How to organise a conference/symposium

To begin our PGR season of events, Dr Stacy Gillis delivered a workshop aimed at PGRs and ECRs who are considering organising their own conferences or symposia.

After deciding what kind of event you’ll be organising (anything from a single seminar to a large conference), she presented three key questions to ask yourself throughout the organising process.

How should I organise this event?

Stacy pointed to several factors to consider when getting started with the practicalities of event organising.

The first is timescale: for a single seminar or panel event having a lead in of a month or so is sufficient, but for large conferences, getting started with room bookings and CFPs should be happening at least 18-months ahead of conference dates. Because of the scale of work involved in conference organising, you should also consider when this would manageable work for you to take on (e.g. the post-submission, pre-viva period). Your timescale should also factor in plenty of time for publicity.

With that said, you should also expect the unexpected. Conference programmes can be expected to be subject-to-change up to the last minute, and there will always be unplanned for events that will need to be navigated as they arise.

Budgeting should also be a key consideration. There can be some small pots of departmental/university funding for inviting guest speakers or organising a single panel event, however these won’t cover the costs of a multi-day conference. The costs for large conferences can run up to somewhere around £16-18k and this needs to be balanced through avenues such as external funding and charging attendance/speaker fees.

Accessibility should also be a central consideration. As Stacy pointed out, women and other marginalised scholars are underrepresented in conference spaces, so consider providing a creche, having options for hybrid/asynchronous/online sessions, and ensure your venue has more accessible architecture.

“The same skills and knowledge apply whether you’re organising an afternoon seminar or a multi-panel, 4-day conference. The only difference is scale.”

Extra tips:

  • While you can get funding from research institutes, publishers, etc. but before signing on check if they have any event requirements and how hands-on/off they’ll be in the organising process.
  • Learn to use Excel.
  • Make sure to schedule ample break and meal times into your conference schedule, and provide food and drink where able.
  • Take care of yourself and ask for help from colleagues.

Why am I organising this event?

When taking on demanding work like conference organising, you should make sure it aligns with your interests and development, Stacy advises. You should ask yourself what you want to get out of the experience, whether and how it will help build your CV, if it will help you develop networks, or be beneficial to your development as a scholar.

As an organiser, it is inadvisable for you to put yourself on the programme or plan to attend many speakers/panels, so organising may be less beneficial to you if your current focus is on extending the reach of your research or learning from others’.

Conferences can also be a good way to build an edited book or journal volume, however this will likely be another 18 months to 2 years after the event itself, so consider if and how this timescale fits into your career plans.

Finally, as women, marginalised, and junior scholars we should also be wary of taking on work for others. If you’ve been asked to do organising work for someone else, question why you’re being asked to do this labour and who will benefit from your work. Large event organising is time consuming, so make sure it benefits you and isn’t taking away from time that might be spent on your own project(s) and rest.

What is my role as an organiser?

As an organiser, your job at an event is to facilitate and be a point of contact for attendees. This can involve a wide range of things depending on the event and will be a busy job so be sure to take care of yourself and make sure you’re not taking on too much.

In the run up to an event, your role will be different depending on the scale of the event, funding requirements, and your team. While you can organise single seminars or panel discussions by yourself, for most organising work you’ll be with a team. As much as possible, make sure this team is comprised of people you trust (people who will do their work), and people who have a diverse skill set.

“[Organisers are] there to facilitate the dynamic phatic and and social environment of a conference…Feed people well!”

Finally, as an organiser your role is not to be a travel agent. While you can put together a local guide, organise activities, negotiate deals with local hotels and transport agencies, it is not your job to book accommodation, activities, and transportation for individual attendees.

With thanks again to Dr Stacy Gillis for delivering such an informative talk. Please see below for a recording of the event:

Dr Anne-Charlotte Husson: The Language and Inclusivity Project

Last week, NU Women hosted Dr Anne-Charlotte Husson to introduce us to her work developing Newcastle University’s Language and Inclusivity Guide.


The guide was developed using ten staff and student interviews, eighty-four survey responses, a literature review, and focus groups to test the guide before publication. From these data sources, the guide was built with several core considerations in mind, including ensuring gender is treated as intersectional, taking account of the various needs of students and (academic and PS staff), and fitting the guide into the University’s broader EDI agenda. It also recognises that the University is a multilingual, multicultural, and intergenerational environment, and is sensitive to how to open up conversations around gender and inclusive language across these contexts.

