The Women’s Equality Party will struggle to win seats, but it can push women’s issues up the political agenda


Interesting analysis from Kimberly Cowell-Meyers on the potential impact of the Women’s Equality Party.

Originally posted on UK PSA Women & Politics Specialist Group:

The Women’s Equality Party was founded earlier this year with the aim of promoting gender equality for the benefit of all. But what are its long term political prospects, and what hopes does it have of influencing those parties more likely to hold office? Kimberly Cowell-Meyers argues that while it may struggle to make an impact in an electoral sense, it may be able to use its significant media savvy – as evidenced by the presence of people like Catherine Mayer and Sandi Toksvig in its upper echelons – to push women’s issues up the political agenda.

This blog was originally posted on Democratic Audit UK.

The TV host and WEP leading light Sandi Toksvig (Credit: CC BY 2.0)

When the UK’s new Women’s Equality Party released its party manifesto last week, at least one article about the party appeared in almost every mainstream newspaper in the UK with The Independent running six separate pieces and The Guardian four.  Even The Mirror and 

View original 1,115 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Devolving abortion law: a positive step or cause for concern?

With powers over abortion legislation set to be devolved to Holyrood, Jennifer Thomson asks whether this presents an opportunity or a potential setback for women’s rights in Scotland.

mage © Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body – 2012. Licensed under the Open Scottish Parliament Licence v1.0

mage © Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body – 2012. Licensed under the Open Scottish Parliament Licence v1.0

Powers over abortion are set to be devolved from Westminster to Edinburgh. The news, breaking last week, was surprising, given that there had been little intimation from national government that this was to happen, and little encouragement to devolve this issue from any of the Scottish parties. Scotland is not the first of the devolved regions to be allowed to decide on this issue separately from central government. The 1967 Abortion Act, which continues to allow for legal terminations in England, Scotland and Wales, has never been extended to Northern Ireland, and the procedure there continues to be strictly prohibited.

Yet the unexpected decision to move this issue from central government to the Scottish Parliament raises several key political questions. What does this decision by Westminster tell us about the gendered nature of devolution in the contemporary UK? Should feminists and women’s civil society in Scotland be worried that this move might rally calls for more conservative legislation north of the border? Or does this allow what is already a very feminised political sphere in Scotland a chance to further reiterate its commitment to women’s rights and introduce more liberal laws?

Devolution of abortion laws: a potential positive movement for women’s rights?

Feminists have long pointed out fundamental problems with the 1967 Abortion Act. Unlike in some other jurisdictions (most of the Nordic countries and South Africa for example), abortion is not available in the UK at the woman’s request. Doctors remain gatekeepers to the procedure. Although evidence of medical professionals refusing to refer women for terminations is rare, legally women still require the permission of not one, but two doctors, before they may have an abortion. Whilst nurses and midwives are now allowed to play a key role in providing services, overall control of the procedure still remains with doctors. Women having terminations via medical rather than surgical procedure (the so-called ‘abortion pill’) have to do so in medical facilities, rather than their own home, despite the relative safety of such medication, and the inconvenience caused.

Devolving abortion to Scotland potentially allows the country to address some of these issues. In the increasingly feminised environment of Scottish politics (with three major parties lead by women, a consciously feminist First Minister, and a gender equal Cabinet) it is difficult to imagine Edinburgh taking a conservative line on such a hot-button women’s issue. Instead, it might be possible that Scotland move towards a more liberal position such as that of Canada, where abortion is removed from the criminal code entirely, or for restrictions around the ‘abortion pill’ and the role of nurses and midwives to be loosened. Indeed, one SNP MP has declared that “I want this power not just because I want all powers to come to Scotland but I want to improve and protect a woman’s right to choose and to access quality healthcare.” A motion affirming women’s rights to reproductive healthcare has already been tabled in the Scottish Parliament by the co-convenor of the Scottish Greens, and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service have urged Scottish parliamentarians to use this as an opportunity for positive change.

Even if more liberal laws are not created as a result of this move, at one level, this suggests a normalisation of political attitudes around abortion. As Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell said “there is no reason why the Scottish parliament should not be able to decide an issue of this significance because it has demonstrated its ability to do so on numerous other significant issues.” From this line of reasoning, abortion is part of wider reproductive healthcare – why shouldn’t it be devolved like anything else which concerns the NHS? From the perspective of women’s rights, this can be read as a positive decision, treating abortion as a normal policy issue and as part of the broader spectrum of healthcare.

