women in academia

28th February 202328th February 2023

International Women’s Day Statement 2023

This year International Women’s Day falls amid a sustained period of industrial action taken by University and College Union members to defend our rights to secure contracts, equality at work, fair workloads, fair pay and a liveable pension. All of these issues have a particular and pronounced effect on women and other marginalised genders, and intersect with other structures of oppression.

Across the country, women are bearing the brunt of the ongoing cost of living crisis; women are already losing thousands from their pensions because of time out for caring responsibilities; workloads are debilitating for women who are often the ones who are taking on more of the domestic load at home; and women on precarious contracts are treated as ‘non-citizens of the academy’, are undervalued in terms of status, rights, entitlements, pay and decision-making power, and cannot plan on having children.

At Newcastle University, the mean gender pay gap is 17.8%, nearly 3% above the national average for universities. Women in academic roles are paid 11.4% less than men, women in professional services roles are paid 8.2% less than men, women receive 76.5% less in bonus payments than men, and women occupy 67.5% of the lowest paid jobs. Increasingly, women at Newcastle University are working longer hours than men, often working longer than their expected hours, and finding their workload unmanageable.

In this context, International Women’s Day is an opportunity for the University to gloss over these material and structural inequalities, perform equality work, and benefit from a reputation as a progressive institution. Much of the hard work of creating marketable International Women’s Day events and other EDI labour falls on the shoulders of women and other minoritised colleagues and is often unpaid.

In solidarity with striking UCU members, this year NU Women are refusing to participate in providing Newcastle University with marketing material to obfuscate the material realities of women working within the institution. Instead, we are choosing to draw attention to it with our pay gap posters. We invite you to keep these figures in mind when interacting with the University’s celebrations of womens’ work and achievements across the institution. We invite you to consider how these achievements are made within unsupportive environments, how women’s labour is re-appropriated into a narrative of a feminist institution, and how much Newcastle University actually values this work if it refuses to pay for it equally.

We wish all Newcastle women a happy International Women’s Day and hope you are able to find time to rest, celebrate, organise, and observe the day in your own way.

10th October 2022

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:

26th January 202226th January 2022

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.

3rd August 20213rd August 2021

Interning for NU Women

After two years as an intern for NU Women, Caroline Rae reflects on her experience with the Network through an interview with current intern, Maia Almeida-Amir.

Maia: Why did you decide to intern for NU Women?

Caroline: I am really interested in issues of gender equality – as reflected in both my Ph.D. research where I look at representations of the environment through a feminist lens, and in my other job as an editorial assistant for the journal Feminist Theory. Working for NU Women seemed like an opportunity to make a real, lived difference and champion equality, diversity and inclusion in the very place I work and study. And I am so glad I did as it’s been a really good opportunity to see how change can be instigated within the institution and understand the impact a network like NU Women can have for all women working across the university.

Maia: What has been your favourite event during your tenure at NU Women?

Caroline: Reflecting now, I would definitely say the Christmas Social 2019 was one of my favourite events – it was the last in person event we ran before the pandemic and it was lovely to meet and connect with our members in a social setting.

I would add, however, that the events we’ve ran in the last year virtually have been an amazing way of connecting with our members in what has sometimes felt like an incredibly isolating and difficult year. I really enjoyed Emily Yarrow’s discussion of female academics’ experience of research evaluation and Barbara Read’s talk on failure and casualised staff. The topics resonated with me as I’m about to submit my thesis and enter the job market and, while it can be hard to hear about how these issues are impacting women in academia, it has been beneficial to hear about other people’s experiences of casualisation and REF and how female academics are advocating for change through their research.

Maia: What has been your favourite piece of work you’ve done for NU Women?

Caroline: In 2020, not long after lockdown started, I was involved in curating the blog series on living and working in lockdown. The stories we collected gave an insight into how our members were coping with the challenges lockdown brought – whether that was moving home, maternity leave or even just trying to stay connected with colleagues – the stories really resonated with me and so many others and highlighted how NU Women can provide a sense of community and comfort for its members that extends beyond the walls of the institution.

Maia: What do you think you’ll take forward from your time at NU Women?

Caroline: Certainly, that sense of community – we are fortunate to have this network at Newcastle that connects women working in all roles and across all levels. I will definitely continue to act as an ambassador for the network and I’m looking forward to returning to in-person events.

Maia: Finally, what advice would you give to incoming interns?

Caroline: You’re as much a member as you are an intern so think about what you would like to see from the network and advocate for it; if there’s a particular speaker you’d like to invite or a project you’d like to lead on, then go for it! The more suggestions and ideas we have coming from women across the university, the more diverse and inclusive the events and activities the network runs will be!

24th May 202124th May 2021

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:

27th February 20214th March 2021

Emily Yarrow: An unequal opportunity? Female academics’ experiences of research evaluation in the UK

It was an absolute pleasure to welcome Dr Emily Yarrow to conclude NU Women’s February events.

Emily’s talk was anchored in previous PhD research which looked at women’s lived experiences of REF2014, bringing these endemic issues forward to the present day. Emily talked us through the impact of gender and women’s inclusion in impact case studies regarding gender more broadly in relation to the study.

Coming from a corporate governance background, Emily used a theoretical model which explored the relationship between governance, gender and the wider higher education context. In turn, she argued that informality and the subversion of formal practices, processes and elements of governance, such as the REF, serves as a real catalyst for inequality. Dr Emily Yarrow’s analytical framework was not only qualitative study that was built around one touring case study, but a progressive one.

In this sense, the study subverted existing notions, and explored how female research evaluation affects female academics’ careers. Moreover, the study investigated female academics’ perceptions of research evaluation and its career effects, whether this is gendered, and how this plays out in female academics’ career trajectories.

Dr Emily Yarrow shared her key findings from this research, firstly stating that the REF contributes to the maintenance of a regime of gendered inequality, primarily because of the ways it is implemented and its implicit reliance on informal networks, such as recruiting panel members within the university and REF submission readers.

“The importance of networks is argued further increased for recruitment and selection, if an individual was not included however, overall ‘the hustle’ still matters immensely”
(Yarrow, 2020)

Extending these findings, Dr Emily Yarrow found that research evaluation contributes to an increasingly individualised way of working. Further, it is modelled on idealised notions of the unencumbered worker because of it ineffectively accounts for time taken out of a REF cycle, which disproportionately affects women.

From this, we learned that the REF functions as a control mechanism over the work that is produced. For example, in some disciplines, such as Law and Business, certain types of conservative research are becoming more valued due to the level of risk associated with submissions.

“I no longer aim for lower ranked journals; I just can’t afford to do that! So I no longer consider certain journals that otherwise I would love to publish in”
(Lecturer, participant 35)

By the end of the talk, Dr Emily Yarrow demonstrated a lack of transparency in the processes surrounding the REF, with particular emphasis on recruitment, the selection of material evaluators, and final submissions. These appear to act against gender equality in the experience of the REF process at the individual level.

Moreover, the REF’s orientation towards time meant that care and parental leave had a significant gendered impact on academics’ careers. As a result, although research evaluation has the potential to be used as a career path clarification tool, it imports gendered measurement issues that contribute to precarity. Emily paused on this to add that the creation of a quasi-marketplace further drives the need for the ‘right type of publications’, and, in turn, precarious working.

Overall, REF frameworks contribute to furthering the notion that the unencumbered (disproportionately male) scholar is ideal, which continues to entrench gendered marginalisation within academics’ careers.

Tag: women in academia