified national and regional labour‐market skill shortages.
CSU is also recognised for internationally‐competitive research strengths in agricultural science,
horticultural production, food and wine sciences, crop and pasture production, veterinary science,
animal production, education, curriculum and pedagogy, environmental science, applied ethics,
philosophy, religious studies, criminology, nursing and marketing (Excellence in Research for
Australia, 2015).
Our academics and researchers work in consultation and collaboration with end‐users, industry, the
professions and communities. CSU’s research provides meaningful outcomes for industry,
government, business and communities, and seeks to make an impact regionally, nationally and
globally. Our research is focused on contributing to economic, social and environmental
sustainability and well‐being. Three interdisciplinary research spheres have been identified to
encapsulate our research activity (Figure 3).
Figure 3 CSU's research narrative
Table 2 lists the gender breakdown of key research leadership roles at CSU.
13
Table 2 Total number and percent female of research leadership roles at CSU, 2018
Leadership role Total positions
Females %Female
DVC‐RDI 1 1 100%
PVC Global Engagement 1 1 100%
PVC Indigenous 1 1 100%
Associate Dean Research 3 1 33%
Sub‐Dean Graduate Studies 3 1 33%
Research Centre Directors 4 0 0%
Pathway Leaders (within Research Centres) 2 1 50%
CRC Leads 3 1 33%
Three Rivers UDRH 1 1 100%
TOTAL 19 8 42%
iii) The number of staff; present data for academic, professional and support staff separately
CSU’s three Faculties: Faculty of Arts and Education (FoAE); Faculty of Business, Justice and
Behavioural Sciences (FoBJBS); and Faculty of Science (FoS), comprise 25 schools and five teaching,
research and training centres. In 2016 CSU had 4,510 staff members (Table 3): 43.6% academic, 1.4%
executive and 55.0% professional. The most common contract was casual, 53% of whom are
employed as academics and 47% in professional roles. Of all staff on continuing (permanent)
contracts, 64% are professional, 36% academic and 0.1% executive. Professional staff comprise 62%
of fixed‐term contracts, with 28% academic and 10% executive. A gender breakdown of academic
STEMM and non‐STEMM staff is provided in Section 4.
Table 3 Number of academic, executive and professional staff by contract type, 2016
CSU staff Casual Continuing Fixed Total
Academic 1218 579 171 1968
Executive 0 2 63 65
Professional 1059 1041 377 2477
TOTAL 2277 1622 611 4510
Note: All data throughout this application are headcounts.
iv) The total number of departments and total number of students
CSU’s student profile is diverse – over 50% of students come from regional, rural and remote
locations, 23% from low‐socioeconomic status backgrounds, 70% first‐in‐family to attend university
and 3.3% Indigenous Australians.
Table 4 summarises the number of students by Faculty, School, and gender. Overall, CSU had a total
of 41,759 students in 2016 (57.4% female). The highest percentage of female students were in
Faculty of Arts and Education (76.4%), followed by Faculty of Science (69.1%) and Faculty of
Business, Justice and Behavioural Sciences (40.9%).
14
Table 4 Number of students by Faculty, School and gender, 2016
Total number of students by Faculty, School & gender Total Female %F
Faculty of Arts and Education 11999 9172 76.4
Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilisation 334 181 54.2
School of Communication and Creative Industries 1235 834 67.5
School of Education 2936 1968 67.0
School of Humanities and Social Sciences 2446 2055 84.0
School of Indigenous Australian Studies (SIAS) 38 32 84.2
School of Information Studies 1644 1390 84.5
School of Teacher Education 2383 2191 91.9
School of Theology 517 277 53.6
Faculty of Business, Justice and Behavioural Sciences 20495 8383 40.9
Australian Graduate School of Policing and Security 1556 579 37.2
Centre for Customs & Excise Studies 146 63 43.2
Centre for Law and Justice 518 355 68.5
CSU Engineering 29 5 17
School of Accounting and Finance 5328 2643 49.6
School of Computing and Mathematics 4709 695 14.8
School of Management and Marketing 3421 1777 51.9
School of Policing Studies 3413 1168 34.2
School of Psychology 1249 1029 82.4
Faculty of Science 9265 6403 69.1
School of Agriculture and Wine Sciences 1272 561 44.1
School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences 925 779 84.2
School of Biomedical Sciences 1765 1165 66.0
School of Community Health 960 717 74.7
School of Dentistry and Health Sciences 1156 786 68.0
School of Environmental Sciences 708 353 49.9
School of Exercise Science, Sport and Health 152 77 50.7
School of Nursing, Midwifery and Indigenous Health 1940 1725 88.9
Grand Total 41759 23958 57.4
Notes: STEMM Schools are shaded grey. Following the advice of SAGE in 2015, CSU has not included
the School of Psychology in STEMM.
v) List and sizes of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM)
departments. Present data for academic and support staff separately
Table 5 summarises academic, executive and professional staff within STEMM Schools, according to
type of employment. In 2016, 1,127 staff were employed in STEMM departments; 69.4% academics,
29.4% professional and 1.2% executive.
15
Table 5 STEMM staff by employment and contract type, 2016
Casual Continuing Fixed Total
STEMM Total 2016 616 444 67 1127
FACULTY OF BUSINESS, JUSTICE & BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE
49 32 6 87
CSU Engineering 4 6 4 14
Academic 4 6 3 13
Professional 1 1
School of Computing & Mathematics 45 26 2 73
Academic 37 25 1 63
Executive 1 1
Professional 8 1 9
FACULTY OF SCIENCE 567 412 61 1040
School of Agricultural & Wine Sciences 26 31 9 66
Academic 20 30 8 58
Executive 1 1
Professional 6 1 7
School of Animal & Veterinary Sciences 51 52 9 112
Academic 33 47 8 88
Executive 1 1
Professional 18 5 23
School of Biomedical Sciences 102 56 5 163
Academic 71 55 2 128
Executive 1 1
Professional 31 1 2 34
School of Community Health 114 40 3 157
Academic 73 39 2 114
Executive 1 1
Professional 41 1 42
School of Dentistry & Health Sciences 77 31 7 115
Academic 77 31 5 113
Executive 1 1
Professional 1 1
School of Environmental Sciences 22 23 4 49
Academic 22 22 3 47
Executive 1 1
Professional 1 1
School of Exercise Science, Sport & Health 13 9 2 24
Academic 13 8 1 22
Executive 1 1
Professional 1 1
School of Nursing, Midwifery & Indigenous Health 83 40 5 128
Academic 82 39 3 124
Executive 1 1
Professional 1 1 1 3
16
3. THE SELF‐ASSESSMENT PROCESSRecommended word count: 1000 words
Actual word count: 1272 words
Describe the self‐assessment process
i) A description of the self‐assessment team
The self‐assessment team (SAT) comprises academic and professional staff (Tables 6 and 7) with a
personal/research interest in gender equity, providing a self‐motivated, resourceful team.
Established in 2016 within the Faculty of Science, the SAT was supplemented by invitations to
targeted individuals based on their intersectionality, or application from Faculties and Divisions. This
ensured a reflection of diversity including: gender balance; early‐career to senior leadership;
intersectionality; Cultural and Linguistically Diverse and Indigenous identities; and geographical
locations. Faculties and Schools funded travel to meetings.
Over the course of preparing this application, founding SAT members left CSU and others engaged
with the project, skewing the gender balance in favour of females. New membership is encouraged
and provides fresh perspectives and responses to data analysis.
Table 6 SAT members and their roles, by location
Albury
Dr Alexandra Knight, School of Environmental Studies, FoS
Dr Rachel Richardson, Sub‐Dean Learning and Teaching, FoAE
Dr Kristy Robson, Lecturer, School of Community Health, FoS
A/Professor Ben Wilson, Head of School of Environmental Sciences, FoS
Bathurst
Dr Donna Bridges, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, FoAE
17
Dr Hedy Bryant, former Manager Diversity & Equity, assisted in establishing SAT
Mr Craig Hinley, Manager Equity & Diversity, Division of Human Resources
A/Professor Will Letts, Associate Dean Academic, FoAE
Dr Chelsea Litchfield, School of Exercise Science, Sport and Health, FoS
Dr Patricia Logan, Course Director, FoS
Professor Jim Morgan, Course Director, CSU Engineering, FoBJBS
Professor Linda Shields, Professor of Rural Health, FoS
Dr Denise Wood, Course Design Lead, Division of Learning and Teaching
Orange
Professor Boyen Huang, Head of School of Dentistry and Health Sciences, FoS
Mr Andrew Smee, Manager Human Resources Systems Development, Division of Human Resources
Wagga Wagga
Ms Charmaine Carlisle, Technical Manager (Life Sciences and Health Team), FoAE
18
Mr Andrew Cox, Strategic Projects Officer, Faculty of Science
A/Professor Jane Heller, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, FoS
A/Professor Marta Hernandez‐Jover, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, FoS
Dr Julia Howitt, School of Agricultural and Wine Sciences, FoS
A/Professor Faye McMillan, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Indigenous Health, FoS
Dr Sandra Savocchia, Sub Dean (Graduate Studies), FoS
A/Professor Cate Thomas, Associate Dean Academic, FoS
Dr Lucy Webster, Sub Dean Learning and Teaching, FoS
Professor Tim Wess, Executive Dean, FoS Chair, SAT
19
Table 7 Characteristics of current SAT members
Current SAT members
32% (8) have school aged children
12% (3) have children not yet at school
52% (13) are in/have been in dual career relationships
40% (10) work/have worked part time
40% (10) have taken parental leave
36% (9) have conducted research in the area of equity and diversity
36% (9) have been members of promotions committee
100% (25) have been members of employment interview panels
20% (5) identifies as same sex orientation
4% (1) identifies as Indigenous
4% (1) 1 identifies as transgender
36% (9) have carer roles which impact on work
28% (7) are senior managers
32% (8) are professors
16% (4) are Level B academics
20% (5) are Level C academics
16% (4) are professional staff (Level 7 to 9)
0 are currently postgraduate students
20% (5) were invited to join SAT
80% (20) self‐nominated to join SAT
ii) An account of the self‐assessment process
The first SAT meeting identified four core areas. Working parties were formed around these:
1. Communication – internal and external;
2. Data analysis – identifying, obtaining and interpreting the data required;
3. Career transition – identified as a significant gender issue at CSU;
4. Cultural change – also a significant gender issue.
Working parties met independently throughout 2016, collecting relevant data and information, and
defining questions for investigation. The SAT met face‐to‐face (twice annually), by videoconference
(monthly), and communicated via email between meetings, reflecting the distributed nature of CSU.
An online site supported information sharing, such as meeting minutes, action and communication
plans, SAGE documents, data, literature, and surveys/questionnaires. Recognising the
interdependency of the working groups, these were merged early in 2017 to focus on data collection
and analysis and shared across the SAT.
20
Table 8 highlights work the SAT has completed to date.
Table 8 Work of the SAT throughout the application process
Date Activity Details and outcomes Impact
Late 2015 Visit of Zuleyka Zevallos
120 staff at 7 campuses Invitation to join team placed on What’s New (emailed daily to all CSU staff) Targeted members invited to join team First SAT meeting date set
Led to establishment of SAT, March 2016 Priorities defined
Ongoing SAGE advocates internally and externally
Team members spoke at School/group meetings, resulting in increased awareness‐building of issues/project Initiated partnerships/conversations with groups outside SAT team Work with other groups to complement their work: Division of Human Resources, ALLY, Leadership Development for Women (LDW), Equity and Diversity Unit Support application for WGEA employer of choice Collaborative tasks around equity: Respect Now campaign; HDR retreat, LDW presentation Delivered external presentations on Gender Equity to:
Inaugural Athena SWAN meeting (Nov 2014)
Garvan Institute
Veski Foundation (Lead Scientist of Victoria)
Adelaide (Chief Scientist of SA)
University of Tasmania
ANSTO
Department of Primary Industry Orange
Australian National University
University of Canberra
CSIRO
New members joined SAT. Webinars, presentations engage staff across CSU Development of Gender Equity policy
21
February 2016
Published ‘Advocating for gender equity within universities’ in Croakey Author: Prof Tim Wess
November 2016
Gender equity focus at FoS Forum
Improve awareness of experiences of women in science at CSU for all faculty members
Increased awareness of womens’ experiences
December 2016‐August 2017
Secured $2000 funding from Association of Commonwealth Universities for unconscious bias workshop for STEMM HDR students, held August 2017
Examined unconscious/conscious bias and the role it plays in workplace decision‐making to better understand why diversity remains a ‘work in progress’.
Attendance: 25 female and 20 male staff/students Evaluations: 30% indicated improved knowledge of unconscious bias 100% happy with level of knowledge presented
Throughout 2017
Analysed gender equity data for AS application
Obtained data from HR Illustrated trends and provided objective image through gender lens. Highlighted gaps and areas of concern.
March 2017 Published ‘A Call to Action’ in Nature Author: Prof Tim Wess
Challenged field to consider impact of gender bias; established CSU as advocate
PlumXAnalytics: 23 social media hits 8 usage hits 1 news mention 2 captures
September 2017
Shared SAGE/Athena SWAN information
Established and supported CSU SAGE/Athena SWAN webpage Promoted activities in What’s New
336 unique webpage views (at 20/3/2018)
22
2017
Work with SAGE Regional Network to produce video (launched September)
Video titled: What would be lost without their input? Highlights eminent female scientists and one male health scientist’s career paths, barriers and supports
1,356 YouTube views
September 2017‐March 2018
Develop Action Plan
Developed actions to address issues identified from data to guide policy and progress
Action Plan endorsed by VCLT
November 2017: launched; continues monthly in 2018
Webinars open to all staff
Topics: intersectionality, transgender, know your rights. Generated discussion and reflection with diverse group of employees. Planned future topics: indigeneity, life as a carer, gender‐based issues, multiculturalism.
Attendance: Intersectionality, Dec 2017: 32 Transgender, Feb 2017: 36 Rights, Mar 2018: 10
Production: 2017 Launched: November 2017
CSU women in STEMM video
Interviews with CSU women in STEMM, highlighting career paths, barriers and supports. Future uses: showcasing career issues for early academics or HDR students, discussion focus for staff and students
Attendance CSU video launch, Nov 2017: 20 177 YouTube views
Throughout the application process, CSU actively engaged with the SAGE Regional Network: CSIRO,
University of Canberra and Australian National University. Chairing the network is rotated among
organisations and each institution critiqued each other’s drafts. Tim Wess, drawing on his UK
experience with Athena SWAN, met with SATs from other institutions to provide guidance. The
network developed a video resource showcasing Australian women in science (Figure 3) and
launched at the 2017 SAGE National Conference.
23
Figure 4 Stills from the video produced by the ACT SAGE Regional Network
This work has led to other collaborative ventures including joining CSIRO with CSU Future Moves
pathway for Indigenous school children, highlighting CSIRO cadetships for Indigenous learners.
Professor Robin Perutz FRS, University of York, special advisor to the SAT, provided guidance and
feedback on CSU’s draft application. Prof Perutz’s leadership and experience of Athena SWAN,
gender equity and diversity issues in the UK was highly valuable.
The Athena SWAN SAT and application process was supported financially by FoS and Division of
Human Resources. The Faculty supplied $300,000 for project and research officer support from 2016
until mid‐2019. The Division of Human Resources supported the application with staffing and data
provision, and $70,000 to cover registration costs, training, expenses of visitors and travel.
iii) Plans for the future of the self‐assessment team
The SAT will address issues identified in the Action Plan, reporting to the Equity and Diversity
Committee. The team will engage members across all campuses and future meetings will focus on
prioritising activities and monitoring the Action Plan. Ongoing investigation through focus groups,
presentations, webinars and workshops will highlight challenges and issues, and provide information
to inform SAT activity. Findings from the current application will be shared with stakeholders across
the university to inform strategy, planning and actions. The SAT will also support Schools in applying
for Departmental Athena SWAN Awards should the pilot continue (detailed in Section 5.4.xii).
Key to success of the cultural, structural and process changes in the Action Plan is visible leadership
from the Vice‐Chancellor and his leadership team. Action Plan progress will be reported to the
Equity and Diversity Committee annually, who will evaluate and provide feedback. Communication
around actions and issues will continue through the ongoing program of webinars and a diversity‐
focused newsletter.