There are two types of language addressed in the guide: language that is always offensive (slurs), and language that is tied with changing cultural norms (e.g. pronouns, titles, and addressing mixed groups as ‘guys’). The guide is not intended to be a ‘cheat sheet’ outlining words to use or to avoid, rather it is intended to establish a basis for shared understanding around issues of gender inequality and form the foundations of conversations around gender across the University.

Since its publication in 2019, the guide has also been translated into several languages spoken across the University and will be translated into several more in the coming months.

How to use the guide

The guide is split into four sections. The introduction takes readers through why language matters to EDI, a brief primer on sociolinguistics, and addresses the complexities of (reclaimed) slurs.

The next section, Gender in so many words, introduces readers to ten key notions around gender and how they are used. These include broad ideas such as ‘gender’ and ‘intersectionality’ alongside more specific terms like ‘cisgender’ and ‘queer.’ This section concludes with I got it wrong. What do I do? Here, the guide outlines steps to take when making a socio-linguistic mistake, emphasising the importance of reflecting on mistakes and learning from them.

This work is continued into the next section, Gender-Inclusive Language, which guides readers through recognising and avoiding gendered biases and offensive language and provides a detailed view to addressing the many nuanced socio-linguistic issues tied up with gender.

Next steps

Following the publication of the guide the Language and Inclusivity Project is looking to extend its work into three key areas. First, they intend to develop staff training resources that are sensitive to meeting the specific training needs of different staff members and work areas. Similarly, they aim to extend their work into the teaching and learning environment, although this will look different for different schools. Core to this is a recognition that gender is always present in the classroom. Finally, the Project also aims to include students in this and are working to make sure every student is exposed to questions related to gender, inclusivity, and language.

If you’re interested in hearing more about or would like to get involved in the project, please email: anne-charlotte.husson@newcastle.ac.uk

A recording of the event is available below:

Writing groups: Who, what, where, and when?

Last week, a small group of NU Women members met to discuss writing groups, to share experience, best practice, and thoughts on continuing to develop NU Women’s writing groups and others across the institution. The discussion space was used for collaborative sharing around writing groups and was facilitated by Dr Stacy Gillis.

Who are writing groups for? Who participates?

Based on the diversity of experiences from those participating in the session, it could be said writing groups, in some form or another, are for everyone! Particularly, they benefit people who want to develop their writing techniques or practices, and for those who are feeling overwhelmed and need a space to catch up on research work without working during the weekends/holidays. This is particularly helpful to people with parenting and/or caring responsibilities, to whom other approaches such as writing retreats are inaccessible.

Writing groups represent an opportunity to learn from and with our peers, and functions best when participants hold each other accountable, and each take phatic responsibility for the success of the group. With this in mind, some people mentioned that they found interdisciplinary writing groups to be particularly helpful for fostering these attitudes, as interdisciplinary groups relieved feelings of pressure and competition.

In more practical terms, it was suggested that between five and eight participants seems to be the preferred size of a group. The benefits of women-only spaces were also discussed, as these can be a safer space for participants, particularly as the organisational and emotional labour of running writing groups often falls to women.

“What can I give to a group? What can I take?”

What are writing groups for? What needs to they address? What work is needed to create them?

Broadly, there are three types of writing groups: long-term and open-ended ones; they can be short-term and organised around meeting a specific deadline or delivering a certain output; or they can be project-based and orientated towards collaboratively achieving a certain goal. Each of these has their own kinetic energy and are preferable to different people depending on working styles and current career goals. They can also be particularly helpful for skill sharing and acquisition among colleagues when organised around things like proposal writing.

Writing groups also present an opportunity to check-in with each other, celebrate each other, and be honest with each other about the research process and struggle. Their value also carries beyond providing a space for writing, into being a space for solidarity, making friends, and networking (particularly in interdisciplinary groups). In this sense, writing groups also function as an act of feminist solidarity – guided by principles of mutual support, transparency, and flexibility. They are a protected space of care within the neoliberal institution.

In terms of organising work, there is some logistical planning needed to set up and run writing groups. This is variable depending on the levels of commitment from participants, whether they happen online or face-to-face, and whether there’s suggested reading or other tasks for participants to complete before each session. What is appropriate for your writing group depends on the needs and preferences of your group and the amount of time you can commit to organising.

Where do/should writing groups happen? Where are they needed?

