(incorporating Equality Information for publication under ...
Equality Information Report 2021
Transcript of Equality Information Report 2021
1
Equality Information Report 2021
3.2% of employees in
the highest positions
in Professional
Services are BAME
27.1% of Professors are
women as opposed to
49.1% in the highest
Professional Services
grades
65.5% of employees
disclosed their religion and
out of these 49% said that
they do not have any
religion or belief
6.3% of employees
disclosed that they
are disabled
29.9% of students who
started in 2020/21 came
from overseas and 7.6%
came from EU countries
32.5% of UK Domiciled
Undergraduate students, 26.3% of
Postgraduate Taught and 15.1% of
Postgraduate Research students
who started their studies in
2020/21 were ethnic minorities
2
Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………4
Staff Equality Information……………………………………………………….5
Age…………………………………………………………………………………………….7
Disability ………………………………………………………………………………….10
Ethnicity……………………………………………………………………………………13
Gender……………………………………………………………………………………..20
Recruitment…………………………......................................................25
Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Religion…………………….27
Nationality………………………………………………………………………………..32
Student Equality Information…………………………………………………34
Age…………………………………………………………………………………………..35
Disability…………………………………………………………………………………..36
Ethnicity……………………………………………………………………………………38
Domicile……………………………………………………………………………………39
Gender……………………………….…………………………………………………….40
Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Religion........................41
Postgraduate…………………………………………………………………………….43
3
Foreword
Equality, diversity and inclusion are central to our University vision and strategy.
Diversity is a huge strength of our institution and a source of great pride.
However, we acknowledge that we must continually work hard to ensure we
tackle all forms of discrimination and guarantee all staff and students are given
opportunities to thrive. We have made progress, demonstrated through the
achievement of Athena SWAN awards which recognises commitment to the
career advancement of women; the Race Equality Charter Mark award which
aims to improve the representation, progression and success of minority ethnic
staff and students within higher education; and recognition from Stonewall for
creating an inclusive workplace as a top 100 employer for LGBT colleagues - but
we are also aware that there is still much to do. We will continue to embed our
commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion across all our processes and this
report is a great example of our continued work in this area
Professor Nalin Thakkar
Vice-President Social Responsibility
4
Introduction
The University of Manchester is one of Britain’s largest single site universities.
We employ over 11,000 staff and educate approximately 40,000 students. The
University is committed to promoting equality and providing an environment
where all members of its community are treated with respect and dignity. We
are proud to strive to employ a workforce and educate a student body that
reflects the diverse community we serve.
As a Higher Education Institution we have specific equality duties, as outlined by
The Equality Act (2010). These require public authorities to tackle
discrimination, victimisation and harassment, advance equality and foster good
relations. It is also our responsibility to publish our equality information on an
annual basis, and review and publish specific and measurable equality objectives
every 4 years.
University of Manchester Equality Objectives 2016 – 2020
1. Improve the representation of women and black and minority ethnic
(BME) staff in senior leadership, academic and professional support
positions.
2. Take action to further understand and improve the experience of
disabled staff as indicated in the staff survey.
3. Take action to further understand and address any differential outcomes
of undergraduate students in relation to access, retention, attainment
and progression to a positive graduate destination in relation to
disability, ethnicity, gender and socio-economic status.
4. Take action to understand and address any inequalities for researchers.
5. To better understand the challenges, obstacles and barriers faced by
different groups at the University and to foster good relations between
people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do
not share it.
6. Better understand the potential impact of University functions on
certain groups by improving disclosure rates and reporting mechanisms
for age, disability, ethnicity, caring responsibilities, religion or belief
(including lack of belief) sexual orientation and gender reassignment.
5
Staff Equality Information: Key Findings Age: The age of staff at the University has increased since 2018- the proportion of employees
within ‘36 to 45’ age range increased year on year. 29.9% of all staff at the University in 2020
were within 36 to 45 bracket- an increase of 0.3% since 2018 (see Figure 1, p.7). The data
from 2020 shows that Professional Services (PS) staff and part-time staff are older than
academic and full time staff (see Figure 2 and Figure 3, pp.7-8).
Disability: 6.3% of staff at the University have disclosed their disability status on their staff
record (see Figure 7, p.10). The proportion of disabled staff working at the University started
increasing since 2016 (see Figure 11, p.12). The most prevalent disability type declared by
staff, accounting for 23.8% of all disabilities, is a long standing illness or health condition such
as cancer, HIV, diabetes, chronic heart disease, or epilepsy (see Figure 8, p.11).
Ethnicity: There has been a 3.3% increase in BAME staff across the university since 2016 up
to 16.9% in 2020. 21.2% of academic staff and 13.4% of Professional Services staff are BAME
(see Figure 17, p.15). The largest represented ethnic group is Asian accounting for 58.4% of
all BAME staff (see Figure 13, p.13). 39.8% of BAME staff are from overseas and 5.1% from EU
countries.
Gender: The percentage of female staff at the University increased by 1% between 2016 and
2020 up to 50.5% (Figure 28, p.21). 42.4% of academics are females as opposed to 57.2% of
PS staff. There is a difference in representation of females at the highest level for seniority
between academic and PS staff: 27.1% of Professors and 37.1% of Senior Lecturers/Readers
are females (see Figure 29, p.21); in comparison there is much higher proportion of females
at the highest positions in PS: 49.1% of Grade 8/9 and 53.5% of Grade 7 PS staff are females
respectively (see Figure 30, p.22).
