Effect of Athena SWAN funding incentives on women’s research
leadership
Analysis shows that funding incentives can work and more funders should trial them, say Pavel V
Ovseiko and colleagues
Pavel V Ovseiko,
1
Mark Taylor,
2
Ruth E Gilligan,
3
Jacqueline Birks,
4
Leena Elhussein,
4
Mike Rogers,
2
Sonja Tesanovic,
2
Jazmin Hernandez,
2
Glenn Wells,
5
Trisha Greenhalgh,
6
Alastair M Buchan
1
“Is it difficult being a woman scientist?” the
biochemist Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin was asked at
high table dinner in an Oxford college by the man
sitting next to her. “Not since I won the Nobel Prize,”
she replied.
1
In 1964, the British press had reacted to
her award with the headlines: “Oxford housewife
wins Nobel” and “British woman wins Nobel
Prize—£18 750 prize to mother of three.”
2
While such
overtly sexist treatment of female scientists by the
media is now rare, progress towards gender equality
in universities has been astonishingly slow.
A UK parliamentary inquiry into women in scientific
careers found that with only 17% of professors in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) in 2011-12 women were still under-represented
at senior levels across all STEM disciplines.
3
Concerned with the sustainability of increasing the
scientific workforce, the inquiry concluded that
efforts to inspire more women into science were
wasted if they were subsequently disadvantaged
compared with men and recommended that
universities should do more to support and retain
women in scientific careers.
3
To accelerate women’s advancement and leadership,
the UK’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
introduced an innovative policy intervention in 2011
linking its research funding to the implementation
by universities of gender equality action plans
through the Athena SWAN (Scientific Women’s
Academic Network) charter (box 1). We examine the
effect of this policy on women’s research leadership
in NIHR funded research and theorise how such
incentives may work.
Box 1: Athena SWAN charter
The Athena SWAN charter provides a peer review
framework for developing action plans and gaining
recognition for the advancement of gender equality in
higher education and research. The charter was
established in 2005 under the ownership of the non-profit
organisation Equality Challenge Unit (now Advance HE),
evolving from the work of the Athena Project, set up to
promote diversity in UK science, and the Scientific
Women’s Academic Network (SWAN).
Institutions that commit to the charter establish
self-assessment teams to collect and analyse evidence,
identify priorities, and develop action plans using a
comprehensive framework for supporting and advancing
women’s careers
4
:
•
Key career transition points—Recruitment, induction,
promotion, research excellence
•
Career development—Training, appraisal and
development review, support for career progression,
support for research grant applications
•
Flexible working and managing career breaks—Cover
and support for maternity and adoption leave;
maternity return rate; uptake of paternity, shared
parental, adoption, and parental leave; flexible
working; transition from part-time back to full-time
work after career breaks
•
Organisation and culture—Culture; human resources
policies; proportion of heads of school, faculty, or
department by gender; representation of men and
women on committees; participation on influential
external committees; committee workload; policies,
practices, and procedures; workload model; timing
of meetings and social gatherings; visibility of role
models; outreach activities.
The framework is applied to both institutions and
departments. Institutions focus on the institutional
structures and policies to enable change, whereas
subject departments act as the agents of change by
improving hiring, retention, and promotion decisions,
workplace practices, and organisational culture at
discipline level.
Institutions and departments apply to have their
applications and action plans peer reviewed by subject
specific panels of academics, experts, and Athena SWAN
professionals from other participating institutions against
the self-assessments presented and good practice in the
field. Applicants receive constructive feedback and
awards commensurate with the committed effort and
outcomes
4
:
•
Bronze award requires an assessment of gender
equality and the issues facing the institution or
department plus a four year action plan to deal with
these
•
Silver award recognises the successful
implementation of the action plan and its
demonstrable impact
•
Gold award recognises beacons of achievement in
gender equality and champions in promoting good
practice in the wider community
National translational research infrastructure
With the aim of creating a national infrastructure for
translating scientific breakthroughs into new
treatments for patients, NIHR has awarded £2.2bn
(€2.5bn; $2.9bn) of UK taxpayers’ funding for
translational research to biomedical research centres
and units—partnerships between NHS organisations
and universities. The strategic objectives, scope, and
magnitude of funding of these centres have parallels
1the bmj | BMJ 2020;371:m3975 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3975
ANALYSIS
1
Radcliffe Department of Medicine,
University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
2
NIHR Central Commissioning Facility,
Twickenham, UK
3
Advance HE, London, UK
4
Centre for Statistics in Medicine,
Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics,
Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal
Sciences, University of Oxford,
Oxford, UK
5
Oxford Academic Health Science
Centre, Oxford, UK
6
Nuffield Department of Primary Care
Health Sciences, University of Oxford,
Oxford, UK
Correspondence to: P V Ovseiko
pavel.ovseiko@rdm.ox.ac.uk
Cite this as:
BMJ
2020;371:m3975
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3975
Published: 26 October 2020
on 30 October 2020 at Oxford University Consortia. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.m3975 on 26 October 2020. Downloaded from
with the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program of the
US National Institutes of Health.
5
Biomedical research centres cover several disease, organ system,
technology, and activity based research themes (eg, cancer,
cardiovascular disease, genomics, and patient and public
involvement) with multiple investigators in each theme. Centres
are led by a director (senior leader) responsible for the strategy and
coordination of research across themes and by theme leads
(mid-level leaders), who have similar responsibilities across research
topics within their theme.
Funding awards are based on peer review by an international
selection panel of senior researchers and informed by bibliometrics.
6
The panel considers applicants’ research strategy, research facilities,
budget, narrative track record of success in translational research,
publications, grants, and the career history of the proposed director
and theme leads, including a narrative description of why they are
at the forefront of their field internationally and a list of publications
over the past five years.
Funding incentives for women in science
During the 2011 competition for research centre funding, Sally
Davies, then director general of research and development and chief
scientific adviser at the Department of Health, sought to encourage
universities to accelerate women’s advancement and leadership in
science. She stated that in the 2016 round of the competition the
NIHR did not expect to shortlist any research centre where the
academic partners had not achieved at least the Athena SWAN silver
award.
NIHR’s policy intervention provided sufficient incentives for
universities to develop and implement gender equality action plans.
This coincided with a 10-fold increase in the number of medicine
related Athena SWAN silver or gold awards in 2016 (one gold and
69 silver awards) compared with 2011 (seven silver awards).
Moreover, several major funders and science organisations in
Ireland, Australia, the United States, and Canada subsequently
adopted modified versions of the Athena SWAN framework contexts
(see supplementary data on bmj.com for further details).
NIHR removed the requirement for applicants to hold Athena SWAN
awards in 2020, partly to reduce administrative burden during the
covid-19 pandemic. It stated: “we believe that use of the [Athena
SWAN] charter has led to the greater embedding of gender equality
practice” and that the future focus for NIHR would be on the broader
commitment to all dimensions of equality, diversity and inclusion.
7
Although Athena SWAN awards are no longer required, applicants
can still choose to evidence the relevant elements of this new
broader commitment through the awards.
Effect of funding incentives
After the introduction of the Athena SWAN incentives, the
proportion of female theme leads increased to 24% (43/177) in 2016
from 8% in both 2006 (8/105) and 2011 (15/200). The proportion of
women in senior director positions also increased from 11% (3/28)
and 10% (3/31) in 2006 and 2011 to 15% (3/20) in 2016 (fig 1 and
supplementary data on bmj.com). The incentives seem to have
increased the number of female theme leads but not the number of
female directors.
Fig 1 | Percentages of female research leaders
Before the introduction of the Athena SWAN funding incentives the
proportion of funding obtained by female theme leads was 5% in
2006 and 4% in 2011. This increased to 21% in 2016. The proportion
of funding obtained by female directors increased from 2% in both
2006 and 2011 to 4% in 2016 (fig 2) but remained much lower than
for male directors (see supplementary data for more detail).
the bmj | BMJ 2020;371:m3975 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.m39752
ANALYSIS
on 30 October 2020 at Oxford University Consortia. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.m3975 on 26 October 2020. Downloaded from
Fig 2 | Percentages of funding obtained by female research leaders
Leaky pipelines
One possible confounder for gender disparity in leadership positions
is the pipeline effect. It is often suggested that once there are
sufficient numbers of women entering universities and they are not
discriminated against for admission into the pipeline, the
under-representation of women at all levels in academic medicine
will gradually disappear. To test this theory we estimated admission
into the academic medicine pipeline using scientific age—that is,
the number of years after the first publication. The scientific age of
female and male theme leads (27 and 28, respectively) and directors
(27 and 30, respectively) was similar in 2016 (see supplementary
data for more detail). Assuming the leads’ first publication occurred
in the first year after graduation, they entered medical school around
1980 when female admissions to UK medical schools were already
40%.
8
Given that the proportions of female theme leads and
directors are much lower than 40%, the pipeline appears to be
leaking.
When we examined a leadership pipeline within research centres,
we found that in 2016 65% (13/20) of directors and 40% (71/177) of
theme leads had held these roles in previous rounds and that more
men than women had repeated leadership terms (see supplementary
data for more detail). A disproportionately large pool of incumbent
male leaders who seek repeated leadership terms more often than
female leaders may partially explain the dearth of female directors.
We also examined gender balance on the international selection
panel for research centre awards. In 2006 and 2011, the panels were
all male but in 2016, 20% (2/10) of panel members were women.
However, we could not investigate the possible effects of this change
empirically or draw conclusive inferences from previous studies.
Whereas some studies reported gender bias in peer review,
9
others
found no association between the applicant’s gender and the
reviewers’ gender.
10
One natural experiment suggested that gender
equity in funding could be increased by focusing peer review on
science rather than scientists.
11
Although there could still be other unmeasured confounders such
as structural changes in the number of centres and their research
themes, our analysis suggests that the introduction of the Athena
SWAN incentives contributed to the accelerated advancement of
women to theme lead positions and gender equity gains in funding.
Data from the 2021 funding round will help establish whether there
is a causal link.
Critical actors
Our analysis shows the salience of “critical actor” leaders over
“critical mass” for initiating change towards more gender equitable
research leadership. Critical mass theory predicted that once the
proportion of female academics reached 30–35%, changes in the
sociocultural environment would trigger an increase in women’s
leadership. However, recent research suggests that the promise of
critical mass should be abandoned in favour of critical
actors—“women and men, who individually and collectively have
the commitment and power to create gender equitable cultures.”
12
Sally Davies and NIHR were collective critical actors in introducing
the Athena SWAN funding incentives, which were associated with
important changes in NIHR funded research. Likewise, many
committed leaders and the major national funders and science
organisations acted collectively to lead the adoption of Athena
SWAN principles globally.
Athena SWAN requires time to affect the numbers of female
scientists because it seeks structural and cultural changes for all
faculty and staff.
13
Although Athena SWAN has been shown to be
effective in challenging discrimination and bias, improving women’s
visibility and leadership skills, and initiating structural and cultural
changes,
14 -17
it has limitations in tackling longstanding tenure,
power, and pay imbalances in the short term.
18 19
Unintended
consequences have also been reported with the project, such as
perceptions of administrative burden,
20
women undertaking a
disproportionate amount of work,
21
and gender taking priority over
race and class.
22
3the bmj | BMJ 2020;371:m3975 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3975
ANALYSIS
on 30 October 2020 at Oxford University Consortia. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.m3975 on 26 October 2020. Downloaded from
Effective implementation of Athena SWAN seems to require
sufficient commitment, time, resources, and professional expertise.
The rise in women’s research leadership in NIHR funded centres
contrasts with previous research in 35 medical schools that showed
no changes in gender balance among faculty two years after the
introduction of the funding incentives.
18
NIHR funded centres had
more favourable conditions and sufficient time to implement four
year action plans. The linkage of Athena SWAN to the £816m
funding scheme incentivised universities to commit time of leaders,
faculty, and staff, invest internal resources, and employ equality
and diversity professionals to implement action plans in friendly
competition with their peers.
13 15
Realising the benefits of gender equity
The case for advancing gender equity in research is compelling.
Equitable participation of all genders in research is imperative to
social progress and legitimisation of public support for science.
23
Drawing on the talents of all genders is also necessary for increasing
the sustainability of the scientific workforce.
3
Evidence suggests
that gender diversity in groups is associated with greater problem
solving
24
and higher quality research.
25
A gender equitable scientific
workforce can therefore enhance the quality of science. As women
pursue collaboration and interdisciplinary research more often than
men,
26 27
gender equity can also improve team science. Moreover,
health research led by women more often investigates sex and
gender related variables than does research led by men.
28 29
Gender
equity in research leadership can therefore increase the scientific
rigour and relevance of health research to women’s health.
Funders can advance gender equity in research through policy
interventions and funding incentives. For example, the US National
Institutes of Health championed inclusion of women and minority
groups in clinical trials as research beneficiaries.
30
The Canadian
Institutes of Health Research led the world in integrating sex and
gender in research as variables to reduce sex and gender bias among
research beneficiaries.
30
From 2021, the European Commission will
require all public bodies applying to Horizon Europe—the European
flagship €81bn research and innovation funding programme—to
have gender equality action plans.
31
More funders should assume
the role of critical actor in trialling policy interventions and funding
incentives for gender equity.
Evaluating interventions and incentives
Given the compelling case for gender equity and a lack of conclusive
evidence on what works, for whom, and in what circumstances, we
recommend evaluating the effect of Athena SWAN longitudinally
using quasi-experimental designs, investigating any rare or
unintended consequences, and testing its efficacy for other
dimensions of diversity and inclusion. NIHR should consider the
pros and cons of term limits for research leaders: refreshing
leadership, encouraging innovation, and increasing diversity versus
introducing disruption and inhibiting the development of
expertise.
32
Finally, NIHR can experiment with the gender
composition of interview panels for research centre funding and
facilitate evaluation by including in non-blind applications leaders’
gender and previous leadership terms.
Key messages
•
Gender equity in research can contribute to social progress, scientific
workforce sustainability, and the quality of science
•
Research funders can be critical actors in advancing gender equity
through policy interventions and funding incentives
•
Linking NIHR funding to Athena SWAN gender equality action plans
has been associated with a rise in the number of women in mid-level
leadership positions and the proportion of funding going to women
•
More research funders should trial policy interventions and funding
incentives for women in science and evaluate their effect
Contributors and sources: PVO and MT conceived of the article. MT, MR, ST, JB, and REG participated
in data collection. JB and LE provided statistical analysis, PVO, MT, MR, REG, JB, GW, TG, and AMB all
participated in the drafting and reviewing of the article. PVO wrote the first draft of the manuscript,
provided the figures, and is the guarantor.
Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare
the following interests: PVO, JB, LE, and TG are supported by the National Institute for Health Research
(NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, grant BRC-1215-20008 to the Oxford University Hospitals
NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Oxford; PVO is a member of the NIHR advisory group on
equality, diversity, and inclusion; a member of the Advance HE Athena SWAN governance committee;
and a member of the Athena SWAN self-assessment team, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University
of Oxford. AMB was supported by the NIHR senior investigator award; MT serves on BMJ patient panel.
MT, MR, ST, and JH are employed by NIHR; REG is employed by Advance HE and works on Athena
SWAN charter. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS,
the NIHR, or the Department of Health.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
We thank Wafa El-Adhami, Karine Morin, Shirley M Malcom, Beth Ruedi, Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah.
1
Spokes Symonds A.
Also-rans: the injustice of history
. Robert Boyd Publications, 2014.
2
Dorothy Hodgkin: The only British woman to win a Nobel science prize gets a doodle.
Guardian
2014 May 12. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/12/google-doodle-honours-
biochemist-dorothy-hodgkin.
3
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Women in scientific careers. Sixth
report of session 2013-14. 2014. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cm-
sctech/701/701.pdf.
4
Equality Challenge Unit. Athena SWAN charter awards handbook. 2015. https://www.ecu.ac.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/ECU-Handbook-26.05.15-FINAL.pdf.
5
Soderquest K, Lord GM. Strategies for translational research in the United Kingdom.
Sci Transl
Med
2010;2:53cm28. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001129 pmid: 20944087
6
Gunashekar S, Wooding S, Guthrie S. How do NIHR peer review panels use bibliometric
information to support their decisions?
Scientometrics
2017;112:1813-35.
doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2417-8 pmid: 28804180
7
National Institute for Health Research. NIHR responds to the Government’s call for further reduction
in bureaucracy with new measures. 2020. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/nihr-responds-to-the-
governments-call-for-further-reduction-in-bureaucracy-with-new-measures/25633.
8
Edmunds LD, Ovseiko PV, Shepperd S, etal. Why do women choose or reject careers in academic
medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence.
Lancet
2016;388:2948-58.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01091-0 pmid: 27105721
9
Wennerås C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review.
Nature
1997;387:341-3.
doi: 10.1038/387341a0 pmid: 9163412
10
Mutz R, Bornmann L, Daniel HD. Does gender matter in grant peer review?: an empirical
investigation using the example of the Austrian Science Fund.
Z Psychol
2012;220:121-9.
doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000103 pmid: 23480982
11
Witteman HO, Hendricks M, Straus S, Tannenbaum C. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of
the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency.
Lancet
2019;393:531-40. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32611-4 pmid: 30739688
12
Helitzer DL, Newbill SL, Cardinali G, Morahan PS, Chang S, Magrane D. Changing the culture of
academic medicine: critical mass or critical actors?
J Women’s Health (Larchmt)
2017;26:540-8.
doi: 10.1089/jwh.2016.6019 pmid: 28092473
13
Kalpazidou Schmidt E, Ovseiko PV, Henderson LR, Kiparoglou V. Understanding the Athena
SWAN award scheme for gender equality as a complex social intervention in a complex system:
analysis of Silver award action plans in a comparative European perspective.
Health Res Policy
Syst
2020;18:19. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0527-x pmid: 32059678
14
Ovseiko PV, Chapple A, Edmunds LD, Ziebland S. Advancing gender equality through the Athena
SWAN charter for women in science: an exploratory study of women’s and men’s perceptions.
Health Res Policy Syst
2017;15:12. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0177-9 pmid: 28222735
15
Ovseiko PV, Pololi LH, Edmunds LD, etal. Creating a more supportive and inclusive university
culture: a mixed-methods interdisciplinary comparative analysis of medical and social sciences
at the University of Oxford.
Interdiscip Sci Rev
2019;44:166-91doi: 10.1080/03080188.2019.1603880 .
16
Graves A, Rowell A, Hunsicker E. An Impact Evaluation of the Athena SWAN Charter. 2019.
https://www.ecu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Athena-SWAN-Impact-Evaluation-2019.pdf.
17
Xiao Y, Pinkney E, Au TKF, Yip PSF. Athena SWAN and gender diversity: a UK-based retrospective
cohort study.
BMJ Open
2020;10:e032915. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032915 pmid: 32051310
18
Gregory-Smith I. Positive action towards gender equality: evidence from the Athena SWAN
charter in UK medical schools.
Br J Ind Relat
2018;56:463-83doi: 10.1111/bjir.12252
the bmj | BMJ 2020;371:m3975 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.m39754
ANALYSIS
on 30 October 2020 at Oxford University Consortia. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.m3975 on 26 October 2020. Downloaded from
19
Rosser SV, Barnard S, Carnes M, Munir F. Athena SWAN and ADVANCE: effectiveness and
lessons learned.
Lancet
2019;393:604-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33213-6 pmid: 30739697
20
Tzanakou C. Unintended consequences of gender-equality plans.
Nature
2019;570:277.
doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01904-1 pmid: 31213693
21
Caffrey L, Wyatt D, Fudge N, Mattingley H, Williamson C, McKevitt C. Gender equity programmes
in academic medicine: a realist evaluation approach to Athena SWAN processes.
BMJ Open
2016;6:e012090. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012090 pmid: 27609850
22
Bhopal K, Henderson H. Competing inequalities: gender versus race in higher education institutions
in the UK.
Educ Rev
2019:1-17.doi: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1642305
23
Fine C, Sojo V. Women’s value: beyond the business case for diversity and inclusion.
Lancet
2019;393:515-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30165-5 pmid: 30739677
24
Hong L, Page SE. Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability
problem solvers.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2004;101:16385-9.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0403723101 pmid: 15534225
25
Campbell LG, Mehtani S, Dozier ME, Rinehart J. Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce
higher quality science.
PLoS One
2013;8:e79147.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079147 pmid: 24205372
26
Smith-Doerr L.
Women’s work: gender equality vs. hierarchy in the life sciences.
Lynne Rienner,
2004.
27
van Rijnsoever FJ, Hessels LK. Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research
collaboration.
Res Policy
2011;40:463-72doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.001
28
Nielsen MW, Andersen JP, Schiebinger L, Schneider JW. One and a half million medical papers
reveal a link between author gender and attention to gender and sex analysis.
Nat Hum Behav
2017;1:791-6. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0235-x pmid: 31024130
29
Sugimoto CR, Ahn Y-Y, Smith E, Macaluso B, Larivière V. Factors affecting sex-related reporting
in medical research: a cross-disciplinary bibliometric analysis.
Lancet
2019;393:550-9.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32995-7 pmid: 30739690
30
Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M. Sex and gender equity in research: rationale
for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use.
Res Integr Peer Rev
2016;1:2.
doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6 pmid: 29451543
31
Kalpazidou Schmidt E, Ovseiko PV. Link Horizon Europe funding to real steps to gender equality.
Nature
2020;584:525. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02430-1 pmid: 32814915
32
Austin JP. Is academic medicine ready for term limits?
Acad Med
2020;95:180-3.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003020 pmid: 31577584
5the bmj | BMJ 2020;371:m3975 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3975
ANALYSIS
on 30 October 2020 at Oxford University Consortia. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.m3975 on 26 October 2020. Downloaded from