24
Actions
Rationale: The SAT has a clear role to play in monitoring and investigating issues
uncovered during the application process, as well as communicating these to
stakeholders and staff. This valuable work needs to be allocated time and
recognition by the University.
Actions: Specific tasks have been assigned to the SAT within the Action Plan,
including ongoing data analysis and investigation of issues [Actions 7.1]; and
continued communication of Athena SWAN principles via webinars, videos and
other communication tools [Action 7.3]; and to liaise with CSU stakeholders.
Once the future of the Athena SWAN awards are confirmed, the SAT will support
and guide Schools to apply for Departmental Athena SWAN awards [Action 7.1].
To ensure adequate time and recognition is awarded for this important work,
workload allocation will need to be provided across CSU [Action 7.2].
25
4. A PICTURE OF THE INSTITUTIONRecommended word count: 2000 words
Actual word count: 1174 words
4.1 Academic and research staff data
i) Academic and research staff by grade and gender
Look at the career pipeline across the whole institution and between Science, Technology,
Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM) subjects. Comment on and explain any differences
between women and men, and any differences between STEMM subjects. Identify any issues in the
pipeline at particular grades/levels.
Female representation in STEMM and non‐STEMM areas reduces as level of appointment increases
from A‐E (Table 9). Within continuing academic appointments, Level A has an over‐representation of
females across STEMM and non‐STEMM (89% females in STEMM in 2016). Fixed‐term early‐career
academic appointments are also skewed towards females, but to a lesser degree than continuing
appointments. A sharp reduction in female representation occurs within STEMM by level; decreasing
from over 50% at Level A, to less than 20% at Level E. This trend is also seen in non‐STEMM. Over
60% of sessional academic staff are female, across STEMM and non‐STEMM areas and across all
years documented.
Table 9 Proportion of academics by gender and STEMM
STEMM Non‐STEMM STEMM Non‐STEMM STEMM Non‐STEMM
F M %F F M %F F M %F F M %F F M %F F M %F
2014 2015 2016
Continuing
A 7 3 70 13 2 87 13 2 87 12 1 92 17 2 89 13 2 87
B 79 63 56 101 77 57 82 68 55 93 73 56 87 63 58 91 73 55
C 24 54 31 29 27 52 28 54 34 31 25 55 22 66 25 31 24 56
D 9 22 29 9 11 45 10 21 32 8 8 50 9 18 33 12 11 52
E 2 11 15 9 13 41 1 16 6 9 14 39 3 14 18 9 12 43
Fixed‐term
A 16 8 67 28 14 67 15 10 60 25 11 69 11 10 52 21 7 75
B 21 14 60 32 23 58 11 13 46 17 19 47 16 10 62 24 14 63
C 3 7 30 10 4 71 0 4 0 10 4 71 0 6 0 18 6 75
D 1 1 50 5 3 63 0 1 0 5 2 71 2 2 50 3 4 43
E 2 7 22 1 19 5 1 7 13 2 15 12 1 6 14 3 10 23
Sessional 255 138 65 483 210 70 235 144 62 476 225 68 243 140 63 560 249 69
Total 419 328 56 720 403 64 396 340 54 688 397 63 411 337 55 785 412 66
To illustrate the sharp reduction, or 'leaky pipeline' of female academics from Levels A‐E typical of many universities, we graphed data from Table 9 for continuing and fixed‐term staff, for STEMM (Figure 5) and non‐STEMM (Figure 6).
26
Figure 5 Percent female STEMM academics, 2014‐2016
Figure 6 Percent female non‐STEMM academics, 2014‐2016
Why are fewer female academics represented past Level B? Females were more likely than males to
be appointed without a doctorate, and therefore lack the means to progress past Level B (Figure
7Figure 7). Looking at the proportion of staff appointed with PhDs across levels, in STEMM there is a
greater proportion of male staff with doctorates at Levels A and B than female staff. Conversely,
there is a greater proportion of female staff with doctorates than males at levels C, D and E. This is
not the case in non‐STEMM areas. This may suggest inequity within the appointment process,
whereby men without doctorates are appointed at higher levels, where evidence of equivalence to a
PhD is required, and assessed by the members of an interview panel or promotions committee,
more often than women without doctorates.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A B C D E
Percent female
STEMM 2014 STEMM 2015 STEMM 2016
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A B C D E
Percent female
NonSTEMM 2014 NonSTEMM 2015 NonSTEMM 2016
27
Figure 7 Percent of academic appointments with doctorate level qualifications, across gender and level in STEMM and non‐STEMM, 2016 (headcount in brackets)
Proportion of female staff varies across STEMM schools (Table 10) from 19% in the Computing and
Mathematics, to 90% in Nursing, Midwifery and Indigenous Health, highlighting the need to consider
school‐specific data when reflecting on proportional female representation. Two schools had
consistently low female representation from 2014‐2016: Computing and Mathematics, and
Agriculture and Wine Sciences. Engineering also had low female representation (for 2016).
Conversely, there is consistent comparative over‐representation of females in two schools:
Community Health and Nursing, Midwifery and Indigenous Health.
Table 10 Breakdown of %F STEMM academic staff across schools (headcount), 2014‐2016
2014 2015 2016
SCHOOL F M %F F M %F F M %F
Computing & Mathematics 15 66 19% 14 58 19% 13 50 21%
Engineering* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 9 25%
Agriculture & Wine Sciences 26 46 36% 25 47 35% 17 45 27%
Animal & Veterinary Sciences 40 35 53% 37 37 50% 44 36 55%
Biomedical Sciences 50 59 46% 52 63 45% 55 65 46%
Community Health 80 27 75% 63 21 75% 66 23 74%
Dentistry & Health Sciences 44 46 49% 52 48 52% 59 45 57%
Environmental Sciences 18 19 49% 19 24 44% 22 27 45%
Exercise Science, Sport & Health 18 9 67% 14 8 64% 15 10 60%
Nursing, Midwifery & Indigenous Health 118 13 90% 109 20 84% 104 13 89%
*School of Engineering formed in 2016
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sessional
Sessional
Level A
Level A
Level B
Level B
Level C
Level C
Level D
Level D
Level E
Level E
Sessional
Sessional
Level A
Level A
Level B
Level B
Level C
Level C
Level D
Level D
Level E
Level E
STEMM Non‐STEMM
Percent with doctorates
STEMM Non‐STEMM
Level A
Level A
Level B
Level B
Level C
Level C
Level D
Level D
Level E
Level E
Female Male
6 10 3 7 39 46 21 61 11 16 4 19 16 5 6 1 51 40 37 25 13 13 12 20Headcount
28
Actions
Rationale: There is a ‘leaky pipeline’, where proportional representation by
female academics decreases from Level A to E, particularly beyond Level B.
Action: We will develop policy to ensure women are actively recruited for
academic positions and that gender balance is considered when shortlisting for
each academic role advertised [Action 2.1]. The 2018 Faculty of Science Forum
will include a day‐long stream focussing on supporting Level A and B academics,
covering topics around issues and successes of women in STEMM [Action 2.2].
Rationale: There is inequity within the appointment process, particularly in
STEMM, where men without doctorates are appointed at higher levels more
often than women without doctorates.
Action: Inclusivity resources for managers and members of interview panels will
be developed to address this bias [Action 1.2], along with a process for interview
panels to check for bias prior to making the final decision on candidates and prior
to confirming the step/level of an appointment [Action 1.1].
Rationale: There is a gender imbalance of academic staff in Schools of
Engineering, Computing and Mathematics, Agriculture and Wine Sciences,
Nursing Midwifery and Indigenous Health, and Community Health. We
acknowledge to some extent this reflects the gender profile of those professions,
however each School needs to consider and address the issue individually.
Action: The Executive Dean of Science will discuss School‐specific results with
each School and the SAT will support these Schools to identify the reasons behind
these imbalances and develop appropriate programs to redress these [Action
2.3].
29
ii) Academic and research staff on fixed‐term, open‐ended/permanent and casual contracts
by gender
Comment on the proportions of men and women on these contracts. Comment on what is being done
to ensure continuity of employment and to address any other issues, including redeployment
schemes.
Gender proportions of academic staff employed by contract type are consistent for 2014‐2016 for
STEMM (Figure 8) and non‐STEMM (Figure 9). Percentages of women on continuing and fixed‐term
contracts for STEMM and non‐STEMM is comparable to males; 40‐60%. More females are employed
on a sessional basis (average 63% in STEMM, 69% in non‐STEMM), so females have less contract
security than males. CSU’s Enterprise Agreement includes provision for fixed‐term staff to convert
their employment in particular circumstances.
Figure 8 Gender proportions for academics by contract type in STEMM 2014‐2016
Figure 9 Gender proportions for academics by contract type in non‐STEMM, 2014‐2016
2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016
Continuing Fixed Sessional
Male 153 161 163 37 35 34 138 144 140 Female 121 134 138 39 22 29 255 235 243
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of staff
Percent of staff
2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 Continuing Fixed Sessional
Male 130 121 122 63 51 41 210 225 249 Female 161 153 156 64 49 59 483 476 560
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
30
iii) Academic staff by contract function and gender: research‐only, research and teaching, and
teaching‐only
Comment on the proportions of men and women on these contracts and by job grade.
The gender balance of academic staff employed in teaching, teaching/research, teaching and
teaching/professional roles is shown for STEMM (Figure 10), and non‐STEMM (Figure 11). Females
are under‐represented in research and teaching/research roles, particularly for STEMM. Conversely,
females are over‐represented in teaching and teaching/professional roles, particularly in non‐
STEMM.
Figure 10 Percent female STEMM academic staff by contract function, 2014‐2016
Actions
Rationale: The gender imbalance in sessional staff numbers, while not
unexpected as it is common across the sector, appears to be a gender equity
issue. There are various initiatives across CSU designed to address concerns for
this cohort, such as educational design staff specifically supporting and guiding
the teaching of sessional academics. A research scholarship program for sessional
staff was piloted in 2016/17. However, it is difficult to gain a clear picture of the
breadth of this work across the University.
Action: Existing knowledge about the needs and wants of sessional staff needs to
be aggregated across the University. The SAT will consult with existing groups and
roles who currently support sessional staff, to identify the known issues and
existing data [Action 1.3] as well as consult with sessional staff [Action 1.4].
2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 Research Teaching/research Teaching Teaching/professional
Male 14 22 19 143 133 131 143 164 167 10 7 8
Female 11 10 9 119 107 100 266 249 272 12 13 12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of staff
31
Figure 11 Percent female non‐STEMM academic staff by contract function, 2014‐2016
Note: teaching/professional role enables academic staff to perform other professional activities, eg
consultancy/partnerships, leadership of continuing professional development, professional practice
outside CSU, knowledge development and problem‐solving, and projects that enhance curricula.
Some of these activities may be research‐focused in nature.
Table 11 further investigates academic contract function through sub‐grouping staff by contract
type. The vast majority of research staff (STEMM and non‐STEMM) are on fixed‐term contracts,
suggesting lack of contract security. In contrast, teaching/research, teaching and
teaching/professional staff are more often on continuing contracts (STEMM and non‐STEMM). There
is a slight gender imbalance within non‐STEMM; with females on continuing contracts over‐
represented in the three teaching functions.
Percent of staff
2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 Research Teaching/research Teaching Teaching/professional
Male 22 20 15 124 105 99 240 240 262 13 9 7
Female 18 16 15 133 126 120 502 478 577 24 22 20
0% 10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
32
Table 11 Number and proportion of academics by contract function and employment type in STEMM and non‐STEMM 2014‐2016
Work function
Contract type
2014 2015 2016
F M %F F M %F F M %F
STEMM
Research
Continuing 0 0 ‐ 0 1 0% 0 2 0%
Fixed‐term 11 14 44% 10 21 32% 9 17 35%
Teaching and research
Continuing 106 132 45% 103 126 45% 94 122 44%
Fixed‐term 13 11 54% 4 7 36% 6 9 40%
Teaching
Continuing 4 11 27% 18 25 42% 31 28 53%
Fixed‐term 13 10 57% 5 8 38% 13 9 59%
Teaching and professional
Continuing 10 7 59% 11 6 65% 12 8 60%
Fixed‐term 2 3 40% 2 1 67% 0 0 ‐
Non‐STEMM
Research
Continuing 1 7 13% 1 6 14% 1 4 20%
Fixed‐term 17 15 53% 15 14 52% 14 11 56%
Teaching and research
Continuing 121 105 54% 112 94 54% 108 94 53%
Fixed‐term 12 19 39% 14 11 56% 12 5 71%
Teaching
Continuing 7 4 64% 9 9 50% 22 16 58%
Fixed‐term 12 22 35% 8 18 31% 16 18 47%
Teaching and professional
Continuing 21 10 68% 22 7 76% 19 6 76%
Fixed‐term 3 3 50% 0 2 0% 1 1 50%
Tables 12 to 15 sub‐group academic contract functions by level and gender. Headcounts for some of
these sub‐groups are low, making it difficult to draw conclusions, particularly around gender
balance. The main feature seen is the high concentration of Level A and B staff, particularly for
teaching and teaching/professional contract functions. This is consistent across STEMM and non‐
STEMM, and confirms the ‘leaky pipeline’ data in Figures 4 and 5.
33
Table 12 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM research‐only academics by gender and grade
2014 2015 2016
F M %F F M %F F M %F
STEMM
Level A 6 4 60% 5 8 38% 4 8 33%
Level B 4 4 50% 4 5 44% 4 1 80%
Level C 0 1 0% 0 2 0% 0 2 0%
Level D 0 1 0% 0 1 0% 0 0 ‐
Level E 1 4 20% 1 5 17% 1 7 13%
TOTAL 11 14 44% 10 21 32% 9 18 33%
Non‐STEMM
Level A 7 4 64% 7 3 70% 5 1 83%
Level B 6 2 75% 4 2 67% 4 1 80%
Level C 1 2 33% 2 1 67% 3 0 100%
Level D 1 1 50% 0 0 ‐ 1 4 20%
Level E 1 13 8% 2 14 13% 2 9 18%
TOTAL 16 22 42% 15 20 43% 15 15 50%
Table 13 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM teaching/research academics by gender and grade
2014 2015 2016
F M %F F M %F F M %F
STEMM
Level A 5 5 50% 5 1 83% 6 0 100%
Level B 75 54 58% 68 52 57% 63 45 58%
Level C 25 49 34% 24 47 34% 19 58 25%
Level D 9 18 33% 8 16 33% 8 15 35%
Level E 3 12 20% 1 14 7% 3 10 23%
TOTAL 117 138 46% 106 130 45% 99 128 44%
Non‐STEMM
Level A 8 2 80% 9 1 90% 7 1 88%
Level B 85 72 54% 75 64 54% 71 55 56%
Level C 23 22 51% 28 20 58% 26 22 54%
Level D 6 9 40% 5 6 45% 7 10 41%
Level E 9 15 38% 8 11 42% 9 10 47%
TOTAL 131 120 52% 125 102 55% 120 98 55%
34
Table 14 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM teaching‐only academics by gender and grade
2014 2015 2016
F M %F F M %F F M %F
STEMM
Level A 5 1 83% 9 2 82% 14 3 82%
Level B 11 14 44% 11 21 34% 29 24 55%
Level C 1 3 25% 3 6 33% 1 7 13%
Level D 0 2 0 0 2 0% 0 2 0%
Level E 0 1 0 0 2 0% 0 1 0%
TOTAL 265 140 65% 248 161 61% 272 166 62%
Non‐STEMM
Level A 8 10 44% 4 7 36% 9 6 60%
Level B 11 15 42% 11 17 39% 25 26 49%
Level C 0 0 ‐ 2 2 50% 4 2 67%
Level D 0 1 0% 0 1 0% 0 0 ‐
Level E 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐
TOTAL 502 236 68% 473 239 66% 577 262 69%
Table 15 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM teaching/professional academics by gender and grade
2014 2015 2016
F M %F F M %F F M %F
STEMM
Level A 3 1 75% 3 1 75% 2 1 67%
Level B 9 3 75% 9 2 82% 7 2 78%
Level C 0 4 0% 0 2 0% 1 3 25%
Level D 0 1 0% 1 1 50% 2 1 67%
Level E 0 1 0% 0 1 0% 0 1 0%
TOTAL 12 10 55% 13 7 65% 12 8 60%
Non‐STEMM
Level A 3 0 100% 3 0 100% 2 0 100%
Level B 16 8 67% 14 7 67% 11 5 69%
Level C 3 3 50% 4 1 80% 6 2 75%
Level D 2 1 67% 1 1 50% 1 0 100%
Level E 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐
TOTAL 24 12 67% 22 9 71% 20 7 74%
35
iv) Academic leavers by grade and gender
Comment on the reasons academic staff leave the institution. Comment on and explain any
differences between men and women, and any differences in schools or departments.
The two main reasons both STEMM and non‐STEMM academic staff leave CSU are contract expiry
and resignation (Table 16). The turnover rate for STEMM staff was consistent from 2014‐2016, whilst
the turnover rate for non‐STEMM staff decreased slightly.
Table 16 Academic leavers by STEMM/non‐STEMM and reasons for leaving 2014‐2016
2014 2015 2016
Reason for leaving
STEMM Non‐STEMM
STEMM Non‐STEMM
STEMM Non‐STEMM
Contract expiry 16 34 25 22 15 16
Redundancy 0 1 0 0 0 1
Resignation 20 42 25 23 26 18
Retirement 2 6 4 9 4 7
Other 0 0 1 1 1 1
TOTAL leavers 38 83 55 55 46 43
Total academic staff
316 283 316 257 324 273
Turnover rate 12% 29% 17% 21% 14% 16%
Note: sessional staff are not included in Table 16
Table 17 investigates academic leavers through sub‐grouping by gender, full‐ or part‐time status,
and level. These data support the ‘leaky pipeline’: large numbers of academics, both full‐ and part‐
time, leave at Level A, B or C, across STEMM and non‐STEMM.
Actions
Rationale: more women are appointed in fixed‐term, teaching‐only and
teaching/professional roles, while more men are appointed to research‐only
roles.
Action: The SAT will conduct focus groups with staff employed in each role to
clarify equity issues [Action 1.5]. The SAT will work with the Gender Equity
Strategy team to ensure this issue is raised with the Vice‐Chancellor’s Leadership
Team, and specific actions are included within the Gender Equity Strategy [Action
1.6].
36
Table 17 Academic leavers by gender, grade and STEMM/non‐STEMM 2014‐2016
2014 2015 2016
F M %F F M %F F M %F Total
staff
STEMM
FULL TIME 15 12 56% 19 23 45% 14 23 38% 106
Level A 5 1 83% 4 3 57% 6 5 55% 24
Level B 8 5 62% 11 13 46% 6 7 46% 50
Level C 6 0% 1 3 25% 2 6 25% 18
Level D 2 100% 2 1 67% 1 0% 6
Level E ‐ 1 3 25% 4 0% 8
PART TIME 5 6 45% 8 5 62% 5 4 56% 33
Level A 2 1 67% 2 2 50% 1 1 50% 9
Level B 2 4 33% 3 2 60% 4 1 80% 16
Level C ‐ 1 100% 1 0% 2
Level D 1 100% 1 0% ‐ 2
Level E 1 0% 2 100% 1 0% 4
TOTAL STEMM 20 18 53% 27 28 49% 19 27 41% 139
Non‐STEMM
FULL TIME 23 27 46% 17 20 46% 11 13 46% 111
Level A 5 6 45% 3 4 43% 2 2 50% 22
Level B 15 13 54% 11 10 52% 5 5 50% 59
Level C 3 4 43% 3 5 38% 2 100% 17
Level D 2 0% ‐ 2 1 67% 5
Level E 2 0% 1 0% 5 0% 8
PART TIME 17 16 52% 9 9 50% 10 9 53% 70
Level A 4 2 67% 2 1 67% 2 1 67% 12
Level B 10 9 53% 6 3 67% 4 5 44% 37
Level C 2 1 67% 1 1 50% 3 1 75% 9
Level D 1 0% ‐ 1 1 50% 3
Level E 1 3 25% 4 0% 1 0% 9
TOTAL non‐STEMM 40 43 48% 28 29 49% 21 22 49% 183
Grand total 60 61 50% 55 57 49% 40 49 45% 322
Table 18 investigates academic leavers in STEMM schools and shows that, taking into account the
low numbers of leavers, there is consistency in terms of percent leavers by gender and gender
proportion of staff in school. The only school with consistently higher proportions of female leavers
compared with female staff is the school of Agricultural and Wine Sciences, but the number of
leavers in this school is very low. In contrast, the Schools of Dentistry and Health Sciences and
Exercise Science, Sport and Health have consistently lower percent female leavers compared with
proportion of female staff within these schools.
37
Table 18 Academic leavers (fixed‐term and continuing) by STEMM Schools, (n=total staff), 2014‐2016
v) Equal pay audits/reviews
Comment on the findings from the most recent equal pay audit and identify the institution’s top
three priorities to address any disparities and enable equality in pay.
The gender pay gap is an enduring, complex and multifaceted issue in Australia. CSU’s gender pay
gap, calculated in the 2017 Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) report, is 14.6% (Table 19).
WGEA measures and compares average wages of women to men across the institution as a basic
measurement of the gender pay gap.
2014 2015 2016
%F
leavers %F staff
%F
leavers %F staff
%F
leavers %F staff
Computing & Mathematics 0% (4) 19% (81) 0% (7) 19% (72) 50% (2) 21% (63)
CSU Engineering ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0% (1) 25% (12)
Agricultural & Wine Sciences
50% (2) 36% (72) 50% (2) 35% (72) 50% (2) 27% (62)
Animal & Veterinary Sciences
25% (8) 53% (75) 50% (8) 50% (74) 80% (5) 55% (80)
Biomedical Sciences 100% (1) 46% (109) 40% (5) 45% (115) 25% (8) 46% (120)
Community Health 66% (3) 75% (107) 80% (5) 75% (84) 0% (1) 74% (89)
Dentistry & Health Sciences 17% (6) 49% (90) 44% (9) 52% (100) 40% (5) 57% (104)
Environmental Sciences 66% (3) 49% (37) 33% (3) 44% (43) 50% (2) 45% (49)
Exercise Science, Sport & Health
50% (2) 67% (27) 60% (5) 64% (22) 0% (2) 60% (25)
Nursing, Midwifery & Indigenous Health
50% (4) 90% (131) 100% (5) 84% (129) 71% (7) 89% (117)
38
Table 19 CSU gender pay gap 2016‐2017 all sub‐groups by employment type
Female Male
Heads Av. Basic Av. Total Heads Av. Basic Av. Total
FT 980 90,498.03 107,334.03 718 104,638.25 123,272.57
Contract 203 105,160.35 123,516.86 168 119,830.81 141,513.51
Permanent 777 86,667.34 103,106.09 550 99,997.61 117,700.79
Casual 587 76,950.61 85,392.02 241 77,370.24 85,243.48
PT 370 79,414.62 93,216.27 87 106,415.88 126,080.14
Contract 122 84,827.53 98,083.69 48 109,679.63 128,458.42
Permanent 248 76,751.82 90,821.81 39 102,398.96 123,153.03
Grand Total 1937 84,275.42 97,987.86 1046 98,503.51 114,744.12
Pay gap 14.44% 14.60%
Note: WGEA uses pre‐set categories of workers that do not easily fit CSU’s higher education
categories as outlined in
Table 20. Language used in tables in this section relate to WGEA categories.
Table 20 Comparison of WGEA and CSU staffing categories
WGEA category Equivalent CSU staff category
Clerical Professional (mostly levels 1‐5), student and other miscellaneous employees
Professional Academic and Professional (levels 5 and above)
Contract Fixed‐term
Permanent Continuing
Casual Casual and sessional
Examining average wages within WGEA categories helps us better understand the gap and uncover
where issues need to be addressed (Table 21).Eg, women earn more on average (7.54%) than men in
the clerical category, while at the other end of the pay‐scale, women in the executive sub‐group are
paid 4.71% more than men. Men in the professional sub‐group are paid 7.54% more than women. If
the sub‐groups ‘Key Management Personnel’, ‘Other Managers’ and ‘Senior Staff’ are combined,
there is a gender pay gap of 14.4% which is approaching that of the institution.
Table 21 CSU gender pay gap 2016‐2017 by sub‐group
Female Male Av. Basic pay gap
Av. total
pay gap Heads Av.
Basic Av.
TotalHeads Av. Basic Av.
Total
Clerical 848 67,012 76,759 208 63,627 71,374 ‐5.32% ‐7.54%
Executive 10 246,588 301,165 3 244,098 287,619 ‐1.02% ‐4.71%
Professional 862 98,528 115,284 663 106,983 124,680 7.90% 7.54%
KMP/Othm/Snr 112 115,139 136,197 99 132,577 159,116 13.15% 14.40%
39
The ‘Clerical’ and ‘Professional’ sub‐groups contain the largest numbers and the two extremes of pay
inequity: 7.54%, the greatest difference, favours women (Clerical) and men (Professional)
respectively. A direct comparison of these two sub‐groups reveals a significant number of women
working in lower paid jobs, mostly in the Clerical sub‐group, causing a 14.09% average total pay gap.
Re‐examining the pay gap across CSU, and excluding the clerical sub‐group, there is a significant
narrowing of that gap to 8.76%.
A much larger number of women in part‐time and casual work contributes to the gap, especially in
the Professional sub‐group (Table 22 and Table 23).
Table 22 Full‐time Professional sub‐group
Female Male
Heads Av. Basic Av. Total Heads Av. Basic Av. Total
FT 492 101,363 120,705 488 107,929 126,631
Contract 126 95,398 111,108 104 100,776 117,517
Permanent 366 103,416 124,009 384 109,866 129,100
Grand Total 492 101,363 120,705 488 107,929 126,631
Pay gap 6.08% 4.68%
Table 23 Casual and part‐time Professional sub‐group
Female Male
Heads Av. Basic Av. Total Heads Av. Basic Av. Total
Casual 205 94,815 106,158 103 97,499 107,919
PT 165 94,688 110,458 72 114,134 135,434
Contract 70 92,557 107,248 44 111,208 130,259
Permanent 95 96,259 112,824 28 118,732 143,566
Grand Total 370 94,758 108,076 175 104,343 119,239
Pay gap 9.19% 9.36%
However being able to work part‐time is a value that is not quantified in such raw numerical data. It
is important to neither over‐ or under‐state the value of working part‐time. This is a contentious
issue and needs to be analysed with academic rigour as part of the Action Plan. CSU’s Vice‐
Chancellor became a WGEA Pay Equity Ambassador in February 2018, pledging to take action to
reduce the gender pay gap.
40
Actions
Rationale: Reducing the pay gap across the institution is a fundamental
component of the Gender Equity Strategy, which will be implemented by the end
of 2018.
Actions: The SAT has been tasked with investigating specific issues that
contribute to the gender pay gap, including School and organisation unit‐level
gender remuneration analysis, and understanding the personal value of the
availability of part‐time work [Action 3.1]. In addition, new recruitment guides
and inclusivity training for managers and interview panels will also address the
effect of starting step for new appointments [Action 6.4]. Other actions listed in
the Action Plan (Section 10) are also expected to contribute to reducing the pay
gap, and the Gender Equity Strategy will examine ways to increase the wages of
lower paid staff.
41
5. SUPPORTING AND ADVANCING WOMEN’S CAREERSRecommended word count: 5000 words
Actual word count: 4590 words
5.1 Key career transition points: academic staff
i) Recruitment
Break down data by gender and grade for applications, long‐ and shortlisted candidates, offer and
acceptance rates. Comment on how recruitment processes ensure that women (and men in
underrepresented disciplines) are encouraged to apply.
CSU’s externally advertised vacancies encourage inclusivity and applications from women, by
including the following statement:
“Charles Sturt University is an equal opportunity employer committed to diversity and
inclusion. Applications are encouraged from Indigenous Australians; people with a disability;
women (particularly for senior and non‐traditional roles); people who identify as LGBTIQ; and
those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.”
Applicants voluntarily disclose gender when applying. Between 2014 and 2016 approximately 10%
withheld gender information. Of these ‘gender unknown’ applications, 64% (n=203) were for
STEMM positions, with 36% (n=114) for non‐STEMM.
Of the approximately 90% of applications for academic positions in 2014‐2016 for which gender was
provided, gender ratios for STEMM and non‐STEMM application rates (Figure 12), interviews granted
(Figure 13) and appointments (Figure 14) are presented. For STEMM positions, females constituted
30‐40% of applicants, 40‐50% of interviews, and about 50% of appointments. For non‐STEMM
positions, 40‐50% of applicants were females, 40‐60% were granted interviews, and 55‐70%
appointed. These data indicate there is no gender bias against female applicants progressing to
interview and appointment to positions, for both STEMM and non‐STEMM roles. Data have not been
broken down by grade, due to the small numbers in some grades.
42
Figure 12 Applicants for STEMM and non‐STEMM academic positions, by gender, 2014‐2016
Figure 13 Interviews granted for STEMM and non‐STEMM academic positions, by gender, 2014‐2016
STEMMNon‐
STEMMSTEMM
Non‐STEMM
STEMMNon‐
STEMM
Male 240 204 495 218 503 218
Female 181 186 223 140 274 227
0% 10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of applicants
2014 2015 2016
STEMMNon‐
STEMMSTEMM
Non‐STEMM
STEMMNon‐
STEMM
Male 36 17 48 28 64 33
Female 36 31 53 19 55 57
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of interviews
2014 2015 2016
43
Figure 14 Appointments to STEMM and non‐STEMM academic positions, by gender, 2014‐2016
The PageUp recruitment and onboarding system, implemented in February 2018, will capture more
data than previously, providing greater scope to query and evaluate recruitment data in the future.
ii) Induction
Describe the induction and support provided to new staff at all levels. Comment on the uptake of this
and how its effectiveness is reviewed.
All new staff complete a formal Induction and Development Program. The Managing@CSU Toolkit
contains a range of resources for supervisors to plan and implement induction. During the first week,
staff are made aware of the structures and leadership of their division, CSU’s policies and
procedures and are allocated quiet time to catch up with their new situation and process
information. At the 6‐week point, managers are prompted by HR to meet with the new employee to
review the mentorship and supervision offered, and the opportunity for the inductee to feedback on
the process.
A three‐hour compulsory online training for new staff covers workplace health and safety, equal
employment opportunity (EEO), IT fundamentals and security, fire and emergency for staff and
managers. EEO training is mandatory and designed so staff understand their ‘legal rights and
responsibilities to achieve discrimination and harassment‐free campuses’. EEO Online training is
organised into two modules:
1. All staff members must complete Module 1 (EEO for all staff). 2. Employees responsible for managing or supervising staff must complete Module 2 (EEO for
Managers and Supervisors).
STEMMNon‐
STEMMSTEMM
Non‐STEMM
STEMMNon‐
STEMM
Male 12 6 24 13 18 9
Female 12 12 30 16 16 24
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of appointm
ents
2014 2015 2016
44
There is an Equity and Diversity component within Module 2, providing links to CSU’s Equity and Diversity webpage, information, resources, policy and procedure (Table 24), however this module is not mandatory.
Table 24 Overview of information from CSU's Equity & Diversity webpage
CSU’s commitment to EEO
Merit based recruitment, selection and promotion processes
Flexible work practices, a range of leave options that support work/life balance and family responsibilities
Affirmative action programs such as CSU's Australian Indigenous Employment Strategy
Workplace adjustments that enable people with disability to work effectively
Targeted training and development opportunities to support career progression
Policies and procedures to prevent unlawful discrimination, harassment and bullying
Responsive management of concerns and complaints
iii) Promotion
Provide data on staff applying for promotion and comment on applications and success rates by
gender, grade and full and part‐time status. Comment on any evidence of a gender pay gap in
promotions at any grade.
Academic staff make an expression of interest in applying for promotion and receive four‐months
training and mentoring to prepare applications. Remuneration as a result of academic promotion is
standardised; successful promotion applicants are placed on Step 1 at the level of
promotion. Supervisors support unsuccessful applicants in addressing identified gaps and working
towards building a stronger case for promotion. Academic promotion objectives are integrated into
employees’ annual Employee Development and Review Scheme (EDRS) plans, enabling supervisors
and employees to monitor and discuss progress.