Within the meeting there was broad agreement that the ‘where’ of writing groups should be flexible, not only to the circumstances of the pandemic but to other factors such as childcare commitments and workflow. Much of the discussion however was focused on the relative pros and cons to organising online versus offline writing group meetings. It was noted that, while both have their own distractions a significant benefit of online meetings is that they alleviate some of the organising pressures of room booking. However, online meetings do carry the problem of Zoom burnout and low engagement.

It was also identified that, because writing groups can be useful to staff and students across the institution, there is a need to share best practices. However, there is some resistance to the institutionalisation of writing groups to preserve their feminist, counter-neoliberal strengths.

When do/should writing groups happen? How do we identify when writing groups are needed?

In practical terms, writing groups tend to work best when their meetings are around two or three hours long, and when they’re not just drop-in sessions but require regular commitment from their members (while avoiding being to rigid to the detriment of mutual care within the group).

At times, writing groups arise organically out of other meetings or networks, or out of reading groups. Similarly, we can ask when the right time is for writing groups to happen. Should they always be ongoing, or should they happen around crunch seasons? As was found throughout the session, the answers to these questions are dependent on individual’s needs and outside commitments.

Blended working: a resource sharing discussion

Last week, NU Women and NU Parents co-hosted a discussion space to allow colleagues to share their experiences of the transition to blended working in their corners of the University institution over the last few months. Hosted as a two-hour drop-in session over lunchtime hours, the attendees raised a wide variety of talking points, airing issues, and sharing coping strategies. There was a lot shared among the attendees, and the below is an abridged summary of the many points raised. If you’re interested in hearing more about this transitional period, please get in touch with NU Women to receive the full session notes.

1. Main concerns and suggestions:

  • Overall, the attendees viewed blended working as a net positive to their experience of employment at the University. Everyone emphasised that they were committed to keeping blended working open as an option.
  • All attendees noted that a lot of their anxiety during this transition period stems from a lack of certainty around longer term plans from the University regarding the longevity of blended working.
  • The University should establish a set of guiding principles around blended working. This would prevent feelings that blended working arrangements are implemented at the whims of management and would help staff feel more secure in their own arrangements and empower them to advocate for themselves.
  • The University should invest in blended working. Many noted a clear difficulty in communicating across OC and WFH colleagues, particularly in meetings that take place simultaneously online and in-person. To make blended working more sustainable, the attendees suggested investing in coaching or training on different listening and communicative styles, and in technologies to bridge this gap.
  • Part of protecting staff members’ ability to flexibly WFH is recognising the benefits of blended working beyond the COVID pandemic. Every attendee noted ways that being able to WFH, even occasionally, has benefitted their personal and family lives.

2. Workplace culture

Attendees communicated a general sentiment that the University leadership’s framing and implementation of blended working has thus far been unjustified and uneven. Primarily, many people spoke on a feeling that they weren’t being trusted by their leadership to work from home effectively and that this was particularly disappointing given their efforts to keep the University running over the many months of mandated WFH time.

Ultimately, it felt to many attendees that their experience of blended working was very much dependent on the preferences and good will of their line managers. Some cited frustration at a lack of justification for individual managers’ emphasis on presenteeism, while others praised managers for taking extra steps to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their staff as they returned to the office. One attendee shared that she was grateful that her manager had taken the care to ensure that staff working on campus will be working with a wide variety of colleagues to combat the feelings of isolation among the team.

However, some were concerned with their managers’ emphasis on productivity over wellbeing, stating that they felt discouraged at the current blended working set up prioritising hours spent at work (in the office or at home) over the quality or quantity of their work itself. It was the experience among the group that this resulted in a poorer relationship with their work and often put undue stressors on their wellbeing in already challenging circumstances. Many were also struggling to keep their productivity high alongside the distractions of returning to busy office environments and they wanted to feel more supported in making this transition, particularly in recognition of the social benefits of returning to campus.

Attendees also commented on their very different experiences of blended working depending on their role at the University. While not all this difference was problematic (i.e. the expectation that estates and student-facing staff will be expected to be on campus more than ‘behind the scenes’ colleagues), others noted that their experience was very dependent on the locations they worked at and who they worked with. One attendee on a satellite campus greatly appreciated the relative quiet at her workplace and wasn’t sure if she would feel as safe on central campus. Other attendees commented on feelings of unease around colleagues and students refusing to follow mask-wearing and distancing guidelines.

3. Disabled staff and staff with parenting and/or caring responsibilities

Even before the current pandemic, blended working arrangements would have been helpful for disabled staff and staff with parenting and/or caring responsibilities. During the session, it was noted that, due to being able to work from home many had been able to take on more work hours and thus bridge some of the pay gaps experienced by these groups. Presenteeism is physically demanding and puts strains on care arrangements, and blended working arrangements have enabled staff to take better care of these areas of their personal lives while maintaining their workloads.