The Northern Irish case: cause for concern in Scotland?

However, turning to the one part of the United Kingdom where abortion laws were previously devolved, the result has not been positive. Northern Ireland has never been covered by the 1967 Abortion Act. As such, terminations are incredibly restricted, legal only where there is serious, long-term threat to the life or health of the women involved. Even in cases of fatal foetal abnormality, where the pregnancy will likely not go full term, or the baby will die shortly after birth, terminations are still not allowed.

Political movements to encourage liberalisation of these strict abortion laws have been all but non-existent, with the issue instead encouraging unusual links across Northern Ireland’s divided politics. Furthermore, devolution in this case has opened up a regional space which allows for religious and pro-life forces to mobilise against liberalising change. Pro-life organisations in Northern Ireland are incredibly well organised, with key links to influential politicians and sizeable funding. Precious Life, the main pro-life lobbying organisation in the province, organise daily protests outside both the Family Planning Association and the Marie Stopes clinics in central Belfast. In addition to this, they have also recently opened a competing ‘pro-life’ healthcare facility, conveniently located between the two clinics.

The particular blend of religion and politics that is enjoyed in Northern Ireland remains largely unique to the province in comparison to the rest of the UK. It seems unlikely that similar scenes will occur in Scotland. Yet by devolving this legislation, a new space for potential change is opened up, and the pro-life movement may find room for manoeuvre. Alex Salmond, former First Minister and current MP, is on record as supporting a lower time limit for abortions. A Motion in the Scottish Parliament has already been proposed to discuss in part “the fundamental rights of babies to be protected both before and after birth”. Conservative forces are as able to use this legislative movement as more liberal voices.

What is abortion an issue of?

Regardless of what direction (if any) abortion policy in Scotland is now taken, a more fundamental question needs to be asked: why remove control around abortion from central government in the first place?

In the case of Northern Ireland, the perceived different sensibilities around this issue have long been used to justify difference around this issue. Equally, politicians continually refer to the issue as one of the few points of unity in the region’s divided politics, and the cross-party nature of several attempts to greater restrict abortion in the province reflects this. Repeatedly Westminster politicians (both Northern Irish and from the rest of the UK) have argued that the people of Northern Ireland feel differently about abortion, and that the democratic will of the Northern Irish people in this regard should be respected. Such political statements remain very much out of line with contemporary survey data from the province, which suggests strong support for liberalisation.

Not only does this difference of opinion argument appear to be lacking in the Scottish case, but why is it considered valid in the first place? Why should opinion, rather than evidence, play such a role here? Why is abortion not considered a fundamental aspect of sexual and reproductive healthcare, and part of the individual’s basic right to bodily autonomy?

Attempts to establish abortion within a rights discourse have continually suffered difficulties, in many different locales. The UK is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and is examined every four years by its Committee. The CEDAW Committee have repeatedly raised the issue of the discrepancy in abortion law with regards to Northern Ireland, but this has excited little interest from Westminster. As part of the 2013 examination, where the Committee urged the UK once again to expedite the decriminalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland, central government response was brief: “There are no plans to change the law on abortion in Northern Ireland.” Using a human rights based argument to force movement on the issue of abortion has gained little ground.

Without the backing of central government, or a strong rights based argument underlying the discourse around the issue, abortion laws do appear vulnerable to change. At present, it is difficult to tell which direction (if any) Scotland might move in. A new arena for conservative challenges to women’s rights has been made available, however, and opposing views on the matter are already making themselves known. Women’s rights activists and politicians must be vigilant.

Jennifer Thomson is a PhD candidate in Politics and International Relations at Queen Mary, University of London.

Posted in gender politics, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Has the Tide Turned for Women’s Representation in Scotland?

Scotland has a female First Minister, who competes in Holyrood with a female Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, as well as a female leader of the Scottish Conservatives. While this should be welcomed, we should not assume that the problem of women’s under representation is solved for good, and instead look at what statutory measures could do to achieve lasting positive change, argue Meryl KennyFiona Mackay, and Cera Murtagh.