Recruitment: Only 35.5% of applications for core academic positions were sent by females
and 46.9% by BAME Candidates in the period studied. Only 29.2% of applications for PS (both
Faculty-based and central) were sent by BAME candidates and only 0.9% of BAME applications
were successful in comparison to 2.4% of White candidates’ applications (see recruitment
tables, pp.25-26).
Promotions: In all core academic promotions, females are more successful than Males, but
are less likely to apply for a promotion. BAME candidates are less likely to be successful than
White candidates in promotion applications to all roles but are more likely to apply than
White candidates (see promotion section for Gender, p.23 and Ethnicity, p.16).
Leavers: Overall the percentage of female and BAME staff leaving the University in the past
year has increased by 3.4% (see Figure 34, p.24) and 2.9% (see Figure 23, p.18) respectively.
On further analysis it was determined that the increase is driven by fixed term contracts
ending as turnover rates for BAME PS and Academics on permanent contracts were stable
between 2017 and 2020 (see Figure 24, p.19).
Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Religion: 65.2% of employees of the University
responded to question about sexual orientation and religion. Response rates to questions
about sexual orientation and religion increased between 2017 and 2020 (pp.27-31).
6
Internationalisation: The University of Manchester has more than 2000 members of staff
who declared nationality different than ‘British’. This group comes from more than 100
different countries. China, Italy and Germany top 3 countries of origin of University’s
international staff (see international section and the Map, pp.32-33).
Methodology
Data of current staff in this report relates to the 2019/20 academic year and has come from
the Annual Performance Review dataset produced by the Human Resources Systems Team.
The data is current and up to date as of 31st July 2020 and has been analysed by the Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion team. Data related to Recruitment is taken from Job train/Yellowfin
system and data related to Academic promotions is collected by Human Resource partners.
Throughout this report the data is split by Academic staff and Professional Support Services
(PS) staff. Academic staff are split by Professor, Senior Lecturer, Reader and Lecturer.
Research staff include Researchers, Research Fellows and Senior Research Fellows. When the
term ‘Academic’ is used in this report it groups together both Academic and Research Staff.
PS staff are in a range of roles such as administration and technical roles.
7
Age
4.1%
25.7% 29.5%23.7%
14.7%
2.2%
4.3%
25.6%
29.6%
23.6%
14.5%
2.3%4.1%
24.6%
29.9%
23.7%
15.3%
2.5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
25 or less 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 56 to 65 66 and above
Figure 1: All Staff by Age
2018 2019 2020
4.6%
27.9%
28.5%23.9%
14.0%
1.1%2.2%
13.3%
34.6%
22.9%
19.6%
7.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
25 or less 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 56 to 65 66 and above
Figure 2: Full-Time and Part-Time Staff by Age 2020
Full-Time Part-Time
The university has a wide range of ages of staff, with most staff at the University being aged from 36 to 45 (29.9%-
see Figure 1). Full time staff as well as part time staff at the University tend to be aged from 36 to 35 (Figure 2).
Both, most Academic and PS staff ages show most academics are aged between 36 and 45 years old (Figure 3).
8
0.7%
28.5%30.6%
22.5%
14.4%
3.3%
6.8%
21.4%
29.2%
24.7%
16.0%
1.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
25 or less 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 56 to 65 66 and above
Figure 3: Academics and PS Staff by Age 2020
Academics Professional Services
88.1%
87.8%
73.9%
78.2%
71.1%
33.8%
11.9%
12.2%
26.1%
21.8%
28.9%
66.2%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
25 or less
26 to 35
36 to 45
46 to 55
56 to 65
66 and above
Figure 4: All Staff by Age, 2020
Full-Time Part-Time
The percentage of staff working full-time at the University increases as age decreases, with the exception of the
age bracket 36-45 (Figure 4). Staff of age 25 or less are most likely to be working full time (Figure 4) - this is the
case for both Academic and PS staff (Figures 5 and 6).
9
88.2%
89.6%
76.2%
80.7%
76.1%
30.5%
11.8%
10.4%
23.8%
19.3%
23.9%
69.5%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
25 or less
26 to 35
36 to 45
46 to 55
56 to 65
66 and above
Figure 5: Academic Staff by Age, 2020
Full-Time Part-Time
88.1%
85.9%
71.9%
76.3%
67.4%
38.6%
11.9%
14.1%
28.1%
23.7%
32.6%
61.4%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
25 or less
26 to 35
36 to 45
46 to 55
56 to 65
66 and above
Figure 6: Professional Services Staff by Age, 2020
Full-Time Part-Time
10
Disability
6.3%
93.0%
0.6%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes - has a disability Not known to be disabled Prefer not to say
Figure 7: Disability of staff, 2020
6.3% of staff at the University have disclosed their disability status on their staff record. The
percentage of all staff disclosing a disability has more than doubled since the publication of the
Equality Act, with staff in PS being more likely to disclose a disability than academic staff. Holding
the most complete and accurate information enables the University to effectively tackle
discrimination and equalise opportunity in its community. The most prevalent disability type
declared by staff is a long standing illness or health condition such as cancer, HIV, diabetes, chronic
heart disease, or epilepsy. This accounts for 23.8% of all disabilities declared (Figure 8).