Further, the normalisation of this style of working was experienced as contributing to a more accessible workplace, particularly when also taking care of their own and their dependents’ wellbeing. However, this was coupled with concern that these arrangements would only be available during the pandemic, while abled and non-parenting/caring staff are in need of them, and attendees wanted to ensure that blended working would remain an option into the future.

NU Women Annual Lecture

For this year’s NU Women Annual Lecture, we were delighted to welcome guest speaker Mary Ann Sieghart, who discussed her book, The Authority Gap.

Mary Ann talked about how women are taken less seriously than men, and the effect this can have on a woman’s confidence. Drawing upon interviews and studies, Mary Ann worked through a plethora of evidence which shows that women are repeatedly deemed inferior to their male colleagues.

“Indeed, if women aren’t taken as seriously as men, they are going to be paid less, promoted less, and held back in their careers.”

As Mary Ann explained, these inbuilt, gendered assumptions mean that for every 100 men promoted to manager, a position of authority, only 85 women are promoted, and this is even worse for women of colour.

These sorts of authority gaps do not just happen in the workplace either: they are also found in everyday life, and they happen even to the most senior of women. Mary Ann spoke about authoritative women such as Amber Rudd and Michelle Bachelet, who gave their own personal examples of when they were underestimated, or “manderstimated”.

“Being ignored, having your expertise challenged, being underestimated and patronised, being interrupted and talked over – these are all manifestations of the authority gap.”

Mary Ann discussed where these issues start. Gender inequality can be found in the school playground, as girls are taught to be modest and self-deprecating, whereas boys tend to involve themselves in boastful competitiveness. Girls, because of old-fashioned stereotypes, are punished for displaying the same confident behaviour as boys, and this continues into adult life. Women, in short, are expected to show communality, such as kindness and concern for others, whereas men are expected to show agency through the forms of assertiveness and dominance.

As explained by Mary Ann, the only way that women can be assertive is by covering it up with warmth: smiling, joking, and being emotionally aware of the male egos around them.

“So there is a real double bind for women: if a woman isn’t confident or assertive enough, she’ll never get anywhere. People won’t take her seriously. But if a woman is confident and assertive, many of us will resist her and dislike her.”

Mary Ann warned of gender bias, and the way that women can also judge other women, but also discussed the intersection of biases, such as race, class, sexuality and disability.

Mary Ann ultimately gave some solutions (her book lists 140) as to how we can narrow the authority gap:

  • We can accept that, however liberal and intelligent – and even female – we are, we probably suffer from unconscious bias.
  • We can’t stop this unconscious bias or put a lid on it. We don’t need to feel ashamed of it. But we can recognise that it is based on incorrect assumptions and outdated stereotypes and then correct for it.
  • We can notice if, when walking up to a man and woman together, we address the man first.

These were just a few – to learn more – do read her book, available to purchase on her website: https://www.maryannsieghart.com/

Thank you to Mary Ann for giving such a wonderful talk – and as evident in the questions and feedback – it was well received by all attendees. For the recording, please see below.

NU Women Film Launch

Created by Alex Joyce, with thanks to all our participants.

This film collects the experiences of several NU Women members working and studying across Newcastle University. In these interviews, female staff and PGRs reflect on their career pathways, their role within the university, the advice they would give to future female staff, their successes and challenges, their development opportunities, support mechanisms, and the impact of Covid-19.

Dr Barbara Read: Casualised Academic Staff and the threat of ‘failure’: power, legitimacy and (im)permanence

To tie into other events on neoliberal research cultures this year, last week Dr Barbara Read delivered a lecture on feelings of illegitimacy and fear of failure among casualised academic staff.

Where traditionally, lecturers have held high authority and status over their students, as well as a great degree of legitimacy in delivering education, the rise of neoliberalism in University institutions has changed how educators and students are constructed as well as how they relate to each other.

As students are re-constructed into ‘consumers’ and lecturers as ‘service deliverers’ these new embodiments come into conflict with existent ideas of idealised, legitimate lecturers resulting in a great deal of shame for casualised staff, particularly as they seek to validify their self-presentation as academics.

“I sometimes wonder how the students see me – do they think they’ve drawn the short straw by being given a teacher who does not have an office, isn’t around so much, is less confident and experienced and clearly isn’t part of the main faculty?”