Credit: Ninian Reid, CC BY 2.0

The past year has heralded a series of ‘firsts’ for women in Scottish politics – including the election of Nicola Sturgeon as the first female First Minister in November of last year, followed by the announcement that her Cabinet would be 50/50 women and men. One year later, the three largest parties in the Scottish Parliament are all led by women, – including not only Sturgeon, but also Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, and Kezia Dugdale, the newly elected leader of Scottish Labour. The Scottish Green Party also has a gender-balanced convenor team of Patrick Harvie and Maggie Chapman.

This ‘female face’ of political leadership in Scotland provides a powerful image of an apparent breakthrough on women’s representation, pointing to a potential shattering of the political glass ceiling and the apparent normalisation of equal sharing of executive power.

Yet, we need to place these achievements within a broader context. Women continue to be under-represented at all political levels in Scotland – men are 76% of local councillors; 83% of Scottish MEPs, and 66% of MSPs and Scottish MPs. Meanwhile, those gains that have been made on women’s representation thus far have been achieved more by accident than by design. Thus, while the upcoming 2016 Scottish Parliament elections may well prove to be a step change for women’s representation in Scotland, the 50/50 mark still appears some way beyond reach.

Trends in Women’s Representation in Scotland

 What explains women’s continuing under-representation in Scottish politics? The research evidence in Scotland and the UK is clear, highlighting the key role of political parties as the central ‘gatekeepers’ to political office. When parties have adopted measures aimed at promoting women’s representation – including gender quotas – the proportion of women in politics has increased.

We can see the effects of these measures in the first elections to the Scottish Parliament in 1999, where just over 37% of MSPs elected were women. These numbers were the result of Scottish Labour’s use of formal gender quotas – in the form of a mechanism called ‘twinning’ for constituency seats and gender balancing on the regional lists – as well as informal measures adopted by the SNP, including favourable placement for women candidates on the regional lists.

Over time, however, the numbers of women in the Scottish Parliament have stalled or fallen, and progress at other levels has been slow, raising questions as to whether equal representation was still on the political agenda. The use of gender quotas by political parties has been largely one-sided to date, and there has been little sign, until recently, that quotas have ‘caught on’ in Scottish politics, either across political parties or different political levels. In 2003, the percentage of women in the Scottish Parliament almost reached the 40% threshold – more than twelve years on, this remains the ‘high tide’ of women’s representation in Scotland at any level.

Women’s representation: catching on in 2016?

 The 2014 independence referendum and the 2015 General Election have shifted the political contours of Scotland, while also signalling a potential step change in debates over women’s voice and place in political life. Having women in the ‘top jobs’ has certainly made a difference – Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale is a co-founder of Women 5050, and has pledged that half of the party’s new candidates for the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections will be women. Nicola Sturgeon, meanwhile, has pushed for the SNP to adopt quota measures, including all-women shortlists, and has also publicly supported the Women 5050 campaign.

Scottish politics is also changing from the bottom up, including a surge in political engagement and grassroots activism during and after the referendum. All the pro-independence parties have seen their membership soar post referendum and this is likely to impact on the outcome of the 2016 elections.What do the numbers look like so far? At time of writing, many selections have yet to be completed. However, preliminary analysis of those selections finalised so far suggests that women’s representation is starting to ‘catch on’ again as a matter of party competition and that gender quotas are back on the political agenda.

Yet, we can also see significant disparities between parties in terms of the numbers of women they have selected and are likely to elect. Turning first to the SNP, which is on course for a landslide victory at Holyrood, women make up 30 out of 73 constituency candidates (41%). This represents a substantial increase from 2011 (up from 29%), and reflects the party’s implementation, for the first time, of strong gender quota measures in the form of all-women shortlists (AWS) in constituencies with retiring incumbent SNP MSPs. In the run-up to the 2016 elections, AWS have been implemented in nine seats with an incumbent SNP MSP stepping down; six of these retiring MSPs are male and three are female. The party also voted in favour of ‘softer’ gender-balancing measures, including the aim that in any constituency in which more than one candidate is nominated, at least one candidate must be a woman – although this measure does not appear to have been applied in all cases.

The SNP’s numbers are particularly significant given that they have been achieved in the context of fierce intra-party competition for constituency seats as a result of the party’s electoral success and rising membership. In a new trend for the SNP, this has seen a number of incumbent SNP MSPs challenged in internal selection processes, a number of whom were subsequently de-selected (including Nigel Don in Angus North and Colin Keir in Edinburgh Western). Given the overwhelming success of the SNP in 2011 and its projected advancement in 2016, plus the high level of incumbency in the party, this marks the last chance in the foreseeable future for the party to bring a significant number of new faces to its benches and, thus, make a real dent in its gender imbalance.

Turning to Labour, 41% of the party’s constituency candidates thus far are women (though, at time of writing, most of the party’s selections have not yet been completed). The party has taken steps to meet its pledge that 50% of its new candidates will be women – announcing, for example, that AWS will be implemented in the seat of Greenock and Inverclyde, where incumbent Labour MSP Duncan McNeil is stepping down. However, with polls predicting that Labour will win few constituency seats, the regional lists will be the main arena for internal party competition. With list selections not due to take place until January 2016, it remains to be seen as to how this 50/50 policy will be applied on the lists and how the all-important ranking of candidates will be conducted.

For all of the parties, what matters is not only how many women they select overall, but also whether these women actually have a change of winning. Our research found clear gendered patterns of candidate placement in previous Scottish Parliament elections, with women candidates, for example, generally placed in lower positions on party lists. At time of writing, the SNP, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Greens have completed their regional list selections for Holyrood. For all three parties, 50% or more of the top three positions on the eight regional lists are occupied by women.

There are significant differences, though, in how these numbers shake out in practice – for the Greens and the SNP, a woman tops four out of eight lists (50%), while only one of the Liberal Democrats’ eight lists is topped by a woman (and this is not a list that the party won seats through in 2011). Controversially, the Lib Dems have effectively de-selected their only female MSP Alison McInnes, by ranking her second on the North East Scotland list behind former MSP Mike Rumbles, whose stance on domestic violence has drawn significant criticism. In response to these developments, party leader Willie Rennie has announced that he will put forward proposals for gender equality measures to the 2016 spring conference – though the question is whether this is ‘too little, too late’ for a party that continually raises the possibility of gender quotas, only to fail to follow through, and that (after 2016) will likely be men-only both north and south of the border.

Meanwhile, for the Conservatives, women make up only 15% of the constituency candidates selected thus far. The party has not yet completed its list selections, but, as candidates cannot stand solely on the list without also contesting a constituency seat, the lists are set to reflect the same proportions. The placement of women candidates on these lists is therefore critical.

Beyond a matter for parties?

The 2016 Scottish Parliament elections mark an exciting time for gender equality in Scottish politics. The past year has ushered in change from the top down, through party rules, and the bottom up, through the civic awakening that accompanied the referendum. This groundswell of political engagement, funnelled through new campaign groups and, more recently, party membership, has empowered many ordinary citizens, including women. Indeed, the shift has seen many women make the transition from ‘small p’ to ‘big P’ Politics, with several members of Women for Independence so far selected as candidates to contest the 2016 elections – including six constituency candidates for the SNP and four list candidates for the Greens (at time of writing) – raising the possibility of a cross-party women’s caucus in the fifth parliament.

Experience has shown, however, that such gains should not be taken for granted or seen as irreversible. Analysis of the candidate selections so far already points to uneven performance between the parties in terms of women’s representation, and, even for those parties that have implemented gender quotas, there is significant room for manoeuvre in how they interpret and enforce the rules.

If gender equality is something we take seriously as a society it can no longer be left to the discretion of political parties. For real and lasting progress, warm words must be backed up with statutory measures to embed equality in our political institutions. And now is the time.

This blog was originally posted on Democratic Audit Scotland.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Gender and the Independence Referendum, #GE2015, Brexit, and beyond

How do women engage differently in referenda and elections? And why does this matter? These were some of the questions explored at Feminizing Politics ESRC Seminar in Edinburgh last month on ‘Voice: Women, the Independence Referendum 2015, and the General Election 2015’. Cera Murtagh (University of Edinburgh) reports.


