Coronavirus information and guidance

Staff equality, diversity and inclusion report 2019 Promotion gap by ethnicity

The ‘academic promotions success gap (APSG)’ by ethnicity measures the difference between the proportion of successful BAME applicants and successful White applicants for promotion. There is no legal obligation for the University of St Andrews to publish information on the APSG by ethnicity. Publishing this report provides the opportunity for the University to map trends in its own promotions success gap, and to support the identification of what works to close identified gaps.

There is no centralised source of benchmarking data for promotions. Advance HE (2019) reported that in the academic year 2017-2018, UK BAME staff were underrepresented in the highest contract levels and overrepresented in the lowest. In the academic year 2017-2018, UK BAME staff represented 3.1% of heads of institutions, whilst UK BAME staff represented 13.3% of the lowest contract level (XpertHR level P). This was also the case for non-UK BAME staff, who represented 13.4% at Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) level 2 (second highest contract level) and 46.8% of staff in the lowest contract level (XpertHR level P).


Higher education sector UK/non-UK staff by contract level and BAME/White identity

UK BAME

Pie diagrams showing that in the academic year 2017-2018, UK BAME staff were underrepresented in the highest contract levels and overrepresented in the lowest.
Pie diagrams showing that in the academic year 2017-2018, UK BAME staff were underrepresented in the highest contract levels and overrepresented in the lowest.

In the academic year 2017-2018:

  • UK BAME staff represented 3.1% of heads of institutions, which is the highest contract level.
  • UK BAME staff represented 13.3% of the Xpert HR level P contract level, which is lowest.
  • White staff members comprise the majority of both contract levels, 96.9% of the heads of institutions and 86.7% of the Xpert HR level P, lowest contract level.

Non-UK BAME

Pie diagrams showing that in the academic year 2017-2018, UK BAME staff were underrepresented in the highest contract levels and overrepresented in the lowest.
Pie diagrams showing that in the academic year 2017-2018, UK BAME staff were underrepresented in the highest contract levels and overrepresented in the lowest.
* Advance HE Equality in higher education: staff statistical report (2019) uses Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) and XpertHR levels to denote contract levels. The points of comparison between the highest and lowest contract levels have been adopted from Advance HE (2019). ‘Heads of institution’ is the only contract level more senior to UCEA level 2. However, percentages for the heads of institution contract level for the non-UK population are not published within the Advance HE 2019 report, hence UCEA level 2 has been used as a point of comparison.

In the academic year 2017-2018:

  • Non-UK BAME staff represented 13.4% of the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) level two contract, which is the second highest contract level.
  • Non-UK BAME staff comprised 46.8% of the Xpert HR level P, which is the lowest contract level.
  • White staff members comprise the majority of both contract levels, 86.6% of the UCEA level two contracts and 53.2% of the Xpert HR level P, the lowest contract level.

Findings

It is only in the past three years (since academic year 2016-2017) that the University has had more than five BAME applicants in a promotions round, and so can report on our APSG. There has been significant variation within this period. In 2018-2019, the APSG for ethnicity was 9%, whilst in 2017-2018 the gap was -8%, i.e. a gap in favour of BAME applicants.

St Andrews academic promotions success gap by ethnicity

A bar graph depicting the St Andrews academic promotions success gap by ethnicity.
A bar graph depicting the St Andrews academic promotions success gap by ethnicity.
  • In the academic year 2014-2015, 75% of BAME applicants were successfully promoted, whilst 45% of White applicants were successfully promoted, this is an academic promotion success gap of -30% in favour of BAME staff.
  • In the academic year 2015-2016, 50% of BAME applicants were promoted, whilst 80% of White applicants were promoted. This is an academic promotions success gap of 30% in favour of White staff.
  • In the academic year 2016-2017, 67% of BAME applicants were successfully promoted, whilst 76% of White applicants were successfully promoted, this yielded an academic promotions success gap of 9% in favour of White staff.
  • In the academic year 2017-2018, 78% of BAME applicants were successfully promoted, whilst 70% of White applicants were successfully promoted, this yielded an academic promotions success gap of 8% in favour of BAME staff.
  • In the academic year 2018-2019, 63% of BAME applicants were successfully promoted, whilst 72% of White applicants were successfully promoted, this yielded an academic promotions success gap of 9% in favour of White staff.