11
0.3%
1.1%
1.4%
2.3%
3.5%
6.7%
10.2%
13.9%
17.3%
19.5%
23.8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
General Learning Disability
Blind or Serious Visual Impairment
Cognitive Impairment
Prefer not to say/Question not answered
Deaf or Serious Hearing Impairment
Other Type of Disability
Physical Impairment or Mobility Issues
Unknown Disability
Mental Health Condition
Specific Learning Disability
Long-Standing llness/Health Condition
Figure 8: Breakdown of Disabilities 2020
38.9%
50.0%
59.2%
61.1%
50.0%
40.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Prefer not to say
Not known to be Disabled
Yes - has a disability
Figure 9: Disability by Gender 2020
Female Male
75.0%
81.3%
86.0%
15.3%
17.2%
12.3%
9.7%
1.4%
1.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Prefer not to say
Not known to be Disabled
Yes - has a disability
FIgure 10: Disability by Ethnicity 2020
White BAME Information unknown or refused
12
3.5%
2.7%2.9%
3.2%3.5%
Academics, 3.8%
7.9%
6.8%7.1%
7.6% 7.8%
Professional Services, 8.4%
5.8%
4.9%5.2%
5.6%5.8%
Overall, 6.3%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 11: Disabled staff in PS and Academic Roles
Among members of staff who disclosed disability, majority of females: 59.2% while among staff
with no known disabilities proportions are 50%/50% (Figure 9). For the past five years the
percentage of PS staff declaring a disability is consistently higher than the percentage of academic
staff (Figure 11). Between 2019 and 2020 there has been a 0.5% increase in the percentage of all
staff declaring a disability.
13
Ethnicity
1.5%
16.9%
81.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Information unknown or refused
BAME
White
Figure 12: All Staff by Ethnicity 2020
‘Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic’ (BAME) is a term referring to those of non-White descent, and
encompasses a wide range of different ethnicities irrespective of a person’s origin or nationality. Of all
respondents, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic staff make up 16.9% of our staff population (Figure 12).
14
White, 83.2%
White, 79.9%
Asian, 9.0%
Asian, 10.7%
Other/Mixed, 2.6%
Other/Mixed, 2.8%
Black, 4.2%
Black, 4.4%
No Info, 0.9%
No Info, 2.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Female
Male
Figure 16: Ethnicity by Gender, 2020
Of all BAME staff working at the university 58.4% are Asian (Figure 13). However, when analysed in terms of their
functions at University, there is a significant difference in the proportion of Asian staff in academic posts when
compared with PS. 45.5% of BAME PS staff (Figure 14) are Asian in comparison to 68.3% of BAME academic staff
(Figure 15). Out of Academics who identify as Asian:
>36% declared British Nationality
>28% declared their nationality as Chinese or Hong Kong-Chinese
>13.2% declared Indian nationality
Only 7.1% of Academic staff are Black (Figure 15) in comparison to 27.5% of Academics (Figure 14).
The proportion of Ethnic minorities is lower among females than males (see Figure 16).
15
16.5%
18.6%19.0%
20.0%
Academics, 21.2%
11.1%11.7%
12.5%13.1%
Professional Services, 13.4%13.6%
14.9%15.4%
16.2%Overall, 16.9%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 17: Proportion of BAME Staff in PS and Academic Roles
Please note: y axis does not start at 0
The percentage of BAME staff in academic roles has been consistently higher than the percentage in
PS roles over the past five years (Figure 17). Since 2016 there has been a 3.3 % increase of BAME staff
across the university with a 4.7% increase in BAME academics and a 2.3% increase in BAME PS staff.
Between 2016 and 2020 there has been a year on year increase in the percentage of BAME staff in both
academic and PS roles.
16
52, 6.6%
43, 82.7%
9, 7.7%
4, 44.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
% of applications from those eligible % of successful applications
Figure 18: Promotions to Chair by Ethnicity 2020 (Count,Percentages)
White BME
27, 4.2%
25, 92.6%
7, 7.4%
6, 85.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% of applications from those eligible % of successful applications
Figure 19: Promotions to Reader by Ethnicity 2020 (Count,Percentage)
White BAME
88, 8.4%
67, 76.1%
23, 8.5%
17, 73.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
% of applications from those eligible % of successful applications
Figure 20: Promotions to Senior Lecturer/Senior Research Fellows by Ethnicity 2020 (Count, Percentage)
White BME
17
13.4%14.1%
14.8%
16.2% 16.3% Grade 1 - 4, 16.4%
9.2%9.7%
10.2% 10.6%
12.0%Grade 5 & 6, 13.0%
6.2%5.9%
6.8% 7.1%7.8%
Grade 7, 7.2%
5.9% 5.9% 4.5%3.7% 3.9%
Grade 8 & 9, 3.2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 21: Proportion of BAME in Professional Services Staff Grades
Between 2015 and 2020 there was increase in the percentage of BAME PS staff across all grades with the
exception of Grades 8-9 which has seen a small decrease over the period discussed (Figure 21).
Between 2015 and 2020 there has been an increase in BAME staff across all academic job levels.
BAME academics were more likely to apply for all core Academic positions (Figures 17, 18 and 19).
In the 2017/18 promotion round BAME candidates were less likely to be successful than White
candidates when applying for a promotion at every level, however the count of individuals is small which
makes interpretation difficult (Figures 18, 19 and 20).
18
8.0% 8.3% 8.8% 9.3%10.3%
Professor, 11.3%11.9% 11.9% 12.3% 12.5% 13.0%
Senior Lecturer/Reader,
13.4%
15.2%16.5%
17.8%19.2% 19.2%
Lecturer, 20.7%20.9% 21.2%
24.8% 25.0%
26.7%
Research and other academics, 28.5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 22: Proportion of BAME in Academic Staff Levels
21.2%
22.6%
26.4%
24.4%
Academics, 26.0%
13.3%
11.4% 10.9%
15.8% Professional Services, 14.5%
17.5% 17.7%
19.7%20.5% Overall, 20.1%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
22.0%
24.0%
26.0%
28.0%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 23: Proportion of BAME among Leavers
Please note: y axis does not start at 0
Between 2016 and 2020 the percentage of BAME leavers at the University has increased by 2.9%. With
the percentage of BAME academics leaving the University increasing by 2.6% and the percentage of PS
staff increased by 1.2% (Figure 23). One of the reasons why employees leave the University is that their
fix-term contract of employment came to the end. In order to account for that this report indicates
turnover rates for employees on permanent contracts: they remained stable over the period analysed
for both BAME Academic and PS staff (Figures 24 and 25).
19
20
Gender
42.4%
57.2%
50.5%
57.6%
42.8%
49.5%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
Academic
Professional Support
Overall
Figure 26: Staff by Gender 2020
Female Male
29.8%
46.3%
49.0%
49.3%
47.5%
51.6%
70.2%
53.7%
51.0%
50.7%
52.5%
48.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Unknown
Asian
Black
Other/Mixed
BAME Total
White
Figure 27: Gender by Ethnicity 2020
Female Male
There are similar proportions of male and female staff working at the University (Figure 26). However,
when analysed in terms of their functions at University, there are is a much larger proportion of females
among professional services staff – 57.2% as opposed to academic staff -42.4%.
Of all BAME staff at the University 47.5% are female compared with 51.6% of White staff being female
(Figure 27).
21
41.9% 42.4% 42.0% 42.3% Academic, 42.4%
56.0% 56.0% 56.4% 56.6%Professional
Services, 57.2%
49.5% 49.8% 49.9% 50.2% Overall, 50.5%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 28: Proportion of Females in PS and Academic Roles
Please note: y axis does not start at 0
23.3% 24.0% 24.4%25.6% 26.1%
Professor, 27.1%
36.0%37.4%
38.2%37.3% 36.9%
Senior Lecturer/Reader,
37.1%
44.6% 44.2% 44.2%45.3%
47.0%
Lecturer, 48.3%48.1%
48.9%49.9%
48.5%48.5%
Research and other academics,
48.0%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 29: Proportion of Female in Academic Staff Levels
Please note: y axis does not start at 0
22
57.9% 57.7% 57.6%
57.2%
57.7% Grade 1 - 4, 57.6%
55.2%56.0%
57.0%
57.6%
58.1%Grade 5 & 6, 59.5%
48.3%
49.7%49.8%
50.8%51.6%
Grade 7, 53.5%
49.8%
52.7%
49.4%48.7%
49.8%Grade 8 & 9, 49.1%
45%
47%
49%
51%
53%
55%
57%
59%
61%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 30: Proportion of Females in Professional Services Staff Grades
Please note: y axis does not start at 0
The percentage of female staff at the University increased by 1% between 2016 and 2020 (Figure 28). In
that period there has been a 0.5% increase in female academics and a 1.2% increase in proportion of
female PS staff.
The percentage of females in all academic roles has increased at all academic levels with exception of
Researchers category. In 2020 the proportion of females among lecturers increased to 48.3% (Figure 29).
The percentage of females among PS staff has been fluctuating but increased at Grades 5-6 and Grade 7
has increased between 2015 and 2020. Between 2015 and 2020 the percentage of female staff on Grades
1-4 and Grades 8 & 9 fluctuated but remained stable (Figure 30).
23
23, 6.7%
22, 95.7%
39, 6.8%
26, 66.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
% of applications from thoseeligible
% of successful applications
Figure 31: Promotions to Chair by Gender 2020 (Count,Percentages)
Female Male
6, 2.1%
6, 100.0%
30, 6.6%
27, 90.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
% of applications from thoseeligible
% of successful applications
Figure 32: Promotions to Reader by Gender 2020 (Count,Percentages)
Female Male
47, 7.3%
39, 83.0%
66, 9.1%
47, 71.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
% of applications from those eligible % of successful applications
Figure 33: Promotions to Senior Lecturers/Senior Research Fellows by Gender 2020
(Count,Percentages)
Female Male
A higher percentage of males that were eligible applied for promotions for in the case of all core
academic positions. A higher percentage of females were successful in applications for all core
academic promotions (Figures 31, 32 and 33).
24
40.8%
46.9%
45.7%
47.3%
Academics, 44.2%
54.0%
57.9% 58.2% 58.2%Professional
Services, 56.2%
47.0%
51.7%51.1%
52.3%
Overall, 50.4%
40%
42%
44%
46%
48%
50%
52%
54%
56%
58%
60%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 34: Proportion of Females among Leavers
Please note: y axis does not start at 0
Overall the percentage of females among leavers at the University has increased by 3.4% between
2015 and 2020, but there was a small decrease in 2020 (Figure 34).
25
Recruitment
Table 1: Recruitment stages of core academic positions (Professorships,
Senior lectureships and lectureships) split by gender and ethnicity, 2019
Table 2: Recruitment stages of Researchers and other academics (Senior
Research Fellows, Research Fellows, Researchers and others) split by gender
and ethnicity, 2019
1. Core Academics (Professorships, Senior Professorships and lectureships)
Gender All Applications % Shortlisted %-All As % of Applications Successful %-All As % of Shortlisted As % of Applications
Male 1313 62.3% 112 47.9% 8.5% 23 38.3% 20.5% 1.8%
Female 747 35.5% 120 51.3% 16.1% 36 60.0% 30.0% 4.8%
Unknown 47 2.2% 2 0.9% 4.3% 1 1.7% 50.0% 2.1%
Total 2107 100.0% 234 100.0% 11.1% 60 100.0% 25.6% 2.8%
Ethnicity All Applications % Shortlisted %-All As % of Applications Successful %-All As % of Shortlisted As % of Applications
White 999 47.4% 157 67.1% 15.7% 47 78.3% 29.9% 4.7%
BAME 989 46.9% 73 31.2% 7.4% 12 20.0% 16.4% 1.2%
Unknown 119 5.6% 4 1.7% 3.4% 1 1.7% 25.0% 0.8%
Total 2107 100.0% 234 100.0% 11.1% 60 100.0% 25.6% 2.8%
2. Researchers and other academics (SRF,RF and others)
Gender All Applications % Shortlisted %-All As % of Applications Successful %-All As % of Shortlisted As % of Applications
Male 3007 56.2% 371 53.4% 12.3% 108 51.2% 29.1% 3.6%
Female 2202 41.1% 312 44.9% 14.2% 99 46.9% 31.7% 4.5%
Unknown 144 2.7% 12 1.7% 8.3% 4 1.9% 33.3% 2.8%
Total 5353 100.0% 695 100.0% 13.0% 211 100.0% 30.4% 3.9%
Ethnicity All Applications % Shortlisted %-All As % of Applications Successful %-All As % of Shortlisted As % of Applications
White 2015 37.6% 375 54.0% 18.6% 122 57.8% 32.5% 6.1%
BAME 2973 55.5% 281 40.4% 9.5% 78 37.0% 27.8% 2.6%
Unknown 365 6.8% 39 5.6% 10.7% 11 5.2% 28.2% 3.0%
Total 5353 100.0% 695 100.0% 13.0% 211 100.0% 30.4% 3.9%
Gender: 41.1% of applications for research academic positions were sent by females in the period studied.
The proportion of females increases among shortlisted candidates to 44.9% and is 46.9% among successful
candidates. It seems that females are doing well throughout the recruitment process, especially during the
shortlisting.
Ethnicity: 55.5% of applications for research academic positions were sent by BAME candidates. The
proportion of BAME candidates decreased to 40.4% among shortlisted and again to 37.0% among successful
candidates. It seems that shortlisting provides particular challenge for BAME candidates- only 9.5% of BAME
applications were shortlisted in comparison to 18.6% of White candidates’ applications.
Gender: Only 35.5% of applications for core academic positions were sent by females in the period studied.
However, females seem to be more successful during the shortlisting the interview stages which means that
there is more females among shortlisted and successful candidates.
Ethnicity: 46.9% of applications for core academic positions were sent by BAME candidates. In addition,
BAME candidates are underrepresented among shortlisted-31.2% of shortlisted candidates were BAME as
well as successful candidates-20% of successful candidates were BAME.
26
Table 3: Recruitment stages of Professional Services split by gender and
ethnicity, 2019
3. Professional Services
Gender All Applications % Shortlisted %-All As % of Applications Successful %-All As % of Shortlisted As % of Applications
Male 5114 37.8% 475 32.0% 9.3% 74 26.6% 15.6% 1.4%
Female 8021 59.2% 924 62.2% 11.5% 180 64.7% 19.5% 2.2%
Unknown 409 3.0% 87 5.9% 21.3% 24 8.6% 27.6% 5.9%
Total 13544 100.0% 1486 100.0% 11.0% 278 100.0% 18.7% 2.1%
Ethnicity All Applications % Shortlisted %-All As % of Applications Successful %-All As % of Shortlisted As % of Applications
White 9002 66.5% 1101 74.1% 12.2% 217 78.1% 19.7% 2.4%
BAME 3956 29.2% 292 19.7% 7.4% 35 12.6% 12.0% 0.9%
Unknown 586 4.3% 93 6.3% 15.9% 26 9.4% 28.0% 4.4%
Total 13544 100.0% 1486 100.0% 11.0% 278 100.0% 18.7% 2.1%
Gender: 59.2% of applications for PS (both Faculty-based and central) positions were sent by females in the
period studied. The proportion of females increases among shortlisted candidates to 62.2% and again to 64.7%
among successful candidates. It seems that females are doing well throughout the recruitment process.
Ethnicity: Only 29.2% of applications for PS (both Faculty-based and central) were sent by BAME candidates.
The proportion of BAME candidates decreases to 19.7% among shortlisted and again to 12.6% among
successful candidates.
27
Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Religion
53.1%57.6%
62.8%65.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 35: Sexual Orientation: Response rates
0.7%
1.6%
2.4%
3.1%
8.1%
84.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Other
Gay woman/lesbian
Bisexual
Gay man
Information refused
Heterosexual
Figure 36: Sexual Orientation of Employees, 2020 (Known Data)
28
93.4%89.0%
70.0%
50.2%
39.6%
27.8%
Average Response Rate, 65.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
25 or less 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 56 to 65 66 and above
Figure 37: Response rates of staff members to question about their sexual orientation by age, 2020
Whilst there is still work to do on data disclosure for Sexual Orientation, we have seen some
improvement thanks to:
The University maintaining a Top 100 position in the annual Stonewall Workplace Equality
Index for six consecutive years (no index in 2020)
Using the results of the Staff Survey to positively reinforce the importance of accurate data
disclosure
Positive reinforcement by members of the SLT and BoG by recorded videos
A campaign for all staff to include their pronouns on their signatures and Zoom screens
Conducting a survey for all members of ALLOUT and using the findings to inform activities
and to raise awareness to the EDI Governance Group
Further increasing the number of ALLOUT allies who have proactively promoted the
importance of data completion in MyView
Continued work with all areas to improve their data quality and emphasis on this during
induction and periodic reminders throughout the year
Ensuring members of ALLOUT (The LGBT Staff Network Group) have updated their own data
and encourage colleagues to do so
We will continue to improve in 2021 by:
Committing to communicate more regularly about trans and non-binary identities to improve
disclosure rates for these areas
Bespoke campaigns in Faculty of Life sciences and the Library
29
Table 4: Gender Identity: Is your gender identity the same as the gender you
were originally assigned at birth? (see footnote below)1
2018 2019 2020
Academic Professional
Support Grand Total
Academic Professional
Support Grand Total
Academic Professional
Support Grand Total
Yes 97.4% 98.1% 97.8% 87.3% 86.8% 87.0% 78.6% 79.8% 79.2%
No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Unknown 2.6% 1.9% 2.2% 12.7% 13.2% 13.0% 21.4% 20.2% 20.8%
Grand Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1 This data is pulled from our HR system and based on the information that people submit either as anew starter or through the self service system MyView. Whilst we have a very high completion of this field, the low numbers from such a high volume of staff(11,139) do give a 0% return on the gender identity field. We know however that number those who answered no to question about gender identity is higher than 0% simply because the recent staff survey indicated that numbers were less than 0.1%
30
Religion
53.2%57.6%
62.8%65.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 38: Religion: Response rates
0.2%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.4%
2.0%
4.8%
8.1%
32.0%
49.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Sikh
Jewish
Spiritual
Buddhist
Other Religion or Belief
Hindu
Muslim
Prefer not to say/Information refused
Christian (inc CofE, Catholic etc)
No Religion or Belief
Figure 39: Religion of Employees, 2020 (Known Data)
31
93.2%88.7%
69.5%
51.0%
39.9%
27.8%
Average Response
Rate, 65.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
25 or less 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 56 to 65 66 and above
Figure 40: Response rates of staff members to question about their religion by age, 2020
65.2% of staff at the University were willing to disclose their religion (an increase from the last year
by 2.4%), of these 49.3% declared themselves as non-Religious (Figures 37 and 38). Response rates
are related to age: younger employees are far more likely to disclose their religion (Figure 39).
32
International Staff
Table 5: International staff count and percentage- Top 10 Countries 2020
Country Number of staff
members As a % of International
Staff
Chinese 231 10.0%
Italian (Includes Sardinia, Sicily) 188 8.1%
German 170 7.3%
Spanish (includes Ceuta, Melilla) 147 6.3%
Irish 126 5.4%
Indian 118 5.1%
American 116 5.0%
French (includes Corsica) 110 4.7%
Greek 101 4.4%
Polish 87 3.7%
The University of Manchester has more than 2000 members of staff who declared nationality different than
‘British’. This group comes from more than 100 different countries. Table 5 below indicates 10 most common
nationalities of the University of Manchester International Staff.
33
Map: University of Manchester International staff by nationality 2020
The darker red colour the more non-UK staff identified that particular country as their nationality
34
Student Equality Information: Key Findings
In order to achieve consistency and clarity in terms of understanding of the recruitment
trends, attainment, retention and graduate destinations (progression) of students, we would
advise the reader to investigate Office for Students Access and participation data dashboard
which includes information about students’ diversity for the University of Manchester and
other Higher Education institutions. The information below, provides general overview of the
student population at the University of Manchester.
Undergraduate
Age: In 2020/21 7.0% of all undergraduate students were considered ‘mature’ (20 years old
or less when starting course). The proportion of mature students have been declining for the
last 5 years (see Figure 2, p.36).
Disability: 9.5% of all undergraduate students have a disability– most of them report learning
difficulties and mental health conditions (see Figure 3 and Figure 4, pp.36-37).
Ethnicity: The percentage of UK domicile BAME students at the University has increased by
0.5% points in the past year to 32.5% in 2020/21 (see Figure 6, p.38).
Domicile: In 2020/21 the percentage of UK domicile students dropped by 1.2% to 62.5%- the
lowest level in 5 years. 29.9% of students are from overseas and 7.6% from EU countries (see
Figure 7, p.39).
Gender: In 2020/21 55.6% of undergraduate students were female and 44.4% were male. In
the last five years there have consistently been more undergraduate female students than
male students (see Figure 8, p.40).
Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Religion: In 2020/21 51.0% of UK domicile students
on full-time courses have no religion (see Figure 9, p.41) and 79% described their sexual
orientation as Heterosexual (see Figure 10, p. 42). 0.6% answered ‘No’ to the question ‘Is your
Gender the same as assigned at birth?’ which suggests that this was a proportion of known
transgender students at the University in 2020/21 (see Table 1, p.42).
Postgraduate
Domicile: In 2020/21 56.7% of postgraduate students come from overseas i.e. outside of the
UK/EU. The proportion of postgraduate students domiciled in the UK increased slightly to
39.1% and proportion of students from the EU decreased to 4.3% in 2020/21 (see Figure 11,
p.43).
Ethnicity: In 2020/21 26.3% of postgraduate taught students were BAME (see Figure 13, p.45)
compared with 15.1% for postgraduate research students only (see Figure 15, p.46). Asian is
the next largest ethnic group for postgraduate study - 7.1% of postgraduate research students
and 16.3% of postgraduate taught students are Asian.
35
Gender: The proportion of females within postgraduate population increased in 2020/21 to
63.8%. The proportion of females increased on both postgraduate taught and research
programmes (see Figure 16, p.47).
Methodology
Data of current students in this report relates to 2020/21 year and has come from the 1st of
December dataset produced by the Directorate of Planning. The data is current and up to date
as of 1st December 2020 and has been analysed by the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion team.
Age
2.8%
53.1%
28.9%
8.2%7.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Under 18 18 19 20 21 and over (Mature)
Figure 1: Undergraduate Students by Age 2020/21
The most common age to start an undergraduate course at the University is 18, with 53.1% of all
undergraduates starting in 2020/21 of that age (Figure 1).
Undergraduate students can be divided into two categories; young and mature. Young students are those
aged under 21 on the start date of the term in which their course commences. Mature students are 21 or over
by this date.
Over the past five years there has been a 1.6% decrease in mature students, with a 0.5% decrease in the past
year (Figure 2).
36
Disability
9.6% 9.1% 8.6% 8.1% Mature , 7.0%
90.4% 90.9% 91.4% 91.9% Young, 93.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
Figure 2: Undergraduate Students by Mature and Young
8.3%
9.0%
9.3%
10.3%
9.5%
7.5%
8.0%
8.5%
9.0%
9.5%
10.0%
10.5%
11.0%
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/2021
Figure 3: Disabled Undergraduate Students
Please note: y axis does not start at 0
37
0.7%
1.0%
2.0%
4.8%
5.7%
7.1%
13.7%
28.5%
36.4%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Blind/Partially Sighted
Deaf/Partial Hearing
Wheelchair/Mobility
Autistic/Asperger Syndrome
Multiple Disabilities
Unseen Disability
Other Disabilities
Mental Health
Learning Difficulty
Figure 4: Disabled Undegraduate Students, 2020/21
9.5% of all undergraduate students have a disability. This is an increase of 1.2% since 2016/17 (Figure 3).
Most disabled students report Learning Difficulties and Mental Health Conditions (see Figure 4.)
38
Ethnicity
0.1%
4.8%
7.9%
19.8%
67.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Unknown
Black
Other/Mixed
Asian
White
Figure 5: UK Domicile Undergraduate Students by Ethnicity 2020/21
27.9%
30.2%
30.9%
32.0%32.5%
24%
25%
26%
27%
28%
29%
30%
31%
32%
33%
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
Figure 6: Percentage of UK Domicile BAME Students
Please note: y axis does not start at 0
32.5% of UK domicile undergraduate students at the University are Black, Asian and
Minority Ethnic (BAME) students. This is an increase of 4.6% in the last five years (Figure 6).
The largest represented BAME group is Asian representing 19.8% of the undergraduate
student population. Only 4.8% of UK domicile students are Black making it the least
represented ethnic group (Figure 5).
39
Domicile
6.7% 7.2% 7.7% 8.9% 8.1% EU, 7.6%
22.2% 22.4%24.7% 25.8%
28.2% Overseas, 29.9%
71.1% 70.4%67.6%
65.3% 63.7% UK, 62.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
Figure 7: Undergraduate Students by Domicile
In 2020/21 the percentage of UK domicile students dropped by 1.2% to 62.5%, the lowest it has been
within the period considered. There has been a 1.7% rise in overseas students and a 0.5% decrease
in EU domicile students between 2019/20 and 2020/21 (Figure 7). This is a second consecutive
decrease in the proportion of EU students after year on year increases up to 2018/19.
40
Gender
52.6%
54.5%
53.4%
54.1%
54.7%
Females, 55.6%
47.4%
45.5%
46.6%
45.9%
45.3%
Males, 44.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
Figure 8: Undergraduate Student Gender
Females Males
The undergraduate student population consists 55.6% female and 44.4% male students. There has been
an increase in the proportion of females since 2017/18. In the last five years there have consistently been
more undergraduate female students than male students.