The UK sits at a critical juncture, with the future of the state, its borders and its external relations, far from settled. In 2014, a referendum was held to decide on Scottish independence; in 2017 another will determine whether the UK remains within the European Union. Meanwhile, the 2015 General Election saw some fundamental shifts with implications for the country’s political and constitutional future. The ballot box stands central to these outcomes. And gender matters in that debate.

Elections and referenda in the UK, and what they mean for women, were the agenda of the second seminar in the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) series Feminizing Politics and Power in the UK: Access, Voice and Accountability. The roundtable event, organised by Professor Fiona Mackay and Dr Meryl Kenny at the University of Edinburgh, brought together experts from across the UK to discuss the gender implications of the independence referendum, the EU referendum, the 2015 General Election and the 2016 devolved elections. Looking back, forward and, indeed, beyond the UK’s shores, researchers and practitioners reflected on the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead for women’s engagement in referenda and elections, and on the lessons that can be learned.

Kicking off discussion on the 2014 independence referendum, Professor Ailsa Henderson presented findings from the ESRC Scottish Referendum Study. Addressing the much-debated ‘gender gap’, in which women were statistically more likely to vote No, the study tried to unpick the factors that lay behind this difference and, in particular, whether it could be explained by higher risk aversion amongst women voters. 43% of female respondents supported a Yes vote, compared to 53% amongst male respondents. Despite speculation by certain commentators, however, Professor Henderson’s study did not find consistent evidence that lower support for independence amongst women was linked to risk.

Amongst a host of other interesting findings, the Scottish Referendum Study revealed that Yes voters were about twice as likely as No voters to remain politically engaged after the referendum, with little difference between men and women on this score.

Moving to the approaching ‘Brexit’ vote, Professor Yvonne Galligan of Queens University Belfast provided a comparative overview of referenda. Underlining the importance of the 2017 poll, Professor Galligan pointed out that, despite numerous EU-related referenda since its formation, this will be the first time voters have been given the choice of whether to stay or leave the Union. Gender gaps commonly emerge in referenda, in terms of positioning and perceived knowledge of the issues, she told participants, and these gaps can be exploited by the campaigns. For this reason gender differences matter and should be a key focus for strategists and information campaigns.

As the discussion opened to the floor, participants broached the question of engagement: how might women be engaged in the Brexit debate? Invoking the UK’s recent experience with referenda, Rachel Ormston from Natcen questioned whether the pattern was more likely to resemble the vibrant engagement of the 2014 ‘indyref’ or the non-starter effect of the 2010 Alternative Vote poll. Voices around the table echoed these concerns: the independence campaign resonated with women and opened up civic spaces that felt empowering – something the Brexit campaign so far shows little signs of emulating.

Dr Roberta Guerrina from the University of Surrey also pointed to a lack of knowledge amongst voters in general about the role of the EU, in areas like employment equality. This knowledge deficit could see disappointing levels of engagement and turnout, she warned.

Tracking engagement in the cybersphere, Professor Laura Cram from the University of Edinburgh reported on her research of political activity on Twitter. The study has found minimal engagement on EU-related issues by Twitter users and a vast difference in the ways men and women engage with political issues. While more women than men tweet, about three quarters of tweets related to politics are posted by men.

In order to tackle this engagement problem, Professor Joni Lovenduski of Birkbeck called for the Brexit campaign to embrace big ideas that capture the public imagination. Likewise, Professor Galligan predicted that the campaigns will ultimately come down to fundamental questions of values. While Brexit has so far been dominated by England, she added, opportunities exist for the devolved nations to develop distinct campaigns that are meaningful in those contexts.

Turning to elections, Dr Rosie Campbell from Birkbeck and Dr Peter Allen from Queen Mary University of London presented an analysis of the role played by sex and gender in the 2015 General Election. Women featured more prominently in the media coverage of the 2015 campaign, compared to 2010, they reported. Amongst other results, the study found female respondents to be more favourable than their male counterparts towards female party leaders, but also towards (then) Labour Leader Ed Milliband and Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg.

Looking ahead, panellists reflected on how these events might shape the upcoming devolved elections in May 2016. Reporting on developments in Wales, Professor Laura McAllister from the University of Liverpool raised the issue of female leadership and whether descriptive representation is having a discernible impact on policy and culture in the Welsh Assembly.

Meanwhile, Professor Galligan noted that Northern Ireland remains an outlier in terms of its low rate of women’s representation, with women making up only 24% of candidates in the General Election this year. Nevertheless, there are signs of a contagion effect from the Republic of Ireland and mainland UK, with public demand for gender equality on the rise.

Closer to home, Juliet Swann from the Electoral Reform Society and the University of Edinburgh’s Professor James Mitchell sketched out the trends emerging ahead of the Holyrood elections. Gender quotas are back on the agenda in Scotland, the room heard, recently embraced by the Scottish National Party (SNP) and continuing to be adopted by the Scottish Labour Party. And, given the projected success of the SNP in the coming polls, Juliet Swann underlined the importance of the party’s candidate selections for securing a gender balanced outcome. She also noted that the clear-out of Labour MPs in Scotland in May leaves almost all seats up for grabs in 2020 – a clear opportunity for the party to put forward a gender equal slate of candidates.

Professor Mitchell commented on the opportunity the independence referendum had offered newly-engaged women activists to stand for the SNP in the 2015 General Election. While drawing attention to advances in gender equality north of the border however, he also pointed to the fact that women’s representation continues to lag at local level.

Drawing the debate to a close, Professor Lovenduski and Professor Sarah Childs (Principal Investigator) of the University of Bristol summed up the core themes of the day. Amongst other thoughts, participants were left with the question of whether substantive representation is taking a significant stride forward in the UK, as feminist views become part of mainstream political debate. The roundtable parted with a call for action, for a comprehensive audit of gender politics in the UK.

The seminar was co-hosted by the ESRC Centre on Constitutional Change
at the University of Edinburgh. The next in the ESRC seminar series Feminizing Politics and Power in the UK: Access, Voice and Accountability will be held at Birkbeck, University of London on 13-14 January 2016. Follow along at #esrcfempol.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Gender Quotas and the Myth of ‘Merit’

Originally posted on Women 50:50:

Dr. Meryl Kenny, University of Edinburgh 

Bring up the topic of gender quotas and you will face a barrage of well-worn criticisms – they are undemocratic, they discriminate against men, they promote ‘token’ women, and so on. Those who oppose quotas will often claim that of course they would like to see more women in politics, but they would prefer that candidates for political office be chosen on the basis of ‘merit’.  This, they will tell you, is about fairness and objectivity – one should always (to paraphrase Yes Minister) strive to appoint the ‘best man for the job, regardless of sex.’

The underlying assumption here is, of course, that women have less ‘merit’ than men – in other words, that quotas promote inexperienced and unqualified women at the expense of their more meritorious male counterparts. But, there is very little research evidence (either in the UK or…

View original 474 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

In Defence of Lovenduskianism

Originally posted on UK PSA Women & Politics Specialist Group:


Rosie Campbell, Meryl Kenny and Fiona Mackay

In a recent post on the PSA Women and Politics Group’s blog, Jonathan Dean reflects on the June 2015 European Conference on Politics and Gender, as well as the state of gender and politics scholarship more broadly. Dean argues that the conference has made visible a number of struggles within the gender politics community and suggests that the core tension lies between those ‘Lovenduskian’ scholars interested in ‘feminising politics’ versus those who are interested in ‘politicising gender’. The first strand, he argues, considers the gender dynamics of political institutions to be the core area of study for the sub-discipline, whilst the second views the subject of gender itself to be a political project.

We welcome this call for dialogue between the diverse strands of gender and politics scholarship. However (in the spirit of this dialogue), Dean’s musings on the ECPG…

View original 1,371 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Gender & Early Career Researcher REF Gaps

Originally posted on Stephen R. Bates:

by Fran Amery, Stephen Bates and Steve McKay

Men in psychology, economics and biology are so good at research that 29-30% achieved 4* outputs in the last Research Exercise Framework (REF). Women in theology; anthropology & development studies; sociology; aeronautical, mechanical, chemical and manufacturing engineering; civil and construction engineering; agriculture, veterinary and food science (and men in art & design) are perhaps not so impressive: only 13-14% achieved 4* outputs in these units of assessment (UoA). Overall, 22% of men and 19% of women submitted to the REF produced 4* outputs. These apparent differences in purported research quality were highlighted in one of the supplementary reports accompanying the recent metrics review by HEFCE, The Metric Tide*.

View original 494 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment