THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Report of the Working Party on the Evaluation

 of the Recommendations of the Reviews of Academic and General Women Staff

 SUMMARY
(For full version of the Report - Click here to download)

 The position of women academic staff at the University of Western Australia (UWA) was reviewed in 1995, amidst concerns about the low number of women staff, particularly at senior levels. UWA was performing poorly in comparison to other universities in its recruitment and retention of women staff.  The Review of Academic Women Staff was followed by a Review of Women General Staff in 1998.  Both reviews made wide-ranging recommendations, many of which have translated into University policy and practices.    In some cases, the Reviews’ recommendations have led to other reviews.  Examples include the Lake review of research staff, the McLeod review of staff workloads and the review of the University’s reclassification processes.

 Our evaluation shows that progress is clearly evident overall -- there is a greater awareness of gender issues on campus, and there are excellent policies in place that confirm the University’s commitment to improving the position of women on campus.   The Table in Appendix 2 summarises some of the progress achieved to date.

 While progress is clearly evident, implementation of the recommendations has been somewhat uneven across campus.  Some departments have strategies to show good advances, others show less clear  information flows and results.  Examples of “best practice” are presented in Appendix 3. There is also a sense that gender equity is no longer a priority issue within Departments and Faculties.

 Based on the draft report of The Evaluation, the major problems identified by the Working Party are:

• That there is a lack of general acceptance on the affirmative action recommendations, which include the setting of short and long term targets.

• That Departments and Faculties do not keep records of their equity practices in the same and rigorous way they do for their teaching and research activities.

• That accountability at all levels is variable.  While performance objectives of Executive Deans include equity objectives, it is unclear to the Working Party whether this is also true for Heads of Departments.

• That some areas still have difficulty in implementing flexible working arrangements and in some cases, this is due to lack of support by some managers.

• That there is a need to improve on the timeliness and quality of data on staff and students that will assist in the monitoring of equity objectives.

• That the quality of responses in relation to academic staff is inferior to that obtained for general staff.

 The recommendations of the Working Party attempt to address the above problems.  They are intended to ensure that faculties and administrative units maintain their record of meeting equity objectives in the same and rigorous way that they do for teaching and research. 

 RECOMMENDATIONS:

 Short Term And Long Term Equity Operational Priorities: 

1.1        that each School, Faculty, the Library and Central Administration identify both their short-term and long-term equity priorities, including gender equity, with advice and assistance from the Manager Equity.

1.2        that these priorities be developed with staff input to ensure ownership in each School/Faculty/the Library and Central Administration.

1.3        that these priorities be articulated in each School/Faculty/ the Library and Central Administration’s Operational Priorities Plans. 

1.4        that each School/Faculty/ the Library and Central Administration be asked to devote a fraction of their budget, to be determine in consultation with the DVC, on equity priority areas.

 Responsibility:  Executive Deans, Heads of Schools, Heads of Administrative units            

 Performance Goals for Equity Priorities

2.          that each School/ Faculty/ the Library and Central Administration set its own performance goals (performance indicators) in each identified priority area.

Responsibility:  Executive Deans, Heads of Schools, Heads of Administrative units         

 Evaluation

3.1        that outcomes are measured and evaluated relative to identified indicators, and reported annually to the Deputy Vice Chancellor for each School/Faculty/ the Library and Central Administration.

Responsibility:  Executive Deans, Heads of Schools, Heads of Administrative units            

3.2        that an assessment of performance against identified equity priorities as reported annually to the Deputy Vice Chancellor, be communicated back to all faculties.  This assessment should include specific feedback for Schools/sections and aggregated data for Faculties, the Library and Central Administration.

Responsibility:  Deputy Vice Chancellor

Equity Recognition

4.          that the University recognise achievements by any School, Faculty, the Library or Central Administration that can demonstrate ‘best practice’ in meeting performance goals in equity priority areas.  The recognition could take the form of an official ceremony every second year and regular media coverage in University publications.

Responsibility:  Deputy Vice Chancellor

Training

5                    that the opportunity for training of new Heads of Schools through the University’s restructure emphasise training in leadership, gender equity and diversity principles and strategies. The training should include responsibilities of Managers in implementing policies such as Work and Family, Flexible Working arrangements, EEO and Equity policies and practices

 Responsibility:  Deputy Vice Chancellor, Director, Centre for Staff Development

Auditing

6           that survey data collection, as per the template developed by the Working Party, should occur for each School/ the Library and Central Administration on the 31 March annually.

Responsibility:  Director, Human Resources, Manager Equity