RES E AR C H Open Access
Advancing gender equality through the
Athena SWAN Charter for Women in
Science: an exploratory study of women’s
and men’s perceptions
Pavel V. Ovseiko
1*
, Alison Chapple
2†
, Laurel D. Edmunds
1†
and Sue Ziebland
2
Abstract
Background: While in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia, higher education and research institutions are
widely engaged with the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science to advance gender equality, empirical research
on this process and its impact is rare. This study combined two data sets (free- text comments from a survey and
qualitative interviews) to explore the range of experiences and perceptions of participati on in Athena S WAN in
medical science departments of a research-intensive university in Oxford, United Kingdom.
Methods: The study is based on the secondary analysis of data from two projects: 59 respondents to an anonymous
online survey (42 women, 17 men) provided relevant free-text comments and, separately, 37 women participated in
face-to-face narrative interviews. Free-text survey comments and narrative interviews were analysed thematically using
constant comparison.
Results: Both women and men said that participation in Athena SWAN had brought about important structural and
cultural changes, including increased support for women’s careers, greater appreciation of caring responsibilities, and
efforts to challenge discrimination and bias. Many said that these positive changes would not have happened without
linkage of Athena SWAN to government research funding, while others thought there were unintended consequences.
Concerns about the programme design and implementation included a perception that Athena SWAN has limited
ability to address longstanding and entrenched power and pay imbalances, persisting lack of w ork-life balance in
academic medicine, questions about the sustainability of positive changes, belief that achieving the award could
become an end in itself, resentment about perceived positive discrimination, and perceptions that further structural
and cultural changes were needed in the university and wider society.
Conclusions: The findings from this study suggest that Athena SWAN has a positive impact in advancing gender
equality, but there may be limits to how much it can improve gender equality witho ut wider institutional and
societal changes. To address the fundamental causes of gender inequality would require cultural change and welfare
state policies incentivising men to increase their part icipation in unpaid work in the family, which i s beyond
the scope of higher education and research policy.
Keywords: Gender equality, Athena SWAN, Health research, Science policy
* Correspondence: pavel.ovseiko@medsci.ox.ac.uk
†
Equal contributors
1
Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe
Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Ovseiko et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2017) 15:12
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0177-9
Background
Women are underrepresented in academic medical
sciences, especially in senior leadership roles [1–5]. Par-
ticipation in gender equality award schemes can be an
effective means to advance gender equality [6–9]. Such
schemes provide organisational impetus and motivation
for positive change, serve as a framework for gender
equality activities, allow sharing of good practice, generate
a positive external image, and can be viewed by research
funders as cost-effective because they can be implemented
nationally across many institutions [8].
In the United Kingdom, the Athena Project and the Sci-
entific Women’s Academic Network (SWAN) were set up
in the early 2000s and subsequently evolved into the
Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science [10]. It has
become a common and increasingly influential means to
advance gender equality and has been explicitly linked to
public research funding. In July 2011, Sally Davies, the
Chief Medical Officer for England, announced that appli-
cants could not expect to be eligible for National Institute
for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre
funding “where the academic partner (generally the Med-
ical School/Faculty of Medicine) has not achieved at least
the Silver Award of the Athena SWAN Charter for Women
in Science” [11]. According to the Equality Challenge Unit,
which manages the Athena SWAN Charter, “the propor-
tion of Athena SWAN applications that have been from
medical and medical-related departments has increased
from 7.7% to 29.7% since Sally Davies’ announcement in
2011; that is a significant increase of almost 400%, which
is unparalleled by the relatively stable proportion of appli-
cations from other STEMM fields encompassed such as en-
gineering” (Gilligan RE, Personal communication). In
May 2015, the Athena SWAN Charter broadened its
scope to include arts, humanities, social sciences, business
and law, professional and support staff, transgender staff
and students, and men, where appropriate [12].
The Athena SWAN Charter encourages and recog-
nises commitment to advance women’s careers in higher
education and research in four key area s [13], namely
representation, progression of students into academia,
journey through career milestones and working environ-
ment for all staff.