41
Religion
0.4%
0.7%
1.0%
1.0%
1.5%
1.6%
5.5%
15.2%
22.1%
51.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Buddhist
Jewish
Sikh
Any other religion or belief
Spiritual
Hindu
Information refused
Muslim
Christian
No religion
Figure 9: Religion of UK Full-Time Undergraduate Students 2020/21 (based on known data: 99.9%)
51.0% of UK domicile students on full-time courses have no religion or belief and 5.5% refused to
give any religious information. Christian and Muslim are the highest represented religions with
22.1% and 15.2% respectively (Figure 9).
42
Sexual Orientation
Table 1: Gender Identity of UK Full-time Undergraduate Students 2020/21
(based on known data: 99.9%)
Is your Gender the same as assigned at birth? %
Yes 96.7%
No 0.6%
Information refused 2.7%
1.1%
1.6%
2.2%
7.6%
8.6%
79.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Gay woman/lesbian
Other
Gay man
Bisexual
Information refused
Heterosexual
Figure 10: Sexual Orientation of UK Domicle Full-Time Undergraduate Students 2020/21
(based on known data: 99.8%)
79.0% of UK domicile students on full time courses are heterosexual. 8.6% of students refused to
disclose their sexual orientation (Figure 10).
43
Postgraduate
51.7% 52.0%54.6%
56.1% Overseas, 56.7%
6.2% 6.0% 5.4% 5.7%EU, 4.3%
42.1% 42.1%39.9%
38.2% UK, 39.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
Figure 11: Postgraduate Students by Domicile
In 2020/21 56.7 % of postgraduate students come from overseas i.e. outside of the UK/EU. The proportion
of postgraduate students domiciled in the UK increased to 39.1% in 2020/21. There also have been a
decrease in proportion of postgraduate students from the EU to 4.3% - the lowest level in 5 years (Figure
11).
Students completing postgraduate study can be divided into those on postgraduate taught courses and
those on postgraduate research courses. Postgraduate research can be further broken down into doctoral
training and masters degrees.
Postgraduate research masters degrees include MSc by Research, Master of Enterprise (MEnt) and Master
of Philosophy.
Doctoral Training results in different degree types. These can include Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Doctor
of Medicine (MD), Clinical Psychology (ClinPsyD), Education (EdD), Educational Psychology (DEdPsy),
Educational and Child Psychology (DEdChPsychol), Engineering (EngD), Enterprise (EntD), Counselling
Psychology (DCounsPsych), Doctor of Business Administration (DBA), Doctor of Professional Studies
(DProf) and Doctor of Clinical Science (DClinSci).
In 2020/21 94.1% of postgraduate research students started doctoral training and 5.9% are completing
research masters.
44
15.0% 14.6%
16.6%15.5% POSTGRADUATE
RESEARCH, 15.1%
21.7%22.8%
25.5%26.7%
POSTGRADUATE TAUGHT, 26.3%
20.7% 21.2%
23.9%25.0% All POSTGRADUATE ,
24.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
Figure 12: UK Domicile Postgraduate BAME Students
In 2020/21 the proportion of UK BAME students on postgraduate taught courses decreased slightly to 26.3%.
The percentage of UK BAME students on postgraduate research courses decreased year on year between
has been decreasing year on year since 2018/19 to 15.1% in 2020/21 (see Figure 12).
45
0.4%
4.3%
5.5%
15.1%
74.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Unknown
Black
Mixed/Other
Asian
White
Figure 13: Postgraduate Students by Ethnicity 2020/21
In 2020/21 74.7% of postgraduate taught students were White (Figure 13) compared with 84.1%
for postgraduate research students only (Figure 15). Asian is the next largest ethnic group for
postgraduate study - 7.1% of postgraduate research students and 15.2% of postgraduate taught
students are Asian.
46
0.3%
4.5%
5.5%
16.3%
73.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Unknown
Black
Mixed/Other
Asian
White
Figure 14: Postgraduate Taught by Ethnicity 2020/21
0.8%
2.9%
5.2%
7.1%
84.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Unknown
Black
Mixed/Other
Asian
White
Figure 15: Postgraduate Research by Ethnicity 2020/21
47
Gender
44.5%
46.7%46.0%
44.4%
POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH, 48.4%
60.2%61.1%
62.2%63.5%
POSTGRADUATE TAUGHT, 65.5%
58.1%58.8%
59.9%61.1%
All POSTGRADUATE , 63.8%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21
Figure 16: Female Postgraduate Students
Please note: y axis does not start at 0
The proportion of females within postgraduate population increased in 2020/21 to 63.8%. The
proportion of female students increased for both postgraduate taught as well as research programs
(see Figure 16).
48
37.5%
60.7%
59.2%
64.6%
60.5%
60.1%
62.5%
39.3%
40.8%
35.4%
39.5%
39.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Unknown
Mixed/Other
Asian
Black
Overall BAME
White
Figure 17: Postgraduate Student Gender by Ethnicity 2020/21
Females Males
In 2020/21 60.5% of BAME postgraduate students were female. 64.6% of Black postgraduate
students are female (Figure 17).