Recognising the need to place greater value on teaching and engagement, as well as research, a new
academic promotion process was implemented in 2015. The revised process recognises potential
barriers to promotion including career breaks, EEO considerations, and contributions to areas other
than research. The application form asks applicants to identify EEO‐related issues they believe have
impacted their career progress (family responsibilities, career breaks, ethnicity/cultural factors). In
considering issues of equity, the Promotions Committee assesses an applicant’s achievement
relative to opportunity; applicants are held to the same pre‐determined standards of quality,
however quantum of output may be less.
The new process has been reviewed annually since inception, evaluating stakeholder feedback and
implementing improvements, including developing guidelines for expectations in relation to EEO
claims. The revised process has positively impacted on outcomes for women (Table 25), with success
45
rates improving consistently since 2015, particularly for STEMM applicants. In addition, more people
are declaring EEO issues, and success rates for these applicants have improved steadily since 2015.
Table 25 Evidence of the impact of the new academic promotion process
Indicator 2014 2015 2016 2017
F M F M F M F M
Applications 58% 42% 56% 44% 61% 39% 54% 44%
Success rate 60% 64% 61% 72% 80% 53% 83% 74%
STEMM applicants’ success rate 60% 78% 55% 90% 86% 50% 100% 71%
Applicants declaring EEO‐related issues (non‐gendered data)
NA 22% 39% 32%
Applicants identifying EEO issues success rate
NA 44% 68% 87%
Note: EEO data not collected prior to 2015.
Table 26 details academic promotions for 2014‐2016, by grade and STEMM/non‐STEMM. This sub‐
division of data results in very small numbers in some categories, making it difficult to note specific
trends, particularly by grade. Conversion from expressions of interest to applications increased for
both STEMM and non‐STEMM in 2015, further highlighting the positive impact of the revised
promotion process implemented in 2015.
Table 26 Overview of academic promotions at CSU 2014‐2016
Year Promotion
to level
Expressed Interest Applied Promoted % Success (of
applicants)
F M %F F M %F F M %F F M
2014
STEMM
B 0 2 0% 0 1 0% 0 1 0% ‐ 100%
C 11 4 73% 4 2 67% 2 1 67% 50% 50%
D 4 5 44% 1 3 25% 1 2 33% 100% 67%
E 0 3 0% 0 3 0% 0 3 0% ‐ 100%
2015
STEMM
B 1 1 50% 1 1 50% 0 1 0% 0% 100%
C 5 8 38% 5 8 38% 2 8 20% 40% 100%
D 4 1 80% 4 1 80% 3 0 100% 75% 0%
E 1 0 100% 1 0 100% 1 0 100% 100% ‐
2016
STEMM
B 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐
C 12 9 57% 10 4 71% 8 2 80% 80% 50%
D 6 7 46% 4 7 36% 4 4 50% 100% 57%
E 2 1 67% 0 1 0% 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0%
2014
NON‐
STEMM
B 2 0 100% 1 0 100% 1 0 100% 100% ‐
C 13 6 68% 7 1 88% 5 0 100% 71% 0%
D 3 2 60% 1 1 50% 0 0 ‐ 0% 0%
E 1 1 50% 1 0 100% 0 0 ‐ 0% ‐
2015
NON‐
STEMM
B 1 0 100% 1 0 100% 1 0 100% 100% ‐
C 7 5 58% 7 5 58% 6 3 67% 86% 60%
D 2 2 50% 2 2 50% 0 1 0% 0% 50%
46
E 2 1 67% 2 1 67% 1 0 100% 50% 0%
2016
NON‐
STEMM
B 2 0 100% 1 0 100% 1 0 100% 100% ‐
C 11 7 61% 8 4 67% 7 2 78% 88% 50%
D 8 2 80% 6 1 86% 3 1 75% 50% 100%
E 2 2 50% 1 2 33% 1 1 50% 100% 50%
Part‐time staff applied for promotion at a lower rate than full‐time (Table 27); only 1‐3% of part‐time
staff submitted applications, compared to 5‐10% of full‐time staff, over 2014‐2016. It is difficult to
ascertain whether a trend exists around promotion of part‐time staff, due to the small numbers.
Table 27 Promotion applications and successes for part‐time staff in comparison to full‐time staff, 2014‐2016
Year
Total applicants (% of full/part‐time staff)
Total applicants promoted (% of full/part‐time
applicants)
Full‐time Part‐time Full‐time Part‐time
2014 26 (5%) 2 (2%) 16 (62%) 2 (100%)
2015 41 (8%) 1 (1%) 27 (66%) 0 (0%)
2016 49 (10%) 3 (3%) 34 (69%) 1 (33%)
Actions
Rationale: Compared to full‐time academic staff, fewer part‐time academics
apply for promotion, perhaps due to lack of encouragement and support from
managers or because of historical perceptions of bias within the promotion
process.
Action: Through a range of communication activities we will increase applications
for promotion from part‐time academic staff across CSU to 10% by 2022 [Action
2.4]. The Faculty of Science will set targets for each School to identify and support
at least one part‐time staff member to apply for promotion each year [Action
2.5].
Rationale: Since 2015, there has been a wide range of responses to the EEO
questions in the promotion application form. Some staff report misperceptions
about how such responses may influence promotion decisions. Feedback from
managers participating in promotion panels suggests there is much discussion
around assessing adequacy of achievements and outputs for part‐time staff, and
that panel members require additional guidance on assessing achievement
relative to opportunity.
Action: Guidelines and examples will be produced to help guide panels’ decision‐
making, and success stories will be developed and communicated to academic
staff [Action 2.6].
47
iv) Staff submitted to the Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) by gender
Provide data on staff, by gender, submitted to Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC)
for the past five years. Comment on any gender imbalances identified.
A gender difference exists in the proportions of research grants secured (Figure 15); STEMM females
were awarded 30‐40% of grants over 2014‐2016, whilst non‐STEMM females were awarded around
60‐70% of grants.
Figure 15 Research grants secured in STEMM and non‐STEMM, by gender, 2014‐2016
Proportions of grants secured are reflected in the research income (Figure 16). There is a noticeable
gender difference in research income; STEMM females secured about 30‐40% of STEMM income,
whilst non‐STEMM females secured 60‐70% of non‐STEMM income over the 3‐years. STEMM
projects brought in 3‐4 times more total income than non‐STEMM projects (Figure 16).
Percent of successful applications
STEMMNon‐
STEMMSTEMM
Non‐STEMM
STEMMNon‐
STEMM
Male 43 8 51 12 41 11
Female 25 22 20 24 21 18
0% 10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014 2015 2016
48
Figure 16 Research income in STEMM and non‐STEMM, by gender, 2014‐2016
A similar gender effect is seen with research publications (Figure 17); female STEMM researchers
authored about 40% of all STEMM publications, whilst female non‐STEMM researchers authored 50‐
60% of non‐STEMM publications over the period.
Figure 17 Research publications by gender and STEMM/non‐STEMM, 2014‐2016
STEMMNon‐
STEMMSTEMM
Non‐STEMM
STEMMNon‐
STEMM
Male $6,171,417 $596,981 $5,178,757 $794,961 $4,914,629 $884,951
Female $2,760,384 $1,425,303 $3,357,424 $2,192,623 $2,188,166 $1,282,177
Percent of research income
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014 2015 2016
Percent of research publications
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
STEMMNon‐
STEMMSTEMM
Non‐STEMM
STEMMNon‐
STEMM
Male 305 190 270 174 320 147
Female 206 208 174 203 202 209
2014 2015 2016
49
Actions
Rationale: There is a gender imbalance in numbers of research grants acquired,
amount of research funding secured, and numbers of publications, especially for
STEMM women.
Action: Women researchers will be supported by CSU through a research
mentoring program, and encouraged to participate in external roles, such as
grant assessors and reviewers, through enhanced work arrangements [Action 4.1
and 4.2]. The Faculty of Science will sponsor two women STEMM academics to
attend the annual Early‐Mid Career Researcher Forum conference each year to
build the research capacity of STEMM women at CSU and ensure pipeline
progression [Action 4.3].
50
5.2 Career development: academic staff
i) Training
Describe the training available to staff at all levels. Provide details of uptake by gender and how
existing staff are kept up to date with training. How is its effectiveness monitored and developed in
response to levels of uptake and evaluation?
Strategic workforce capability is a core component of CSU’s Strategic Plan and training is addressed
at three levels: strategic; team; and individual. Teams may organise their own training, coaching and
support, depending on requirements. Individual needs are addressed wihtin the annual EDRS, which
provides a formal mechanism for staff to discuss training requirements with managers and create
individual development plans. The Division of Human Resources offers a range of training courses
and online information for all staff, including content addressing sexuality, sex and gender identity,
disability and employment, domestic violence, indigenous employment, women’s leadership, and
work/life balance.
CSU offers a wide range of professional learning programs to academics to address specific teaching
and research needs. These include formal learning programs focussing on teaching and learning, eg
Graduate Certificate in University Leadership and Teaching in Higher Education, and Graduate
Certificate in University Leadership and Management. Professional development is offered through
the Division of Learning and Teaching (teaching‐focussed content) or the Research Office (research‐
focussed content) both at university‐level and Faculty/School‐level. Academic staff choose relevant
sessions, with reference to their EDRS goals or current needs, with support from their Head of
School. Programs include: updates in course changes and design, pedagogical development,
technologies such as e‐learning, research application and administration, and research
methodologies. The Faculty of Science launched its own peer‐review of teaching program in 2017
with over 60 academic staff engaged in the program.
A number of leadership and management skills programs exist, open to academic and professional
staff, including the Emerging Leaders Program and the Manager Success Workshop Series.
Specifically for women, the Leadership Development for Women Program (LDW) provides an
opportunity for learning about leadership, self‐awareness, organisational structures and support,
and collaborative problem‐solving. Conducted annually since 2006, LDW is for female academic and
professional staff Level 6 and above. To date, 163 women completed the program, 24% of these are
STEMM academics, 26% non‐STEMM academics and 50% professional staff. Each participant has a
mentor to assist with career planning. Following reviews in 2013 and 2014, the program is now
conducted biennially, with a conference for LDW alumni in the alternate year.
Opportunities to participate in training are promoted widely, including online, through the staff
intranet (summary emailed daily), expressions of interest, and formal networks eg LDW, mentoring
and coaching programs. The effectiveness of training is monitored on conclusion via
surveys/participant feedback to drive continuous improvement, however training records are not
held centrally. As an example, reflections from 2017 LDW graduates indicate its effectiveness: four
academic women were promoted to Levels C and D over the 2015‐2017 programs, all commented
51
that LDW gave them confidence to apply for promotion. One academic (2015) and one professional
graduate (2017) attained much higher‐level managerial positions outside CSU.
Staff perceptions of learning and development are monitored via the biennial Your Voice survey
(Table 28). Across 2015‐2017, there was a small increase in the overall view of learning and
development. Aggregated responses to questions remained consistent at about 50% both for the
institution overall and females. 2017 results reveal 30% of academic staff agree new staff are given
‘enough guidance and training’ yet this drops to 27% for STEMM staff.
Table 28 Staff perceptions of learning and development (L&D) at CSU
2015 2017
Your Voice survey question Fa
vourable
overall CSU
Favourable
Academic
Female
Male
Favourable
overall CSU
Favourable
Academic
Female
Male
Prefer not to
say
STEM
M
L&D overall (3 questions aggregated)
49% 43% 50% 51% 52% 43% 54% 56% 38% 42%
People starting new jobs are given enough guidance/training
44% 36% 43% 47% 43% 30% 43% 48% 30% 27%
Actions
Rationale: Less than half of all staff responded favourably in response to the Your
Voice survey question: “When people start in new jobs here they are given
enough guidance and training”. Induction is conducted by line managers,
supported by HR through online resources, with additional HR support provided
as needed. The University is focussing on other priority areas arising from the
Your Voice findings (leadership; respect and recognition; and cross‐unit
cooperation). These areas of strategic focus will positively influence induction
procedures although do not address them directly.
Action: The Faculty of Science will take action to ensure that within the Faculty,
induction processes are completed as intended by HR [Action 1.7].
52
ii) Appraisal/development review
Describe current appraisal/development review for academic staff at all levels across the whole
institution. Provide details of any appraisal/development review training offered and the uptake of
this, as well as staff feedback about the process.
CSU’s annual Employee Development and Review Scheme (EDRS) encourages meaningful
conversation between staff and supervisors to ensure a shared understanding of goals and
opportunities in‐line with University Strategy, and that staff are equipped to perform their role
effectively, by:
Setting and reviewing work objectives;
Identifying appropriate support and development to achieve staff members’ objectives;
and
Ensuring support from CSU to achieve work and professional development goals.
An online EDRS system was introduced in 2016, which provided opportunity to refresh EDRS
concepts for academic staff and focus on both the new tool and the EDRS conversation. Extensive
online training and resources for staff and supervisors supported the new process; training was
compulsory for eligible academic staff but not professional staff. Qualitative and quantitative data
were gathered from participants to inform future planning and improvements. A new EDRS toolkit
was launched in early 2018, which specifically prompts managers to consider gender and work‐life
balance issues.
CSU’s “Your Voice” survey asks questions relating to EDRS; the 2017 survey found overall staff feel
favourable about development and review processes (57%), but academic staff value it slightly less
(47%), with minimal difference between genders (Table 29). Only 42% of STEMM academics were
favourable about these processes.
Table 29 Staff perceptions of the EDRS process
2015 2017
Your Voice survey question Fa
vourable
overall CSU
Favourable
Academic Staff
Female
Male
Favourable
overall CSU
Favourable
Academic Staff
Female
Male
Prefer not to
say
STEM
M
acad
emics
EDRS overall (3 questions aggregated)
63% 57% 64% 64% 57% 47% 60% 59% 39% 42%
53
iii) Support given to academic staff for career progression
Comment and reflect on support given to academic staff including postdoctoral researchers to assist
in their career progression.
In addition to teaching and research training detailed above, other formal support schemes are
outlined in Table 30.
Table 30 Formal support schemes that assist with academic career progression
Scheme Details
Postgraduate Study Support Encourages staff to undertake part‐time postgraduate study in a field directly related to their current position
Academic Staff Higher Degree by Research Workload Support
Provides eligible academic staff with 30% workload to undertake HDR studies; tuition fee support; supervision funding to the principal supervisor’s Faculty; and access to HDR student funding to support project‐related expenses
Coursework Master Study Support
For staff undertaking a full‐fee paying coursework Masters course
Special Studies Program Facilitates staff to undertake approved professional, scholarly or research activity uninterrupted by teaching and other normal duties
Indigenous Staff Study Support
Supports career development of Indigenous staff through financial assistance to undertake part‐time study
Indigenous Academic Leadership
Financial support for Indigenous academic staff undertaking activities to develop leadership skills
The Division of Student Services has a dedicated program to support post‐doctoral staff, which
includes training, workshops, individual support and networking.
Actions
Rationale: Your Voice survey shows differences between academic and overall
staff satisfaction with EDRS processes, especially for STEMM academics.
Action: The Faculty of Science will work to ensure Heads of School value and
complete EDRS processes appropriately [Action 2.7].
54
5.3 Flexible working and managing career breaks
Note: Present professional and support staff and academic staff data separately.
i) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: before leave
Explain what support the department offers to staff before they go on maternity and adoption leave.
Processes prior to maternity/adoption leave are left up to Schools and business units to manage and
are not directly covered by University policy or guidelines. In the Faculty of Science, cover before
leave is managed by each Head of School, in consultation with the academic and their line manager.
Over the last few years, the Executive Dean of Science has met with women returning from
maternity leave to discuss their experiences with the University and identify possible improvements.
At School‐level, practice and attitudes vary widely and the Faculty will ensure line managers and
Heads of School are better informed of best practice as well as legislation and university policy.
ii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: during leave
Explain what support the department offers to staff during maternity and adoption leave.
CSU has schemes to support parents taking leave and returning to work (Sections 5.3.v‐vi), and
offers parental, primary carer, maternity and adoption leave at a rate significantly in advance of
national legislation and we have. Leave terms are included in the Enterprise Agreement negotiated
between the university, staff and union representatives. The Enterprise Agreement makes specific
provisions for both fixed‐term and continuing staff. As with arrangements prior to leave, any
practices on top of these are decided at School level.
iii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: returning to work
Explain what support the department offers to staff on return from maternity or adoption leave.