Olivia, part-time teaching fellow, aged 41-50, white British middle-class.

Based on email interviews with twenty academic staff members, all on temporary, part-time, and hourly contracts, Dr Read’s research investigates how these staff members navigate their students’ perceptions of them. Of the academics interviewed, most were white and middle class – seventeen were women and all but two were under 40 years old.

Her findings show that many respondents were concerned with how their impermanent status would affect their students’ perceptions of their authority and legitimacy as educators.

Arriving in academe, I felt ‘displaced’, like an imposter, where everyone appears informed and confident and this feeling has not changed since graduation [with a doctorate]. I feel that my ‘race’, gender, age and accent do not fit with the assumed image of an academic…Some students refuse to accept my feedback comments and/or me as their supervisor.”

Yvonne, part-time hourly paid lecturer, 61+, Black African Caribbean working-class.

Further, their contracts had direct impacts on the quality of their teaching. Several staff members reported feeling unable to deliver or unmotivated to design quality course materials in the knowledge that they might not be present to teach these courses again.

There was also a notable lack of personal and professional development in these roles, as the institution is less willing to invest in training casual academic staff.

Disclosing their casualised status to students felt ‘risky’ to many, although some were more open about it. Particularly, last years’ strike action was cited as an incident that helped some staff members be more open and candid with their students about the precarity of their work. Ultimately, many felt it was a refusal of a culture of shame.


To keep up to date with Dr Read’s research, access her work via https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/education/staff/barbararead/ or follow @barbararead35 on Twitter.

A full recording of the event is available below:

NU Women Charity Collection 2021

NU Women is pleased to announce that in 2021 we will once again be collecting hats, scarves, mittens and gloves to donate to N.E.S.T. If you have had a Lockdown ‘clear out’ and have found yourself with any of these items spare, then please hold on to them; we will shortly be announcing a central location on campus where these can be dropped off!

In 2019, NU Women amassed over 2500 items of winter clothing to donate to refugees and asylum seekers via N.E.S.T and hope to build on the success of this with our 2021 drive. North East Solidarity and Teaching (N.E.S.T) is a multi-award winning and internationally-recognised student-led project at Newcastle University Students Union. N.E.S.T empowers the refugee and asylum-seeking community in the region through a variety of formats such as one-to-one English teaching, group English classes, sports, creative arts and trips into the local area. Through N.E.S.T, learners (refugees and asylum seekers) gain confidence in their language skills, find new friends and family, and become better integrated into the community. N.E.S.T runs every day, providing up to 13 sessions each week for people of all ages.

Over 2500 items were collected for N.E.S.T in 2019

This year’s charity collection drive also follows on from the success of our pre-lockdown collection for Vision Aid Overseas, where over 400 pairs of glasses and sunglasses were donated. The donated glasses will be recycled, and the proceeds used to support the fantastic work being conducted in providing brand-new glasses and eye care services overseas. Glasses cases were passed on to charity shops in the local area.

Our pre-lockdown collection was for Vision Aid Overseas

NU Women would like to say thank you to everyone who has shown their support by donating either glasses or winter clothing to each of our charity collections; these drives  demonstrate our commitment and our goodwill to supporting local and global issues of equality, diversity and inclusion.  We welcome suggestions on future collections!

The Girls Network

Thank you to Stacey Wagstaff, the Girls Network North East Manager, for joining us last week to start off our summer events.

The Girls Network is a national charity, operating in eight regions across the country with a mission to “inspire and empower” girls aged 14-19 by connecting them with hand-picked mentors in a variety of career paths.

The mentoring programme is designed to respond to the systemic social and educational failings for teenaged girls, particularly those coming from poorer homes.

To illustrate the difficulties faced by teenaged girls today, Stacey shared with us a video of girls sharing their concerns.

As shown in the video, the pressures from social media, bullying, body image, pornography, and exams are immense. This is compounded by educational difficulties and worries about the future: at sixteen 50% of girls from the poorest houses get no GCSE passes; less than 6% make it into higher education; and only 2% reach the most selective universities.

As Stacey explained, many of these girls had high aspirations, but didn’t believe they could actually achieve them.

You can’t be what you can’t see.

Here is where the mentorship programme is designed to intervene.

The programme connects women from a variety of professional and life-experience backgrounds with girls for a series of one-to-one mentoring sessions delivered over the course of a year.

The aim is to be an ally for teenage girls, offering them experience, confidence building, support networks, and a space to think about their future.