Athena SWAN is based on 10 key principles (Box 1)
[12]. There are three levels of awards (Bronze, Silver and
Gold), for which member institutions and departments
within these institutions can apply. An entry-level
Bronze institution award requires an assessment of gender
equality, a 4-year action plan, and an organisational struc-
ture to implement the proposed actions [14]. Department
awards recognise that, in addition to institution-wide
policies and actions, the department has identified par-
ticular challenges and is planning activities for the future.
A Silver department award recognises that the department
has successfully implemented the previously proposed
actions and can demonstrate their impact [14]. Peer re-
view panels (comprised of academics, human resources or
equality and diversity practitioners, and subject specialists)
assess applications, make recommendations on awards,
and provide applicants with constructive feedback [15]. As
more information on the effectiveness and impact of the
Athena SWAN Charter becomes available [7–9, 16, 17],
its membership is growing in the United Kingdom and
expanding to other countries, such as Ireland and
Australia. As of January 2017, there were 143 Athena
SWAN members in the United Kingdom, holding 617
awards between them [18], and three Athena SWAN
members in Ireland, holding eight awards between
them [19]. In Australia, a total of 40 ins titutions – in-
cluding 30 of 43 Australian universities, six medical re-
search institutes , and four government science
organisations – are working towards an Athena SWAN
Bronze institution award a s part of the S cience in
Australia Gen der Equity (SAGE) pilot run by the Aus -
tralian Academy of Science in p artnership with the
Academy of Te chnology and Engineering (https://
www.sciencegenderequity.org.au).
Box 1 Key principles of the Athena SWAN Charter [12]
1. We acknowledge that academia cannot reach its full potential unless
it can benefit from the talents of all.
2. We commit to advancing gender equality in academia, in particular,
addressing the loss of women across the career pipeline and the
absence of women from senior academic, professional and support
roles.
3. We commit to addressing unequal gender representation across
academic disciplines and professional and support functions. In
this we recognise disciplinary differences, including:
• the relative underrepresentation of women in senior roles in arts,
humanities, social sciences, business and law;
• the particularly high loss rate of women in science, technology,
engineering, mathematics and medicine.
4. We commit to tackling the gender pay gap.
5. We commit to removing the obstacles faced by women, in particular,
at major points of career development and progression including the
transition from PhD into a sustainable academic career.
6. We commit to addressing the negative consequences of using short-
term contracts for the retention and progression of staff in academia,
particularly women.
7. We commit to tackling the discriminatory treatment often experienced
by transgender people.
8. We acknowledge that advancing gender equality demands commitment
and action from all levels of the organisation and in particular active
leadership from those in senior roles.
9. We commit to making and mainstreaming sustainable structural and
cultural changes to advance gender equality, recognising that initiatives
and actions that support individuals alone will not sufficiently advance
equality.
10. All individuals have identities shaped by several different factors. We
commit to considering the intersection of gender and other factors
wherever possible.
Ovseiko et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2017) 15:12 Page 2 of 13
While in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia,
higher education and research institutions are widely en-
gaged with the Athena SWAN Charter to advance gender
equality, empirical research on this process and its impact
is rare. An independent mixed-m ethods s tudy commis-
sioned by the Equality Challenge Unit found that “career
satisfaction, opportunities for training and development,
knowledge of promotion processes and fairness in the alloca-
tion of workload was considered better in the Silver award
andotherAthenaSWANcategorygroupsthaninnoaward
departments” [7]. This study also found that the linkage to
NIHR research funding was viewed contentiously, respon-
dents suggested that women had benefited from Athena
SWAN more than men, and that research staff and stu-
dents had experienced less positive impact than tenured
academic staff. Importantly, this study focused on the per-
ceptions of impact rather than actual impact. A quantitative
study that focused on the actual impact of Athena SWAN
found no evidence that introdu ction of Athena SWAN
in 2005 or its linkage to NIHR funding in 2011 had led
to a mea surable improvement in the employment rates
of female clinical academics [16]. However, this study
focused only on one quantitative indicator of impact
(employment rate), examined only 2 years (2012–2013)
after the linkage to NIHR funding, and might have been
constrained by the insufficient number of observations.
A multimethod qualitative realist e valuation conducted
in five departments of one medical school found over-
whelmingly positive perceptions of the principles of
Athena SWAN [9]. Implementation was credited for
creating the “social space to address gender inequity”,
but a number of factors h ad reduced its impact [9]. In
particular, the study found that women bore “adispro-
portionate burden of Athena SWAN work, which was
not counted towards career progression”, there were bar-
riers for postdoctoral researchers and some other staff
to access Athena SWAN initiatives, and that institu-
tional practices, national policies , and societal norms
could limit the impact of Athena SWAN [9].
Methods
Study aim and objectives
The aim of this study is to explore the range of experi-
ences and perceptions of participation in Athena SWAN
in medical science departments at one research-intensive
university in Oxford, United Kingdom. The objectives of
the study are as follows:
To explore the range of perceptions on how Athena
SWAN impacts on the work conditions and
employment prospects.
To explore the range of perceptions on the
implementation of Athena SWAN and how it can
be improved.
To identify key themes and issues for future research.
Study setting
The University of Oxford is one of the United Kingdom’s
most research-intensive universities and scores highly on
measures of research income and performance in clinical,
pre-clinical and health subjects [20, 21]. Advancing gender
equality is a key strategic priority for the university [22,
23]. During the study period, all o f the university ’s16
clinical and pre-clinical department s [24] participated
in the Athena SWAN Charter. A s of September 2016,
they had achie ved 15 Silver and 1 Bronze awards.
Study design
Thestudyisbasedonthesecondaryanalysisofdatafrom
two research projects supported by the University of Ox-
ford Vice-Chancellor’s Diversity Fund [25]. One project in-
cluded administration of a quantitative C-Change survey
(CCS) to measure 12 dimensions of culture [26], with add-
itional open-ended questions. Athena SWAN was not a
specific question mentioned in the survey, which focused
on organisational culture more broadly [27]. The other pro-
ject used face-to-face narrative interviews to build an online
repository of the experiences of women in science (WIS) at
Oxford (http://www.womeninscience.ox.ac.uk). This article
combines data from the free-text survey comments with
analysis from the narrative interviews to explore the range
of experiences and perceptions of participating in Athena
SWAN.
Sample and data collection
All 3824 academic, research, administrative, professional,
and other support staff in medical sciences departments at
theUniversityofOxfordongrade6andabovewereeligible
to participate in the survey. The survey was conducted
from May to June 2014. An email was sent by the Head of
the Medical Sciences Division to all staff informing them
about the survey. All eligible participants received an email,
via SurveyMonkey®, with a link to the anonymous online
survey. Those who had not yet completed the survey re-
ceived up to 10 automated reminders over the following
6 weeks. The survey consisted mainly of closed-ended
questions with four open-ended questions prompting re-
spondents to raise new issues regarding career advanc e-
ment and diversity. Athena SWAN was not mentioned
in the sur vey. Altogether, 240 7 staff responded to the
sur v ey (63%), 523 (22% of the respondents) provided
free-text comments, and 59 (2% of the respondent s and
11% of those who provided free-te xt comments) com-
mented about Athena SWAN. Other comments con-
cerned the role of sex , race/ethnicity, sexual
orientation, disability and caring responsibilities on ad-
vancement, gender equity and underrepresentation in
Ovseiko et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2017) 15:12 Page 3 of 13
medicine minority fa culty, and institutional change ef-
forts for diversit y and faculty sup port more broad ly.
A purposive sample of senior women scientist s
working in the Medical Sciences Division (MSD) and
Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences Division
(MPLS) participated in a narrative inter view about
their careers in October 2014 to June 2015. We
wanted to interview successful women scientists from
a range of departments and disciplines, so we obtained
suggestions from members of the project advisory
group. Information a bout the st udy wa s sent to 51
women. Twelve either did not reply or said that they
were too busy to take part in the research. For the
purpose of the current article focusing on medical sci-
ences we excluded two inter views from MPLS.
The interviews were conducted by one of the authors
(AC), who is a senior qualitative researcher with a back-
ground in medical sociology. Almost all interviews took
place in the interviewee’s office. The remainder were con-
ducted in either the woman’shomeorinTheDepartment
of Primary Care Health Sciences. The interviewer did not
personally know any of the women before the interview.
All of the interviews were audio-taped and most were
video-recorded. Interviews were conducted in private; no
one else was present besides the participant and the re-
searcher. Participants were given the option of having
audio-taped interviews, instead of videos, so that they
could retain anonymity. They were also given the option
of making sub-sections of their video interview anonym-
ous. Participants were informed of the study objectives as
well as the interviewer’s occupation and credentials. Tran-
scripts were returned to the participants for comment
and/or correction and for copyright approval.
Data analysis
Relevant free-text survey comments were analysed by LDE
and PVO and the fully-transcribed narrative interviews by
AC and SZ. Although administrative, professional and sup-
port staff had not been the focus of Athena SWAN before
May 2015, we included their responses in analysis because
ouraimwastoexploreawiderangeofviewsoftheimple-
mentation of Athena SWAN, drawing on the unique per-
spectives of all staff in the departments. Data from the
narrative interviews and open-ended questions were coded
separately by the researchers from the relevant teams. The
data from the open-ended questions were initially coded in
Microsoft
®
Office; NUD*IST software was used to organise
the interview data. Researchers were sensitised by theories
and concepts from their previous research [4, 5, 27, 28] and
reviewed relevant studies during analysis to check emerging
themes against the literature. We used thematic analysis
and the process of constant comparison to synthesise and
interpret the findings [29, 30]. The similarities and differ -
ences between the themes emerging from two datasets,
were combined into a common coding tree, while preserv-
ing information about the source of the findings; for ex-
ample, each quote from the data includes an ID which
specifies whether it was from the CCS or WIS dataset. Re-
searchers then met to discuss areas of agreement and dis-
agreement and reached consensus on themes and
interpretation. Researchers shared and reflected on their
own prior views and experiences, which may have influ-
enced the analysis and interpretation of data. Most notably,
researchers were all members of the University, had prior
knowledge of Athena SWAN and had participated in some
of the related activities.
Results
In total, 59 respondents (42 women and 17 men) wrote
comments about Athena SWAN on the survey, and 37
women participated in narrative interviews. All inter-
viewees talked about Ath ena SWAN (either raising it
themselves in the open narrative or in response to spe-
cific questions). Interviews were, on average, an hour in
length. The aggregated and disaggregated demographic
characteristics of anonymous study participants are pre-
sented in Table 1 and Additional file 1, respectively.
Owing to the anonymity of the survey, we do not know
whether some study participants provided bot h free-text
comments and participated in interviews. The findings
are grouped into four major themes and nine sub-themes
(Fig. 1) and presented below, together with illustrative
quotes. Illustrative quotes are presented together with
relevant demographic data for the individual, and the
source of the data (CCS or WIS).
Table 1 Aggregated demographic characteristics of participants
from each study
Characteristics CCS Survey,
n (%)
WIS Interviews,
n (%)
Sex
Female 42 (71%) 37 (100%)
Male 17 (29%) 0
Race/Ethnicity
Black and minority ethnic 8 (14%) 6 (16%)
White 51 (86%) 31 (84%)
Staff category
Clinical academic/research 10 (17%) 14 (38%)
Non-clinical academic/research 30 (51%) 22 (59%)
Administrative/professional/support 18 (31%) 1 (3%)
Missing data 1 (2%) 0
Full professor
Yes 7 (12%) 20 (54%)
No 52 (88%) 17 (46%)
Ovseiko et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2017) 15:12 Page 4 of 13
Fig. 1 Coding tree with major themes and sub-themes
Ovseiko et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2017) 15:12 Page 5 of 13