Comment on any funding provided to support returning staff.
Staff consultations within the Faculty of Science show practices vary greatly across Schools, ranging
from personal meetings with Heads of School prior to and upon returning from leave, to School
coffee mornings to welcome returning staff, and silent returns without acknowledgement. Other
feedback indicates that returning staff are most worried about their drop in research activity.
CSU’s Breastfeeding Policy recognises the flexibility needed for mothers returning to work through
the provision of flexible work or study hours, inclusion of breastfeeding breaks in work schedules
and opportunity to reduce hours or job share during the period of breastfeeding.
55
iv) Maternity return rate
Provide data and comment on the maternity return rate in the institution. Data and commentary on
staff whose contracts are not renewed while on maternity leave should be included in this section.
Table 31 shows maternity return rates for the last three years, with comparable rates for STEMM
and non‐STEMM staff. Twelve fixed‐term staff did not return to their roles in 2014‐2016 because
their contracts expired, however nine of these women returned to work under new contracts.
Actions
Rationale: Feedback from Faculty of Science staff returning from maternity leave
suggests legislation and CSU’s obligations to staff are not well understood.
Additionally, lack of knowledge of best practice processes to support staff before,
during or after parental leave leads to inconsistent support for staff and this
impacts on women’s experiences at CSU.
Actions: An introductory webinar outlining staff rights relating to equity (and
parental leave) was held in March 2018 as a first step towards addressing this
issue. Additional face‐to‐face training, supported by resources such as guidelines,
will be developed to ensure managers are aware of CSU policy and legislation
[Action 6.1]. The Faculty of Science is trialling a parental leave support scheme,
where a Senior Manager in the Faculty will consult with staff prior to and after
returning from leave to ensure their needs are identified and supported wherever
possible [Action 5.3].
Rationale: Women returning from maternity leave report struggling to pick up
their research.
Action: The Faculty of Science is piloting a “return to research” scheme, launched
in March 2018, to support research activities for staff returning from leave
[Action 4.4].
56
Table 31 Women taking maternity leave, 2014‐2016
2014 2015 2016 Total
Return Left CSU
Total mat leave Return
Left CSU
Total mat leave Return
Left CSU
Total mat leave
Continuing 83 10 93 48 2 50 64 2 66 209
Non‐STEMM 40 7 47 36 1 37 45 45 129
Academic 7 1 8 2 2 3 3 13
Professional 33 6 39 34 1 35 42 42 116
STEMM 43 3 46 12 1 13 19 2 21 80
Academic 7 7 6 6 9 9 22
Professional 36 3 39 6 1 7 10 2 12 58
Fixed 8 9 17 7 7 16 3 19 43
Non‐STEMM 6 7 13 7 7 15 2 17 37
Academic 1 5 6 2 2 5 5 13
Professional 5 2 7 5 5 10 2 12 24
STEMM 2 2 4 1 1 2 6
Academic 1 2 3 1 1 4
Executive 1 1 1
Professional 1 1 1
Grand Total 91 19 110 55 2 57 80 5 85 252
Note: “Left CSU” column shows women who ceased employment within 3 months of the end of their
maternity leave.
Of interest is the difference in length of leave taken for women in STEMM compared to non‐STEMM
(Table 32), and women in professional roles compared to academics.
Table 32 Average days on maternity leave per person
2014 2015 2016
STEMM Non‐STEMM
STEMM Non‐STEMM
STEMM Non‐STEMM
Continuing 80 166 214 185 161 203
Academic 121 182 214 274 202 156
Professional 72 162 215 180 131 207
Fixed 100 111 0 101 77 139
Academic 106 68 0 113 91 125
Professional 0 148 0 96 62 145
57
v) Paternity, shared parental, adoption, and parental leave uptake
Provide data and comment on the uptake of these types of leave by gender and grade for the whole
institution. Provide details on the institution’s paternity package and arrangements.
All continuing and fixed‐term employees can access parental leave. An employee who has more than
40 weeks’ continuous service immediately prior to the expected date of birth is entitled to paid
parental leave. Up to 26 weeks’ paid leave is available as follows:
6 weeks’ paid maternity leave (or 12 weeks at ½ pay) available only to an employee who
gives birth to a child.
20 weeks’ paid primary carer leave (or 40 weeks at ½ pay) available to an employee who
takes on the role of primary carer following the birth or adoption of a child. This leave is
available to all primary carers no matter their gender.
8 weeks paid concurrent paternity leave is provided to the non‐primary carer parent no
matter their gender.
Staff are also entitled to government‐funded maternity leave of 18 weeks paid at the minimum
wage.
During the 2016‐17 WGEA reporting period 61 women and three men took primary carer’s leave and
18 men took secondary carer’s leave. Of these, five women and eight men ceased their employment
whilst on leave. The number of men taking primary carer’s leave is low and the number of men
leaving employment whilst on primary or secondary carer’s leave is high.
These figures have remained relatively stable over the last three years (Table 33), however the
number of STEMM staff taking primary and secondary carers leave is lower proportionally than for
Actions
Rationale: CSU provides up to 182 days of paid maternity leave for eligible staff,
with additional paid parental leave provided by the government, yet many
women are taking less leave than they are entitled to. The decision about the
length of maternity leave taken is an individual and complex decision that takes
into account family needs and availability of care, as well as the academic
timetable, among others.
Action: To better understand this decision‐making process, the SAT will conduct
focus groups with continuing academic and professional staff returning from
parental leave, as well as fixed‐term staff who return in new roles. This
investigation will examine if any institutional barriers are compelling STEMM
women to return to work earlier than their non‐STEMM colleagues, and
professional staff to return earlier than academic staff [Action 5.2].
58
the rest of CSU. Also of note is the gendering of type of leave taken, with more women taking
primary carer’s leave and men taking secondary carer’s leave.
Table 33 Parental leave by STEMM/non‐STEMM, gender and employment type, 2014‐2016
2014 2015 2016 Grand Total F M Total F M Total F M Total
Primary carers leave 84 3 87 56 1 57 78 2 80 224
STEMM 25
25 14 14 17
17 56
Academic 11 11 7 7 8
8 26
Continuing 9 7 7 7
7 23
Fixed 2 1 1 3
Executive 1 1
Fixed 1 1
Professional 13 13 7 7 9 9 29
Continuing 13 13 7 7 9 9 29
Non‐STEMM 59 3 62 42 1 43 61 2 63 168
Academic 15 2 17 6 1 7 8 8 32
Continuing 8 2 10 4 1 5 4 4 19
Fixed 7 2 2 4 4 13
Professional 44 1 45 36 36 53 2 55 136
Continuing 36 1 37 32 32 41 1 42 111
Fixed 8 4 4 12 1 13 25
Secondary carers leave 3 28 31 1 22 23 1 17 18 72
STEMM 2 6 8 6 6 2 2 16
Academic 2 4 6 4 4 1 1 11
Continuing 1 2 3 4 4 1 1 8
Fixed 1 2 3
3
Professional 2 2 2 2 1 1 4
Continuing 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
Fixed 1 1 1 1 2
Non‐STEMM 1 22 23 1 16 17 1 15 16 56
Academic 7 7 5 5 1 3 4 16
Continuing 4 4 2 2 2 2 8
Fixed 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 8
Professional 1 15 16 1 11 12 12 12 40
Continuing 9 9 1 10 11 8 8 28
Fixed 1 6 7 1 1 4 4 12
Grand Total 87 31 118 57 23 80 79 19 98 296
Note: data has not been broken down by grade, due to the small numbers in some grades.
The number of male staff taking additional statutory paternity/shared parental leave is low
compared to females (Table 34).
59
Table 34 Staff taking additional government paid parental leave
Year Male Female Total
2014 1 46 47
2015 0 41 41
2016 1 58 59
vi) Flexible working
Provide information on the flexible working arrangements available.
CSU provides a flexible work environment to assist staff in balancing work‐life commitments, while
meeting CSU’s operational needs. A range of flexible options are available (Table 35), significantly in
advance of requirements under the Fair Work Act, and a host of informal arrangements exist
between managers and staff.
Table 35 Flexible work arrangements
FLEXIBLE WORK OPTIONS DETAILS
Flexible Working Hours Scheme
Professional/general staff Levels 1‐8, with the approval of their supervisor, may accumulate and carry forward sixteen (16) hours credit/debit
Purchased Leave Staff may purchase additional leave of 1‐4 weeks, funded through salary deductions over 12 months
Special Leave Covers various circumstances relating to immediate family and other responsibilities, up to 10 days/year (pro‐rata for part‐time and new staff)
Personal Leave For personal illness or caring/supporting an unwell immediate family or household member
Actions
Rationale: Men are underrepresented in the uptake of primary carer’s leave.
Action: A communication campaign has been planned to encourage men to
increase their uptake of primary carers leave [Action 5.1].
Rationale: Number of STEMM staff taking primary and secondary carer’s leave is
lower proportionally than for the rest of CSU.
Action: The Faculty of Science parental leave support scheme, as outlined in
Section 5.3.iii, will investigate the reasons for this [Action 5.3].
60
Leave Without Pay May be utilised for various reasons including family/parental responsibilities
Change of Work Fraction Staff may apply to reduce their work fraction for a period of time, then resume their substantive full‐time position
Informal discussions between SAT members suggest low awareness of the definition and availability
of types of leave. There is an increasing number of academic staff who regularly work remotely eg
due to distance from campus. More needs to be done to ensure all staff, including managers, are
aware of these opportunities and that they are inclusive.
CSU’s HR systems record approved leave only, data on rejected leave applications is unavailable. See
5.3.ix for ‘Your Voice’ results for workplace flexibility.
vii) Transition from part‐time back to full‐time work after career breaks
Outline what policy and practice exists to support and enable staff who work part‐time to transition
back to full‐time roles when childcare/dependent or caring responsibilities reduce.
Staff can return‐to‐work in their former position at a reduced fraction up to their child’s second
birthday or two years from the date of adoption, and then apply for conversion to part‐time
employment on a temporary or permanent basis. Informally, practices are negotiated individually
between employees and line managers. Sensitivity around this is variable. All CSU policies are
accessible online. Policy changes, including revisions and new policies, are communicated regularly
to staff via the intranet.
The Children on Campus Policy and procedure document outlines considerations when bringing a
child under 15 onto campus. Academics, professional staff and students are able to bring children on
campus provided there is no other option, and WHS issues are considered. Additionally, the Travel
Policy includes provision for up to $40 in extra care expenses when travelling on university business;
CSU staff are often required to travel between campuses. The policy does not specify children,
indicating this also covers employees who care for aged‐parents or disabled family members.
Actions
Rationale: Not all managers are aware of the various flexible work options
available to staff.
Action: As outlined in Section 5.3.iii a range of communication and training
activities will address this issue [Action 6.1].
61
viii) Childcare
Describe the institution’s childcare provision and how the support available is communicated to staff.
Comment on uptake and how any shortfalls in provision will be addressed.
CSU has child care facilities at its three major campuses (Table 36). CSU’s childcare centres are
accredited under the National Quality Standard (NQS) and adhere to the Priority of Access
requirements to allocate places; CSU staff/students are prioritised after priority places are filled.
Eligible parents may claim the childcare benefit from the Government through the Family Assistance
Office.
Table 36 Overview of CSU's childcare centres
CSU campus
Centre opening hours
Number of places
Other initiatives
Albury 8am‐6pm 72 children Salary packaging and payroll deductions for CSU employees
Bathurst 8am‐6pm 58 children Centre has its own time‐restricted carpark
Wagga 8am‐6pm 58 children Salary packaging and payroll deductions for CSU employees
ix) Caring responsibilities
Describe the policies and practice in place to support staff with caring responsibilities and how the
support available is proactively communicated to all staff.
CSU provides a flexible work environment; staff are able to take personal leave to care for family
members, and the definition of ‘family’ is broad and inclusive. Working from home is supported for
academics and is negotiated with the Head of School. Such decisions are supported by
documentation and HR guidance.
The 2017 “Your Voice” survey found that 72% of all academic staff (71% STEMM) believe “CSU has
enough flexible working arrangements to meet my needs”, and 54% (53% in STEMM) believe they
“have a say about [their] work conditions” (Table 37). Professional staff are slightly more positive
about working conditions: 82% believe the flexible working arrangements meet their needs, and
66% believe they have a say about their work conditions. Overall, women are more positive about
flexible work arrangements (74%) than men (70%).
62
Table 37 Staff perceptions of CSU's flexible work conditions
2015 2017
Your Voice survey question Fa
vourable overall
CSU
Favourable
Professional Staff
Favourable
Academic Staff
Female
Male
Favourable overall
CSU
Favourable
Professional Staff
Favourable
Academic Staff
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
STEM
M
Flexibility overall (3 questions aggregated)
70% 75% 64% 71% 73% 70% 74% 65% 74% 70% 59% 64%
Enough flexible working arrangements to meet my needs
78% 83% 70% 79% 80% 78% 82% 72% 82% 76% 69% 71%
I have a say about my work conditions
61% 68% 53% 63% 64% 61% 66% 54% 65% 63% 47% 53%
63
5.4 Organisation and culture
i) Culture
Demonstrate how the institution actively considers gender equality and inclusivity. Provide details of
how the charter principles have been, and will continue to be, embedded into the culture and
workings of the institution and how good practice is identified and shared across the institution.
CSU’s first Gender Equity Strategy, which is integral to the University’s business strategy, is currently
under development. The Strategy will embed the charter principles in core practice through a range
of actions, including addressing the gender pay gap, issues faced by transgender people, and
intersectionality considerations, wherever these are barriers to career progression. The Gender
Equity Strategy, the action plan developed under this application and their endorsement by the Vice
Chancellor’s Leadership Team demonstrates CSU’s commitment to embedding Athena SWAN
principles into normal business. In addition, the Vice‐Chancellor has committed to be a SAGE Male
Champion of Change (MCC), and is currently undertaking the Leadership Shadow program.
CSU actively considered gender equality and inclusivity in expanding the 2017 Your Voice Survey.
Aggregate results (Table 38) show staff perceive CSU performs well on gender equality issues with
over 75% responding favourably. Responses relating to respect and equity were at least 50%
favourable. Of note is the difference between professional and academic staff perceptions, eg 71%
of professional staff responded favourably to the statement about promoting respectful workplace
culture, compared to 54% of academic staff (51% of STEMM). Perceptions around tolerance of
bullying/abusive behaviours showed the biggest gender difference: 59% females agreed compared
to 69% males.
Table 38 Staff perceptions of equity and gender equality at CSU
2015 2017 Your Voice survey question Fa
vourable overall
CSU
Favourable
Professional Staff
Favourable
Academic Staff
Female
Male
Favourable overall
CSU
Favourable
Professional Staff
Favourable
Academic Staff
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
STEM
M
Gender Equality overall (5 questions aggregated)
NA NA NA NA NA 81% 84% 76% 82% 84% 68% 74%
Respect & Equity overall (6 questions aggregated)
71% 76% 65% 72% 75% 62% 67% 54% 63% 69% 59% 52%
Positive, respectful workplace culture is valued and promoted
68% 74% 61% 69% 72% 65% 71% 54% 66% 72% 46% 51%
Bullying/abusive behaviours are discouraged/not tolerated
61% 66% 54% 60% 67% 59% 63% 54% 59% 69% 36% 53%
64
ii) HR policies
Describe how the institution monitors the consistency in application of its HR policies for equality,
dignity at work, bullying, harassment, grievance and disciplinary processes. Describe actions taken to
address any identified differences between policy and practice. Include a description of the steps
taken to ensure staff with management responsibilities are up to date with their HR knowledge.
Generally, CSU monitors implementation of HR policies such as Harassment and Bullying Prevention
(covering staff, students and the wider community); Equal Opportunity; Anti‐Racism; and Domestic
Violence Policy and Procedure, through acknowledging and addressing complaints. CSU works hard
to manage complaints maintain effective communication with complainants and respondents during
the process.
CSU ensures both staff and students are informed of these policies, and managers and other
supervisors are aware of their responsibilities through ad‐hoc training attached to programs
designed to reinforce policies. For example, CSU designed a four‐module ‘Developing Workplace
Culture’ training program for staff, focusing on organisational culture, bullying, and team building.
To date, over 1,000 staff have completed one or more modules. CSU works in partnership with the
NTEU to resolve interpersonal issues, mainly through the use of Straight Talk (a tool developed by
NSW Ambulance) and runs major programs to deal with difficult behaviours, such as ‘Dealing with
Difficult Behaviours’ and ‘Conversational Leadership’.
iii) Proportion of heads of school/faculty/department by gender
Comment on the main concerns and achievements across the whole institution and any differences
between STEMM departments.
Currently, two of the three Faculty Executive Deans are female, however of the 25 Heads of School
four (16%) are female, and only one of these is in a STEMM school (4% of all Heads at CSU, 13% of
STEMM heads). Table 39 lists historical data, when CSU had four Faculties, and includes staff acting
Actions
Rationale: Ongoing focus is needed to ensure the Athena SWAN principles
continue to be embedded within our culture.
Actions: The Action Plan will be monitored and revised annually to ensure it
remains up‐to‐date and achievable, including considering the broader context of
the Gender Equity Strategy [Actions 7.5 and 7.6]. The Vice‐Chancellor has
committed to being an MCC, and this will be extended to include senior leaders
across the university [Action 7.7].
65
in leadership roles on annual Census dates. Extracting these data has identified issues with
categorisation of roles where, for example, fewer Heads of Schools are listed than exist in reality.
This issue has been flagged with the Manager of HR Systems.
Table 39 Proportion of females in university leadership roles
Job titles 2014 2015 2016
M F %F M F %F M F %F
University level
VC, DVCs, PVCs 3 4 57% 3 4 57% 2 5 71%
Faculty level
Executive Deans 1 4 80% 1 3 75% 2 3 60%
Deputy Deans ‐ - - - - ‐ 1 1 50%
Associate Deans 1 8 89% 7 100% 3 6 67%
Sub Deans 5 3 38% 4 5 56% 3 5 63%
Centre Directors 3 5 63% 3 3 50% 3 3 50%
School level
Heads of Schools 15 4 21% 15 5 25% 14 4 22%
Associate Heads of School 15 15 50% 16 10 38% 19 11 37%
Note: Deputy Dean role was newly created in 2016.
iv) Representation of men and women on senior management committees
Provide data by gender, staff type and grade and comment on what the institution is doing to
address any gender imbalance.
Table 40 lists the gender breakdown of CSU’s senior management, and most influential, committees.
Membership is defined by the Terms of Reference for each body and is linked to job‐roles within
CSU.
Actions
Rationale: The low number of women employed as Heads of School, especially in
STEMM, is a concern. The Head of School is usually a staff member at level C or
higher. Given the gendering of the staff profile (Section 4.1.i) this means fewer
females are available for these roles. CSU’s revised promotion system now
recognises service better, and is already positively influencing women’s career
progression, yet more is needed. Action: The Faculty of Science is strengthening
the School leadership teams through a range of initiatives for women Associate
Heads of School, including a networking group, and increased support for training
[Action 2.8].
66
Table 40 Overview of membership of CSU's most influential committees (2017)
Committee Female Male Academic Professional
University Council 8 6 2 1
Academic Senate 18 10 26 4
Vice‐Chancellor’s Leadership Team 5 5 4 6
The University Council and Vice‐Chancellor’s Leadership Team are relatively balanced by gender,
whilst there are more females than males on Academic Senate.
v) Representation of men and women on influential institution committees
Provide data by gender, staff type and grade and comment on how committee members are
identified, whether any consideration is given to gender equality in the selection of representatives
and what the institution is doing to address any gender imbalances.
Please refer to section 5.4.iv.
vi) Committee workload
Comment on how the issue of ‘committee overload’ is addressed where there are small numbers of
men or women and how role rotation is considered.
Committee membership is often stipulated by job title/role within the Terms of Reference for each
committee. Where issues are identified, eg a committee of all males, this is investigated and
committee‐specific resolutions put in place.
For academics, workload on committees is included in the Enterprise Agreement, however
implementation varies. For professional staff Level 1‐8, hours are recorded and any work on a
committee is part of that record. For professional staff Level 9 and above, committee work is an
expected part of their role.
vii) Institutional policies, practices and procedures
Describe how gender equality is considered in development, implementation and review. How is
positive and/or negative impact of existing and future policies determined and acted upon?
CSU’s Equity and Diversity Committee is a gender balanced committee that commissions, receives,
advises and approves policy through a lens of equality. The Committee meets three times a year and
works to determine how best to promote equity and diversity at CSU. The Committee’s Terms of
Reference include guiding the Vice Chancellor on organisational priorities, goals and policy initiatives
in relation to equity and diversity. This is done by receiving reports on activities to support specific
groups for protected characteristics and also identifying where policy needs to be implemented or
revised and new initiatives enacted. University Council receives equity reports highlighting statutory
reporting elements.
67
viii) Workload model
Describe any workload allocation model in place and what it includes. Comment on whether the
model is monitored for gender bias and whether it is taken into account at appraisal/development
review and in promotion criteria. Comment on the rotation of responsibilities and if staff consider the
model to be transparent and fair.
The academic workload allocation model, embedded in the Enterprise Agreement, includes the
following principles:
workloads are equitable, transparent and manageable
CSU will not ask an employee to work excessive hours
workloads will be determined on a fair, transparent and consultative basis.
The workload model has three components:
(i) teaching and teaching related activities;
(ii) research and/or creative and/or professional activity;
(iii) contributions to academic administration and management, leadership and
professional activity.
The proportionate mix of components is agreed at School‐level between employees and managers
as part of the annual EDRS; the mix of components is taken into account in the promotions process.
Workload data for each School is reviewed annually by the Academic Workload Committee. The
remit and membership of this committee is stipulated within the Enterprise Agreement.
CSU’s recently introduced online Academic Workload Manager (AWM) tool enhances the visibility
and transparency of allocation of academic work and this will enhance our capacity to analyse
STEMM workload data by gender and School and develop appropriate responses.
Workload feedback is monitored via Your Voice (Table 41). From 2015‐2017, favourable responses to
workload questions for professional staff increased from 49% to 51%, however for academic staff
decreased from 33% (2015) to 29% (2017) (STEMM 31%). There was no difference between genders.
Table 41 Staff perceptions of workload
2015 2017
Your Voice survey question Fa
vourable overall
CSU
Favourable
Professional Staff
Favourable
Academic Staff
Female
Male
Favourable overall
CSU
Favourable
Professional Staff
Favourable
Academic Staff
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
STEM
M
Workload overall (3 questions aggregated)
43% 49% 33% 43% 46% 44% 51% 29% 45% 46% 32% 31%
68
ix) Timing of institution meetings and social gatherings
Describe the consideration given to those with caring responsibilities and part‐time staff around the
timing of meetings and social gatherings.
CSU’s core work hours are 9.30am to 3.00pm for non‐academic staff; academic staff have greater
autonomy in designating their work hours (in consultation with line managers) and are not expected
to adhere to core hours. However, Academic and Student Senates have designated 3‐5pm on
Wednesdays as the preferred ‘meeting period’.
In the Faculty of Science guidance exists around the need for people to schedule institutional
meetings within core hours and provide 6‐weeks’ notice of a meeting outside these hours to ensure
planning for caring responsibilities. This guidance is published on CSU’s Athena SWAN webpage for
all staff. Meetings and events planned at Faculty‐level adhere to these guidelines, however there is
variable implementation at School‐level. Some social events, such as those recognising International
Women’s Day or NAIDOC Week are held during core working hours. Where events cannot be
scheduled within core hours, any information circulated at the event needs to be shared with staff
who could not attend.
Actions
Rationale: Anecdotal feedback from SAT members with school‐aged children has
shown a need to schedule meetings within school hours to facilitate flexibility
around carer responsibilities.
Action: There is no formal University‐wide policy addressing this and it will be
reviewed as part of the Gender Equity Strategy in 2018 [Action 6.2].
Actions
Rationale: Prior to the implementation of the online Academic Workload
Manager system, there has been a historical lack of data available to identify
gender inequities within workload allocations. The new system provides the
ability to monitor and analyse such data.
Action: The SAT will review workload data for each STEMM School annually to
identify any workload inequities between genders [Action 2.9].
69
x) Visibility of role models
Describe how the institution builds gender equality into organisation of events. Comment on the
gender balance of speakers and chairpersons in seminars, workshops and other relevant activities.
Comment on publicity materials, including the institution’s website and images used.
Records of speakers in seminars and workshops are not held centrally at CSU, nor is there a
requirement for consideration of gender equity when organising such events, however, anecdotal
evidence suggests this awareness is in place. The 2016 Faculty of Science Interaction and Influence
Forum had 15 speakers, 8 of whom were female. In addition the keynote address was delivered by a
female, who presented her personal perspective on navigating through a career in science. The 2018
Faculty of Science Forum will also highlight the visibility of female role models, through the inclusion
of a day‐long stream for early‐ to mid‐career STEMM academics, with the keynote address to be
delivered by a high‐profile woman in science from our region.
There are no formal guidelines around building gender equity into the University’s marketing
materials or website, however capturing diversity is always a key consideration when preparing
these materials and platforms. Wherever possible we use actual CSU students and staff in our
photoshoots to ensure authenticity and diversity, and to promote visibility of ‘real’ role models.
To ensure continued and widespread diversity in the visibility of CSU’s role models, inclusivity
training will be developed for CSU’s leaders, as well as for staff responsible for seminars, training,
web, publicity, and outreach.
Actions
Rationale: There is no current requirement for consideration of gender equity of
presenters when organising events.
Action: The Faculty of Science will implement a requirement for all events, such
as conferences and forums, to have gender parity of presenters [Action 6.3].
Rationale: While central records of speakers are not available, raising awareness
of unconscious bias and the desirability of inclusive practices will embed equity
and Athena SWAN principles within business as usual practices.
Action: Inclusivity training will be developed and delivered face‐to‐face and
online to a range of staff groups across the University [Action 6.4]. Additionally,
there is an ongoing communication campaign designed to educate staff on the
benefits of equity and diversity practices for everyone, via a quarterly newsletter
and visible senior leadership within the University [Action 6.5].
70
xi) Outreach activities
Provide data on the staff involved in outreach and engagement activities by gender and grade. How
is staff contribution to outreach and engagement activities formally recognised? Comment on the
participant uptake of these activities by school type and gender.
The 2017‐2022 University Strategy identified community engagement, partnership and outreach as
core activities that allow CSU to act as an anchor institution in supporting regional growth and
sustainability. The new academic promotion process has struck a better balance in recognising the
value of outreach and engagement, and the Enterprise Agreement includes outreach activities
within workloads. To date, individual managers and work units monitor data on outreach activities
and it has not been recorded centrally, however this will change under the University Strategy.
Staff perception of how CSU values and supports such activities is measured in the Your Voice
survey. Responses varied little across the last two surveys and in 2017, 50% of academics on average
(48% STEMM) responded favourably to all questions relating to community engagement, compared
to 65% professional staff. There was a small gender difference: 63% females responding favourably
compared to 56% males.
xii) Leadership
Describe the steps that will be taken by the institution to encourage departments to apply for the
Athena SWAN awards.
CSU has provided much support for this application in terms of staff participation and data support,
and will continue to do so for future School‐level Athena SWAN awards. The Executive Dean of the
Faculty of Science will review School‐specific data from the application process with the Heads of
each STEMM School in 2018. Heads of School will identify priority areas for improvement. Progress
against these actions will be monitored annually by the Executive Dean. Those Schools who engage
in this process and deliver improvements will be supported and mentored by the SAT, and CSU
through provision of data, to apply for a Departmental Athena SWAN Award.
Actions
Rationale: Awareness data findings within this application are not yet understood
by STEMM Schools.
Action: The Executive Dean will meet individually with STEMM Schools to review
the data, reiterate the need for inclusive practices, and identify at least 3 priority
areas the School will address [Action 7.4]. Heads of Schools are responsible for
taking action to address priority areas, reporting annually to the Dean via EDRS.
By 2020, once the SAGE pilot has been completed and confirmation of ongoing
national support for the Athena SWAN Awards is received, the Executive Dean
will invite expressions of interest from Schools wishing to apply for a School‐level
award, based on their participation and progress with this process.
71
6. SUPPORTING TRANSGENDER PEOPLERecommended word count: 500 words
Actual word count: 494 words
i) Current policy and practice
Provide details of the policies and practices in place to ensure that staff are not discriminated against
on the basis of being transgender, including tackling inappropriate and/or negative attitudes.
Many CSU policies include statements to promote inclusivity and limit discrimination against
transgender people (Table 42). The document “Supporting Gender Transition at the University:
Information for Staff and Students” provides advice for supporting transgender members of our
community, especially during gender transition.
Table 42 CSU policies and procedures that address issues relating to transgender people
Policies Academic Staff Promotion
Balancing Work and Study with Family and Caring Responsibilities
Computing and Communications Facilities Use
Harassment and Bullying Prevention
Media
Leave Manual
Procedures Complaints – Students
Complaints – Workplace
Staff Recruitment and Selection
Guidelines Communicating Without Bias
Harassment and Bullying Prevention
Transitioning is deeply personal and when a staff member declares they are in or about to enter
transition, CSU discusses with them their plans and support needs and a gender transition plan is
developed to help guide the person and other staff members through the process of adjustment.
The transitioning staff member works closely with the Equity and Diversity Unit and their manager to
ensure that the transition plan is carried out with care and respect for all staff.
Prior to the transitioning person commencing duties as their transitioned‐self, groups of staff
working directly with the staff member are given training from an external expert to explore what
transition means, as well as being offered an opportunity to ask questions about the process and any
new arrangements that might apply to facilitate their colleague’s transition.
A gender diversity and transgender workshop was led by a SAT member in 2016, who shared her
lived experience as an academic, educator and transwoman. It highlighted gender diversity and
transgender in the workplace, knowledge and action for inclusion and respect, skills and practices to
respectfully work with gender diverse people. The same SAT member hosted a webinar around
gender diversity and transgender in February 2018, with 36 attendees.
72
ii) Monitoring
Provide details of how the institution monitors the positive and/or negative impact of these policies
and procedures, and acts on any findings.
CSU ensured representation of transgender staff on its Gender Equity Strategy steering committee.
This committee is drafting our Gender Equity Strategy which will contain specific reference to the
needs of transgender and transitioning staff.
iii) Further work
Provide details of further initiatives that have been identified as necessary to ensure transgender
people do not experience unfair treatment at the institution.
CSU’s support for transgender people means staff who have transitioned have generally remained at
CSU. The University will be inviting comment from staff in the institution who have transitioned, to
provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of support procedures, and how new initiatives may
be introduced. CSU recognises it must ensure transitioned individuals are not inadvertently ‘outed’
by any systems or practices in the institution.
While internal transitions are likely to be unavoidably ‘public’ to some extent, many transitioning
individuals reach a stage in their transition where they wish to live their lives free of the social
stigma of being identified by their ‘history’. For those individuals who can live unambiguously as
their affirmed gender post‐transition, the move to new selfhood and workplace recognition and
acceptance of that selfhood is rapid. CSU recognises that any practices and policies that force them
to reveal their former gender can be distressing and discriminatory and we are working with
transgender staff to make policy and cultural changes that will maintain CSU as a safe place to work.
Actions
Rationale: Ensure CSU remains a safe place for transgender people to work. An
initial review of existing policies by the SAT identified gaps for transgender people
and policies were amended as required, however this is an area of ongoing
change requiring continual improvement.
Action: We will continue to consult with transgender staff to make policy and
cultural changes that will maintain CSU as a safe place to work. This annual
consultation will be included within the Gender Equity Strategy [Action 6.6].
73
7. INTERSECTIONALITY Recommended word count: 500 words
Actual word count: 282 words
i) Current policy and practice
Previous sections should have considered how intersectionality impacts on gender equity. That is,
reflecting an understanding of how gender outcomes are affected by interconnected issues such as
sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, disability discrimination, classism and ageism. Review
whether existing gender equity policies enable the institution to address intersectionality in STEMM,
or otherwise identify how policies and practices might better support gender diversity and inclusion
in STEMM with regards to intersectionality.
CSU embraces intersectionality and this needs to be formally reflected in policy. Leadership at CSU is
accessible to equity advocates, and the Vice‐Chancellor engages with groups to discuss and problem‐
solve to provide a better workplace for all staff members. Prior to Athena SWAN, intersectionality
was not formally included in University policy and the SAT has been identifying how policies and
practices might better support gender diversity and inclusion in STEMM with regards to
intersectionality.
While our goal is to have a holistic approach to acknowledging and supporting diversity, we must
ensure that the prongs of intersectionality are addressed and supported through policy and process.
Through addressing the challenges of gender, racism, sexism, cultural diversity, and ageism within
current and future policy and processes, we will be able to develop a clear, overarching policy for
intersectionality. Further staff consultation will be required to adequately understand the issues.
This will be fed back to the Equity and Diversity Committee for endorsement and action.
Actions
Rationale: Prior to the Athena SWAN process, there has been a lack of
understanding and awareness of issues of intersectionality throughout the
institution.
Action: The SAT will continue to consult with staff on issues of intersectionality,
through webinars and focus groups, and continue identifying policies and
practices to better support gender diversity and inclusion [Action 6.7].
74
ii) Monitoring
Consider how the institution will boost awareness of intersectionality within STEMM. Analyse how
the institution will ensure under‐represented groups with intersecting identities do not experience
unfair treatment at the institution. Assess how the educational, research and professional needs of
under‐represented STEMM faculty, staff and students will be met more effectively.
SAT members delivered and recorded a webinar on intersectionality, that was attended by 32 staff.
More remains to be done to raise awareness of intersectionality issues, including focus groups to
ascertain needs and appropriate strategies to address issues. Questions and comments from the
webinars will be used to develop the focus groups.
CSU will develop policy that highlights the needs of individuals with intersectional identities, and
aligns with other policies.
iii) Further work
Evaluate how the institution will create opportunities to raise the participation, recruitment,
promotion, retention, recognition and leadership potential of under‐represented groups within
STEMM over time.
From our work with Indigenous Cultural Competency, we know that staff who undergo training tend
to be more accepting of views previously found challenging (Section 8). Having established a first
resource for intersectionality, our Action Plan covers the development of inclusivity training to
increase awareness of protected characteristics and their intersectionality.
75
8. INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANSRecommended word count: 500 words
Actual word count: 1071 words
i) Current policy and practice
Discuss how gender equity policy and programs are designed to lift the contributions of Indigenous
Australians in STEMM. Discuss initiatives to provide cultural training to STEMM staff and students to
increase awareness of intersectionality, unconscious gender bias, racism and other forms of
discrimination faced by Indigenous Australians within STEMM.
CSU's ethos is described by the Wiradjuri phrase: Yindyamarra Winhanganha ‐ 'the wisdom of
respectfully knowing how to live well in a world worth living in'. It’s a sentiment at the heart of our
approach to education. CSU gratefully continues a close relationship with our Indigenous
communities and has a range of policies and programs to lift participation of Indigenous Australians
in all spheres of the institution.
While CSU policies in general do not specifically address Indigenous Australians and gender or
STEMM, CSU has committed to implementing the Universities Australia’s Indigenous Strategy 2017‐
2020. This was evidenced in the 2017 academic promotions round, where the strategy was used to
inform the review of Indigenous academic promotions applications in line with a culturally‐inclusive
model that acknowledges the intersectionality of Indigenous academics working here.
76
Since 2005, the Indigenous Australian Employment Strategy has set targets for recruiting and
developing Indigenous Australians (Table 43), as well as outlining key programs to achieve these
targets (Table 44). As with many universities, CSU has significantly more female than male
Indigenous staff in both professional and academic appointments. As of January 2018, there were 48
Indigenous staff members at CSU: 40 female and 8 male. CSU’s Pro‐Vice Chancellor Indigenous, Head
of School for Indigenous Australian Studies, and Director for the Indigenous Mental Health Program
are female and almost all Indigenous staff in the Faculty of Science are female (numbers are too
small to report here without identification).
Table 43 Indigenous Australians employed as % of total staff
Staff Target Actual (2018)
Overall 3% 2.2%
Academic 2% 1.3%
Table 44 Key programs within CSU’s Indigenous Australian Employment Strategy
Program Details
Indigenous Academic Fellowship (IAF) Scheme
Provides a living salary to Indigenous staff with post‐graduate qualifications committed to undertaking a PhD. For four‐years, the IAF has a workload breakdown of 70% research/PhD, 25% teaching and 5% administrative. Negotiated salaries are paid at Level A‐B depending on experience and qualifications.
Indigenous Academic Cadetship Scheme
Enables Indigenous students to gain professional qualifications and experience in a range of jobs and move into a full‐time job after completing their studies.
Indigenous Traineeships Combines work and structured training, generally used for entry‐level qualifications
Indigenous staff networks Supported and facilitated by the Indigenous Employment Coordinator
Nguluway — biennual staff conference
Brings Indigenous staff together to network and provides a direct voice to VCLT. Workshops, cultural sessions and guest speakers support staff development and celebrate success.
Indigenous Academic Staff Leadership Development Scheme
Up to $2,000/year/applicant covering financial costs of opportunities to develop leadership skills, capability and potential
Indigenous Staff Study Support Scheme
Up to $500/term for resources for study or associated travel
Indigenous Employment Incentive Scheme
Encourages Faculties and Divisions to make opportunities available for Indigenous employment in mainstream positions by providing 50% of the first year’s salary for an Indigenous general staff member appointed to a continuing or fixed‐term position
Higher Degree Research / Research schemes
Indigenous Research/Researchers Seed Funding: Up to five grants/per year, totalling $25,000, to support seeding projects/small groups. Indigenous HDR Student Tuition Fee Support: Pays tuition fees for Indigenous HDR students (professional and academic staff).
77
Indigenous Staff HDR Pathways: $20,000/session paid to Schools for a full‐time academic as partial buy‐out from teaching/admin responsibilities (up to two sessions) to fast‐track completion of Graduate Certificate in Research Methods/Honours programs. Indigenous Staff PhD Release Scheme: Provides full‐time equivalent release from teaching to complete PhD. Up to two $50,000/year salary replacement paid to Schools
Indigenous Cultural Competence programs:
The CSU‐developed online Indigenous Cultural Competency Program (ICCP) provides a framework for staff to develop their own understanding of Indigenous issues and the challenges faced. Completion rates (Table 45) are higher for both female and male STEMM staff than the rest of the university. The Courageous Conversations about Race and Racism. It stops with me programs initiate specific dialogues about the relationship staff have with Indigenous peoples.
Table 45 CSU staff numbers who have completed the Indigenous Cultural Competency Program (all years)
F M %F Total
Non‐STEMM 128 53 71 181
Academic 91 48 65 139
Executive 4 2 67 6
Professional 33 3 92 36
STEMM 151 146 51 297
Academic 133 136 49 269
Executive 3 7 43 10
Professional 15 3 83 18
Grand Total 279 199 58 478
Note: Completion of ICCP compulsory for managers, voluntary for other staff
CSU runs a number of education programs to support Indigenous students and increase cultural
competence within the student community (Table 46).
78
Table 46 Indigenous‐focused education programs at CSU
Program Details
Mandatory Graduate Learning Outcome: Indigenous Cultural Competence
Embedded within all CSU courses and, provides students with knowledge to practise in ways that show a commitment to social justice and the processes of reconciliation based on understanding the culture, experiences, histories and contemporary issues of Indigenous Australians. Academic content is managed by CSU’s Indigenous Board of Studies (IBS)
Graduate Certificate in Wiradjuri Language, Culture and Heritage
Co‐created with local community elders, graduates develop skills in teaching and using Wiradjuri language in community and educational settings, capacity to work in Indigenous communities to support and develop those communities, and the ability to think critically about factors to promote Indigenous nation rebuilding
High school outreach programs
Danygamalanha for school students with potential for university success whose families have little/no experience of higher education. STEMM activities are core program components National Indigenous Science Education Programme (NISEP) involvement with science events to build the skills and confidence of Indigenous high‐school students
IAHA Scholarships For students to attend Indigenous Allied Health Australia conference/forums
Cadetship pathways With CSIRO and ANSTO, supports Indigenous students to secure employment
A core focus of the Three Rivers UDRH is to support rural health professionals to improve Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Health. The Three Rivers UDRH works in partnership with Indigenous
stakeholders and consortia partners to coordinate, deliver and implement a suite of activities for
Indigenous people to enter and succeed at health‐professional education.
In the Faculty of Science, the above programs are supplemented by strong, visible commitment from
senior leaders. The Executive Dean was in the first cohort to graduate from the Graduate Certificate
in Wiradjuri Language, is a member of the Indigenous Education Strategy committee and conducts
the Acknowledgement of Country in Wiradjuri when on Wiradjuri land.
79
ii) Review
Provide details of how the institution measures the effectiveness of these policies and practices, and
acts on any findings, to ensure gender equity and diversity policies will raise the recruitment,
promotion, retention and contribution of Indigenous Australians within STEMM fields.
There is a dedicated Indigenous Employment Coordinator within the Diversity and Equity Unit in the
Division of Human Resources to support all Indigenous staff. Due to the small number of Indigenous
staff, any issues with Indigenous Staff Support Schemes are considered on a case‐by‐case basis.
Individual needs are addressed and guidelines updated by putting recommendations to the
Indigenous Employment Strategy Advisory Committee.
Actions
Rationale: CSU has not yet achieved its Indigenous staffing targets, both across
the University and for academic staff. While acknowledging that the loss of just
one Indigenous staff member can mean the target is not achieved, there is still
work to be done to increase recruitment of and career progression for our
Indigenous Australian staff. In addition, the much lower number of Indigenous
males needs to be addressed.
Actions: To increase the number of Indigenous academic staff, the Faculty of
Science will trial Indigenous Academic Cadetships that support Indigenous
Australians to gain postgraduate qualifications. High‐achieving Indigenous
students, male and female, will be identified and supported to enter further study
at CSU [Action 1.8]. Additional training will be provided to better support
Indigenous Australian researchers and their supervisors [Action 1.9]. Some CSU
Divisions do not have any Indigenous staff and targeted strategies will be
developed to fill available positions with more Indigenous Australians [Action
1.10].
Rationale: Academic staff have requested greater guidance in delivering
Indigenous content within their courses, yet there are no Indigenous Australian
educational designers.
Action: We will explore the possibility of recruiting three Indigenous Australians
as Educational Designers to support the delivery of Indigenous Australian content
[Action 1.11].
80
iii) Further work
Provide details of further initiatives that have been identified as necessary to ensure Indigenous
Australians do not experience unconscious gender bias, racism, and other forms of discrimination at
the institution. Also consider how the institution will elevate the knowledge and contributions of
Indigenous Australian faculty, staff and students within STEMM.
Indigenous programs for staff, students and the community are managed across a number of areas
without centralised oversight. CSU is developing a Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) and three
working groups have been formed, aligned with the CSU values: Insightful, Inclusive and Impactful.
The RAP includes consultations with staff and communities, both Indigenous and non‐Indigenous,
across CSU’s locations. The RAP is linked to the University Strategy and provides a framework and
practical actions to drive CSU’s reconciliation activities through developing respectful relationships
and creating meaningful opportunities for Indigenous Australians.
Actions
Rationale: Programs for Indigenous staff and students are managed across a
number of portfolios without central oversight.
Action: The RAP Steering Group will maintain an ongoing overview of all
Indigenous programs [Action 6.8].
81
9. FURTHER INFORMATIONRecommended word count: 500 words
Actual word count: 0 words
Please comment here on any other elements that are relevant to the application; for example,
other gender‐specific initiatives that may not have been covered in the previous sections.
NA
82
10. ACTION PLAN
The action plan should present prioritised actions to address the issues identified in this application. Please present the action plan in the form of a table. For each action define an appropriate success/outcome measure, identify the person/position(s) responsible for the action, and timescales for completion. The plan should cover current initiatives and your aspirations for the next four years. Actions, and their measures of success, should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time‐bound (SMART). See the awards handbook for an example template for an action plan.
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
1. Recruitment and induction
Inequity within appointment process where men without doctorates are appointed at higher levels more often than women in STEMM, and men appointed at higher steps within levels than women (Section 4.1.i)
1.1 Develop process for interview panels to check for bias prior to final decision on candidate and prior to confirming step/level of appointment
Process used by all interview panels
E&D Development: January 2019 Process implemented: June 2019 Review appointments data: June 2021
1.2 Deliver unconscious bias/inclusivity refresher resources to panel members prior to interview panel
All interview panels receive refresher resources
Development: January 2019 Resources available: June 2019
More women appointed as sessional academics than men (Section 4.1.ii)
1.3 Pockets of activity to support sessional academics exist across the University. The SAT will consult with these existing groups/roles
Report and recommendations
SAT April 2018 – March 2022 (2 reports /year)
83
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
across CSU who support sessional staff and aggregate the known issues/data
submitted to E&D Committee 1.4 Conduct focus groups with sessional staff to
clarify equity issues
More women appointed in fixed‐term, teaching‐only and teaching/professional roles, while more men are appointed to research‐only roles (Section 4.1.iii)
1.5 Conduct focus groups with staff employed in each role across CSU to clarify equity issues
Develop report and recommendations for E&D Committee
Report and recommendations submitted to E&D Committee
SAT April 2018 – March 2022 (2 reports/year)
1.6 The Gender Equity Strategy will develop actions that address continuity of employment issues for fixed‐term (and sessional) staff. The issues identified within this application will be raised with the Vice‐Chancellor’s Leadership Team to gain their support for implementation of the GE Strategy.
Actions to address security of employment included within Gender Equity Strategy
E&D February – December 2018
Low positivity amongst staff in relation to induction/support when starting a new job, particularly in STEMM (Section 5.2.i)
1.7 FoS will ensure induction processes are completed as intended by HR:
Heads of School will reinforce the induction process with supervisors
Supervisors will interview staff members after the induction process (6‐weeks post‐commencement)
Supervisors will provide sign‐off to the ED after the induction process is completed
Increase Your Voice results from 27% in 2017 to 30% in 2019 and 35% in 2021
ED FoS FoS HoS
Talk to HoS: January 2019 Monitor EDRS completions 6 monthly, starting January 2020
CSU has not yet achieved its Indigenous staffing targets (Section 8.i)
1.8 To increase the number of Indigenous academic staff, the Faculty of Science will trial Indigenous Academic Cadetships that support Indigenous Australians to gain postgraduate qualifications. High‐achieving Indigenous
2 Indigenous Academic Cadets appointed annually
Scheme development: E&D Appointing cadets:
Planning: November 2017 Implementation: January 2019
84
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
students will be identified and supported to go into further study at CSU
ED FoS FoS HoS
1.9 Training workshops will be held to better support Indigenous Australian researchers and their supervisors
Workshop 1 caters for specific learning needs of Indigenous Academic Fellows, all CSU Indigenous PhD students in any subject area, and any CSU students whose PhD is focused on Indigenous topics or issues.
Workshop 2 caters for specific learning needs of CSU staff who either supervise Indigenous PhD students or students undertaking PhD on Indigenous topics, as well as researchers wishing to become more effective in engaging and working with Indigenous communities, staff and students.
2 workshops held IEC PVC‐IE DVC‐RDI
Planning: October 2017 – March 2018 Workshop 1: 10‐11 April 2018 Workshop 2: 8‐9 May 2018
1.10 Identify Divisions and Faculties not achieving Indigenous employment targets and work with them to implement actions from the Indigenous Employment Strategy
Gain endorsement from VCLT
Consult with and support relevant Divisions and Faculties
Achievement of Indigenous Employment targets by 2021
E&D Start discussion with VCLT: October 2017 Endorsement from VCLT: October 2018 Consulting: November 2018
Academic staff have requested greater guidance in delivering
1.11 We will explore the possibility of recruiting three Indigenous Australians Educational
3 Indigenous Australian
E&D HR Liaison Team
Start discussion: January 2019
85
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
Indigenous content within their courses, yet there are no Indigenous Australian educational designers (Section 8.i)
Designers (one per Faculty) to support the delivery of Indigenous Australian content
Educational Designers employed
Appointments made: January 2020
2. Career progression and promotion
Pipeline issue: Loss of female representation from Level A to E (Section 4.1.i)
2.1 Develop policy to:
Actively recruit women to academic positions
Ensure gender balance is considered when shortlisting for each academic role advertised
Policy implemented
E&D Committee Draft policy: March 2020 Policy implemented: September 2020
2.2 Faculty of Science Forum to include day‐long stream for EMCR STEMM academics
Level A and B academics will be specifically invited and provided additional assistance with travel and accommodation costs
Sessions will cover issues and successes of women in STEMM, eg entry and retention into research and setting up networks
Positive feedback/ evaluations from attendees
ED FoS Planning start: February 2018 Forum: November 2018
Gender imbalance of academic staff in some STEMM Schools: Engineering (25%F), Computing and Mathematics (21%F), Agriculture and Wine Sciences (27%F), Nursing Midwifery and Indigenous Health (89%F), and Community Health (74%F) (Section 4.1.i)
2.3 Discuss School‐specific results with relevant Schools and identify appropriate actions
SAT to partner with Schools to determine reasons behind the gender imbalance for each School and assist with implementing programs to redress these
Decrease gender gap by 5%
ED FoS FoS HoS SAT
Meet with Schools: May 2018 Programs implemented: January 2019 Review progress: January 2020
86
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
Low number and proportion of part‐time staff applying for promotion (Section 5.1.iii)
2.4 Work with HR to communicate information about promotion process to improve perceptions across CSU
Develop guidelines and examples for applicants and panel members to understand “merit relative to opportunity” principles
Inform line managers, through webinars and staff intranet, about merit principles to encourage support of applications from PT staff
Develop and share (de‐identified) profiles of success stories
Increase application rate for PT staff from 3% in 2016 to 6% in 2019 and 10% by 2022
E&D OCC
Preparation: January 2018 Resources delivered prior to 2019 promotions round
2.5 FoS to set School targets to identify and support part‐time staff to apply for promotion
ED FoS to ensure HoS are aware that part‐time staff are eligible to apply for promotion
Each School to identify and encourage at least 1 part‐time staff to apply for promotion each year
HoS/Supervisors to actively encourage part‐time staff to apply for promotion
Minimum of 4 applications for promotion submitted by PT academics in FoS each year
ED FoS FoS HoS
Communicate School targets: April 2018 Applications due: 31 August 2018 Review targets: annually
87
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
Historical inequity of the academic promotion process and the need to change remaining negative perceptions of the process (Section 5.1.iii)
2.6 The new promotion process was implemented in 2015 and has already shown positive results for academic women, however this needs to be communicated to all staff by:
Preparing guidelines for applicants and panel members eg explaining the information requirements for EEO considerations and how this information is used to evaluate applications
Developing and sharing (de‐identified) success stories
Increase number (and quality) of applicants
E&D Resource preparation: February 2018 Resources delivered: May 2018 Review: 2020
Your Voice survey shows noticeable differences between academic and overall staff satisfaction with EDRS processes, especially for STEMM academics (Section 5.2.ii)
2.7 ED FoS to ensure HoS value and complete EDRS processes appropriately
Your Voice results for STEMM to increase from 42% favourable in 2017 to 50% in 2019
ED FoS FoS HoS
Prior to 2018 academic EDRS round (October‐December)
Low number of women employed as Heads of Schools, especially in STEMM (Section 5.4.iii)
2.8 Build pipeline of potential female candidates through supporting School leadership teams (Associate Heads of School) in FoS
Establish a female AHoS group for these women to network
Encourage women AHoS to apply for LDW (if not already completed)
Partner with Organisational Culture and Capabilities, Division of HR, to organise appropriate training
Increase number of women HoS in FoS from 13% to 39% by 2022
ED FoS HoS FoS OCC
Establish network: August 2018 Promote LDW: February 2019 Training: 2020
Historical lack of data available to identify gender inequities within workload allocations (Section 5.4.viii)
2.9 Analyse AWM data on workload allocations by gender in STEMM schools annually
Report and recommendations submitted to E&D Committee
SAT April 2018 – March 2022 (2 reports /year)
88
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
3. Gender pay gap
Pay gap between women and men (Section 4.1.v)
3.1 There are a range of complex causes for CSU’s current gender pay gap of 14.6%. To build upon existing WGEA reporting, we will further identify the reasons contributing to the pay gap, including:
Undertake gender remuneration analysis at the organisational unit/departmental level
Some of the pay gap is due to more women being employed part‐time. We will consult staff to understand the personal value placed on part‐time employment
Examine the effect of starting step on pay gap
Report and recommendations submitted to E&D Committee
SAT April 2018 – March 2022 (2 reports /year)
4. Research
There is a gender imbalance in numbers of research grants acquired, amount of research funding secured, and numbers of publications, especially for STEMM women (Section 5.1.iv)
4.1 Support women researchers to redress imbalance in research funding and publication output for women through
A mentoring program, led by recognised female research leaders
Targeted invitations from the DVC‐RDI to individual female researchers to encourage increased participation of women in external research roles such as grant assessors and reviewers. Such participation will provide greater exposure to and hands‐on experience within the national research environment in which researchers
50% of female teaching/research staff involved in the mentoring program by 2021 25% of female teaching/research staff participating in external research roles by 2022
DVC‐RDI
Mentoring program launch: November 2018 Targeted invitations commence: March 2018
89
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
compete for research funding and reputation
4.2 The Faculty of Science will pilot a program to explore appropriate work arrangements to support women undertaking external research roles. While there is workload allocation for research, the travel and blocks of time required to participate in these roles do not always fit well in the academic calendar. The pilot will also recognise participating in these roles as professional development and not just a research activity.
The pilot will require consultation and discussions between the DVC‐RDI, FoS and HR
Outcomes of the pilot will inform academic EDRS at the end of 2019
Pilot is completed Outcomes of pilot inform next EDRS round
DVC‐RDI ED FoS
Discussions start: April 2018 Pilot: December 2018 – July 2019
4.3 FoS sponsor 2 women annually to attend EMCR Forum conference to build research capacity/succession planning and ensure pipeline progression
2 women attend annually
ED FoS April 2019 – April 2021
Women returning to work after taking maternity leave can struggle to pick up their research (Section 5.3.iii)
4.4 Pilot a “return to research” scheme in the Faculty of Science, where staff are given up to $7,000 to support research activities after a period of leave
Positive feedback from staff involved in scheme Volume of research outputs (no existing benchmark, will be established in 2020)
ED FoS Launch: March 2018 Review: January 2021
90
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
5. Leave and flexible work
Men are underrepresented in the uptake of primary carers leave (Section 5.3.v)
5.1 Encourage men to increase their uptake of primary carers leave, through
Event for Fathers Day 2018, endorsed by VC
Reminders to staff about primary carers leave using institutional communication tools such as staff intranet and equity newsletter (Action 1.15)
100% increase in the number of men taking primary carers leave from 2 in 2016 to 4 by 2019
E&D Event preparations: March 2018 Event: week before Fathers Day (2 Sep) Reminders: annually
HoS and line managers have a lack of knowledge of best practice processes to support staff before, during or after parental leave, leading to inconsistent support provided for staff (Section 5.3.iii). In addition, average length of maternity leave is shorter for staff in STEMM and in professional roles (Section 5.3.iv) and lower rates of parental leave in STEMM (Section 5.3.v)
5.2 Investigate reasons for shorter maternity leave to ascertain whether institutional barriers or personal decisions are causing this
Report and recommendations submitted to E&D Committee
SAT April 2018 – March 2022 (2 reports /year)
5.3 Executive Dean of Science has consulted women returning from maternity leave over the past few years to understand their needs and how the Faculty can better meet those. This consultation will be formalised by piloting a parental leave support scheme
Senior Faculty staff member to meet with each person before and after taking parental leave to ensure they understand their rights and identify any support needed and to reassure them that their position is safe
Needs are documented and reported to ED FoS and, as required, individual or Faculty‐wide responses are developed
Report annually to E&D Committee
Positive feedback from staff indicating their needs were identified and responded to appropriately FoS HoS adopt these practices as developed/ demonstrated by the Senior leadership of FoS
ED FoS Launch scheme: January 2019 Review: 2021 Annual updates to ED FoS/E&D Committee: start January 2020
91
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
6. Promoting inclusivity
Heads of School and other managers need to understand our obligations with regards to parental leave, flexible leave, and other equity issues (Sections 5.3.iii and 5.3.vi)
6.1 Ensure managers are informed of best practice, CSU policy and legislation
University‐wide webinar hosted March 2018
Develop guidelines/handout outlining obligations
Deliver face‐to‐face training sessions
Develop online refresher training
At least 9 face‐to‐face training sessions delivered Webinar attended by 35 staff
E&D Webinar developed: February 2018 Resources available: January 2019 Face‐to‐face training sessions delivered: 2019 Refresher training: 2021
Staff report meetings/events are held at times when it is impossible for staff with carer’s responsibilities to attend (Section 5.4.ix)
6.2 Review institutional policy on timing of meetings and social gatherings as part of the GE Strategy
Issue will need to be raised at Academic Senate
Revised policy implemented by 2021
E&D Committee Start consultation: June 2018
There is no current requirement for consideration of gender parity of presenters when organising events (Section 5.4.x)
6.3 The Faculty of Science will implement a requirement for all events, such as conferences and forums, to have gender parity of presenters
Gender parity of presenters at all future events
ED FoS Communicate requirement: April 2018 First event measured: November 2018
92
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
Awareness of unconscious bias and the desirability of inclusive practices (Section 5.4.x)
6.4 To embed equity and Athena SWAN principles within standard practices we will develop and deliver inclusivity training for staff groups including VCLT; managers; HoS; interview panel members; promotion panel members; marketing and communication staff; others as needed
Develop training resources (online module and face‐to‐face)
Attend HoS Forum to introduce availability of online training and explain issue to all Schools
At least 9 face‐to‐face training sessions delivered 460 people completing online module by 2021 Endorsement of training from Vice‐Chancellor
E&D Preparation of resources and VC endorsement: June 2019 Launch online module: June 2019 Deliver face‐to‐face training: June‐September 2019
6.5 Ongoing communication about the benefits of equity and diversity practices for everyone through:
A quarterly newsletter distributed via the intranet. The newsletter will include case studies, research findings and updates on the progress of the AS action plan and GE Strategy
Promotion of principles by senior leaders, eg VC’s involvement with Male Champions of Change
Increase in Your Voice results for Respect & Equity (overall) from 62% in 2017 to 70% in 2019 80% in 2021
E&D First newsletter published: October 2018 Continue quarterly
Ensure CSU remains a safe place for transgender people to work (Section 6.iii)
6.6 An initial review of existing policies by the SAT identified gaps for transgender people and policies were amended as required. We will continue to consult with transgender staff to make policy and cultural changes that will maintain CSU as a safe place to work
Regular consultation to be included as part of the GE Strategy
Changes and progress reported annually to E&D Committee No complaints from transgender
E&D Formal consultation with transgender staff prior to Session 1 each year, starting 2019
93
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
staff relating to CSU policy
Lack of understanding and awareness of issues of intersectionality (Section 7.i)
6.7 Consult staff on issues of intersectionality (eg webinars and focus groups) and continue identifying policies and practices to better support gender diversity and inclusion
Report and recommendations submitted to E&D Committee
SAT April 2018 – March 2022 (2 reports /year)
Programs for Indigenous staff and students are managed across a number of portfolios without central oversight (Section 8.iii)
6.8 Through the ‘Our CSU RAP’ project an updated overview of Indigenous programs will be achieved. ‘Our CSU RAP’ will articulate the University’s commitment and provide overarching guidance for the ongoing development of initiatives and activities across the University within the appropriate areas
‘Our CSU RAP’ project completed
RAP Steering Group
July 2019
7. Embedding the Athena SWAN principles
Ongoing role of the SAT (Section 3.iii)
7.1 Continue to investigate data and issues, reporting to the Equity & Diversity Committee on the findings and recommended actions.
SAT to meet bi‐monthly
Working groups formed to investigate and report on identified issues. Two reports/year will be submitted by the SAT to the E&D Committee
Decide upon the priority of issues to be addressed at the first meeting post‐application submission
Support Schools to identify School‐specific actions to redress academic gender imbalances
2 reports/year submitted to E&D Committee Priorities identified at first meeting post‐submission
SAT Next SAT meeting: April 2018 First 2 priorities to be agreed upon and working groups formed
94
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
Support ongoing Athena SWAN award submissions (post‐pilot)
Maintain appropriate balance of membership
Ensure findings are communicated to CSU senior leadership, including the Research Office, to ensure known issues are addressed and prevention of future issues is considered
7.2 Coordinate across the institution to achieve recognition of workload for academic members of the SAT
Workload provided by 2019
Faculty Deans Start consultation: July 2018 Workload allocated: January 2019
7.3 Continue communication of Athena SWAN (and equity) principles across CSU, via
Monthly webinars (4 held to date and were well attended)
Videos highlighting women in STEMM
Quarterly equity newsletter
Produce 12 videos (3/year); measure uptake of views by hosting on YouTube Host monthly webinars in 2018; increase attendees from 32 at initial webinar to at least 50 on average
SAT March 2017‐March 2022
95
Issue Actions Outcome/ measure
Responsibility Start/end date
Communicate data findings contained within the Athena SWAN application (Section 5.4.xii)
7.4 Executive Dean of Science to discuss findings with each STEMM HoS
HoS to develop priority list of at least 3 areas to focus on and actions
Throughout this process appropriate Schools to apply for School‐level Athena SWAN awards (at the end of the pilot) will be identified
Progress against School‐specific actions/issues – reviewed at EDRS annually Measurable changes delivered by end 2022
ED FoS STEMM HoS
Start discussions and planning: May 2018 Agree priorities/actions: December 2018 Progress reviewed annually as part of EDRS process
Ongoing focus is needed to ensure the Athena SWAN principles continue to be embedded within our culture (Section 5.4.i)
7.5 Ensure action plan remains up‐to‐date and achievable. Annual updates to be received from each role/section with responsibilities allocated within this plan, reporting on progress and timelines
E&D Committee to receive updates, consider progress and revise timelines and priorities as needed
Communicate summary of progress updates to all staff via quarterly newsletter
Targets achieved and within timelines indicated
All VCLT
Updates due April each year (from 2019) Action plan updated and revised July each year
7.6 Maintain connection with institutional Gender Equity Strategy through monthly meetings between the project managers for Athena SWAN and the GE Strategy
Shared resources and strategy; complimentary actions
E&D HR
March 2018‐March 2022
7.7 The Vice‐Chancellor has committed to being an MCC, and this will be extended to include senior leaders across the university
10 senior leaders to complete the ‘Leadership Shadow’ program
VC Share learnings from senior leaders at SAGE Symposium 2020
96
Glossary
Acronym Meaning
ADR Associate Dean Research AHoS Associate Head of School AWM Academic Workload Manager CRC Cooperative Research Centre CSU Charles Sturt University DVC Deputy Vice‐Chancellor DVC‐RDI Deputy Vice‐Chancellor (Research, Development and Industry) E&D Equity and Diversity Unit / Manager of Equity and Diversity ED FoS Executive Dean of the Faculty of Science EDRS Employee Development and Review Scheme EEO Equal Employment Opportunity EMCR Early‐mid career researchers FoAE Faculty of Arts and Education FoBJBS Faculty of Business, Justice and Behavioural Sciences FoS Faculty of Science FoS HoS Heads of School in the Faculty of Science FT Full‐time GE Strategy Gender Equity Strategy HDR Higher Degree by Research HoS Head of School HR Human Resources / Division of Human Resources IAHA Indigenous Allied Health Australia IBS Indigenous Board of Studies IEC Indigenous Employment Coordinator LDW Leadership Development for Women MCC Male Champions of Change NISEP National Indigenous Science Education Programme Non‐STEMM At CSU, all other Schools not included in the definition of STEMM NTEU National Tertiary Education Union OCC Organisational Culture and Capability PhD Doctor of Philosophy PT Part‐time PVC Pro Vice‐Chancellor PVC‐IE Pro Vice‐Chancellor (Indigenous Education) RAP Reconciliation Action Plan SAT Self‐Assessment Team STEMM AT CSU, this includes all Schools in the Faculty of Science, as well as
Engineering, and Computing & Mathematics UDRH University Department of Rural Health VC Vice‐Chancellor VCLT Vice‐Chancellor’s Leadership Team WGEA Workplace Gender Equity Agency WHS Workplace Health & Safety