Beyond this, the Girls Network offers workshops and work experience placements, and the girls who participate have lifelong access to their Ambassador programme, providing them with long-term support.

The programme clearly has a big impact on mentees. Of the over one thousand girls mentored each year 96% reported improvements in their confidence, and 98% said they felt more positive about their future.


If you’re interested in becoming a mentor for the Girls Network, please apply at https://www.thegirlsnetwork.org.uk/become-a-mentor

There’s online training sessions coming up over the summer months, with mentor-mentee matchmaking events in the next school year. Participating in the programme requires a commitment of 2-3 hours a month.

If you want to get involved by fundraising, offering work experience placements, or delivering workshops – get in touch by emailing stacey@thegirlsnetwork.org.uk

Professor Muzlifah Haniffa: The celebration: diversity, unconscious bias and research culture

Just a week before International Women’s Day, Professor Muzlifa Haniffa kickstarted NU Women’s March event season with her talk titled The celebration: diversity, unconscious bias and research culture.

Nicola Curtin, who chaired the event, listed Professor Haniffa’s many accolades as a clinician scientist; Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, The Foulkes Academy of Medical Sciences medal winner, ACTERIA prize in immunology and allergology from the European Federation of Immunological Societies. At Newcastle University, she is a Welcome Trust Senior Research Fellow and Lister Institute Research Fellow as well as a consultant and clinician Dermatologist.

Alongside mapping her journey towards success in medical research, Professor Haniffa’s talk detailed raising awareness about diversity in such cultures, explaining her own experiences and how this may apply to a wider context. Professor Haniffa aimed to dismantle the ways diversity is often talked about, namely in the context of equality.

Defining diversity as an equal representation and opportunity for all groups, Professor Haniffa believed we shouldn’t stop here because there is more to the conceptual framework. Stopping here raises the question: Does diversity compromise quality if you don’t select the best?

Professor Haniffa explained that it was in her writing an article for Nature Medicine that she highlighted how that people who have been taught in the same way will always approach things in a singular fashion. Unfortunately, this is an inevitable consequence of specialisation and she personally felt that if you really want innovation in research, you need collaboration, equality and diversity. Pausing here, Professor Haniffa stated:

“I am not an anomaly, I was unpromising ten years ago and there are many more people like me”

To illustrate why diversity is positive and not just about making everyone equal, Professor Haniffa introduced an analogy in The Loudest Duck (2009) by Lauren Liswood:

“The loudest duck in China gets shot but the noisiest weasel in the U.S gets the grub”

In other words: you need to know the context and culture around you in order to gain a full perspective. Coupling Liswood’s ideas with Matthew Syed’s Rebel Ideas (2019), Professor Haniffa encouraged us to imagine a triangle as a research problem or idea space. What you want are individuals who occupy different areas of that triangle so you have a diverse group of people with a necessary skill set, creating an intelligent team to take things forward and innovate.

Conversely, if you have narrow selection process, hiring intelligent individuals but of the same backgrounds you get a team of clones occupying a small space. It is through this homogeneous way of thinking and narrow scope of operations that a team may not perceive threats, provide alternate solutions, and miss important information within the idea space.

Diversity is not just about skill set but respective of gender, age, culture and a different set of perspectives and experiences. With this understanding, diversity matters and it enhances quality. In her career, Professor Haniffa believed it was important for her to have mentors who were successful women, had a different mentor style, different leadership style, and were from all walks of life.

However, she explained that there are many barriers that can influence diverse representations, such as the lack of role models and stubborn structures or dialogues that exist within marginalised or under-represented groups. In addition, research selection criteria can be too narrow and a lack of opportunity is often mistaken for lack of ability.

Referencing her own experience, Professor Haniffa explained issues surrounding sponsorship, conflict of interests and evidencing sponsorship or mentorship throughout her career. One may ask why Professor Haniffa did not raise issues of diversity and unconscious bias sooner, but she explained that she did – intersectionality and panel dynamics silenced her questioning. By Professor Haniffa raising awareness of diversity issues within her research culture, she has in the past, been forwarded to psychological assessment rather than her boundaries being recognised.

As a result of such treatment, Professor Haniffa now raises awareness, promotes positive solutions and nurtures diverse talents in Newcastle and elsewhere in the UK and she believes she is not the first nor last.

For more of Professor Haniffa’s work, Please See:

https://www.ncl.ac.uk/chabi/people/profile/mahaniffa.html#background

A Full recording of the event is available below: