The 2018-19 annual diversity report is the Academy's fifth annual report of diversity data, and the third published externally. We continue to work towards full data collection to support our wider aim of improving diversity across our work.
This report presents diversity data in the following areas: Governance; Fellowship; Grant schemes; Career development programmes; Policy; Corporate Affairs and Communications, and Human resources. Click on the tabs below to explore a top level summary, or download the full report on the side of this page.
Governance committees and advisory groups
- Data collection for gender is very good. Data collection for ethnicity is good. Data collection for disability is poor. Systems for collecting disability data from governance committees need to improve.
- Only one person of colour sat on any of the Academy’s core governance committees in 2018/19. There were 97 possible seats on the Academy’s core governance bodies over 2018-19, allowing for rotation. Only two of these seats were filled by a person of colour (one person, two years running).
- The Academy has strong female representation across its governance committees with 54% of people across all committees being women.
- Gender data collection for the Fellowship is very good. Ethnicity data collection for the Fellowship is good. Disability data collection for the Fellowship is poor.
- The Fellowship in total is 6% Black, Asian or from a minority ethnic group. [In 2017-18, 9.7% of UK Professors in science, technology and engineering were from these groups].
- Of the four Black Fellows the Academy has ever had, three were elected in 1998 as Founder Fellows. Of the 1129 other people elected through the normal Fellowship election process over the past 20 years, only one person is Black. The Fellowship remains less than 0.2% Black. [In 2017-18, in the fields of science, engineering and technology, there are 40 Black people at professorial level in UK higher education institutions.]
- Less than 1 in 5 Fellows are female (19%). [In 2017-18, 21.3% of UK Professors in science, technology and engineering were female]. There was a reduction in new female candidates for 2018/19 (29%, down from 33% in 2017-18).
- Data collection across grants schemes is very good.
- Across all grants, there are no significant differences in success rates of women and men when applying for funding
- To better understand the challenges of recruiting diverse grants panels we should start to collect data on those invited to sit on panels as well as those who agree to sit on the panel.
- Across all UK grants for which we hold disability data (dating back to 2017), the success rate for applicants who declare a disability is 16% (7 out of 37), and the success rate for applicants who declare they do not have a disability is 31% (416 out of 1761). This difference is not statistically significantly different and currently it is not possible to tell whether the difference in success rates is an artefact of small numbers of disabled applicants or a real reflection of their likelihood of success. This should continue to be monitored.
- The grants which have more complete data collection for ethnicity suggest disparities in representation between white researchers and researchers of colour. The numbers are small, but these disparities continue in success rates - mirroring recent data releases from UKRI and Wellcome. We will be working with our colleagues across the sector to understand this further.
Career development programmes
- Data collection across career development programmes is generally good.
- Across the careers committees, competition judges, event speakers and programme participants, 10% were from Black, Asian or from a minority ethnic group backgrounds. However breaking this figure down shows that none of these people were Black.
- For the second year running, only four out of 25 areas are flagged as falling below the Academy’s 35% red flag for female representation across all the Academy careers programmes: a substantial achievement given the size and scale of the programmes.
- There are data gaps across the Academy’s policy work. There is no ethnicity or disability data for more than 70% of people on the Academy’s UK focussed policy decision-making committees and no formal diversity data collected for ethnicity and disability across almost all policy event attendees and speakers. Diversity analysis of the Academy’s policy work is therefore limited. We will be focussing on improving our processes to ensure regular and consistent collection in our policy work to significantly improve the data for next year’s data analysis.
- However, there is good data collection and good represenation of people from Black, Asian or minority ethnic groups in the Academy’s internationally focussed policy decision-making committees (34%, including 14% Black).
- The proportions of male and female speakers and attendees across all policy work are gender balanced (speakers: 55% male, 45% female; attendees: 48% male, 52% female).
Communications and Corporate Affairs
- Data collection for gender in this area is good. Data collection for ethnicity varies greatly within this area. Data collection for disability is poor. Formal ethnicity and disability data collection for media work needs to improve.
- Attendees across all corporate events are roughly gender balanced (42% female, 45% male, 2% PNS and 10% data not collected).
- 15% of speakers at corporate events during this time period were Black, Asian or from a minority ethnic group. None were Black.
- For the first time in three years, there was not a disparity in applicant success rate for jobs at the Academy by ethnicity which is promising. Staff are 16% Black, Asian or from a minority ethnic group.
- Women are just under two thirds of Academy staff. The Academy gets more job applications from women than from men. There is no significant difference in success rates for job by gender over the past
- This was the first year we have collected data on sexual orientation and gender identity among staff. 10% of staff are LGBTQ+. (Note: LGBTQ stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer. The + is often added at the end to encompass people who identify as Asexual, Intersex or who are questioning their sexuality.) 4% of staff preferred not to say.
- Diversity data for interns across all areas is not currently collected in a systematic way and this needs to improve.