

{"id":19866,"date":"2018-11-05T07:30:53","date_gmt":"2018-11-05T07:30:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/royalhistsoc.org\/?page_id=19866"},"modified":"2018-11-06T00:09:19","modified_gmt":"2018-11-06T00:09:19","slug":"genderreport2018","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/royalhistsoc.org\/genderreport2018\/","title":{"rendered":"Second Gender Equality Report"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong><em>Royal Historical Society report highlights gender inequality in UK History<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>A new report published today (6 November 2018) by the Royal Historical Society (RHS) recommends steps to <strong>promote gender equality in UK History<\/strong>, following the RHS\u2019s recent report on <strong>race in UK History<\/strong>. Recent spotlights on the #MeToo movement, \u201cEveryday Sexism\u201d, and the centenary of women\u2019s suffrage in have raised public awareness of gender as a defining social influence. Yet despite some progress since its landmark 2015 report, the RHS reveals considerable work remains to be done, revealing <strong>enduring structural barriers to equality <\/strong>as well as <strong>worryingly high levels of workplace discrimination.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>While there is a small majority of female students in History at A-level, undergraduate level, and on taught postgraduate programmes, women remain underrepresented at more senior levels, constituting just 41.6% of academic staff in History and <strong>only 26.2% of History Professors<\/strong>. Female historians are also more likely to be in temporary, fixed-term, or part-time posts, with <strong>over 60% of full-time permanent posts in History held by men<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>A survey of hundreds of UK historians revealed a number of reasons for this <strong>\u201cleaky pipeline\u201d<\/strong>. <strong>Overwork is chronic throughout the sector, and gendered in its effects<\/strong>. Almost all respondents reported working \u201ca lot\u201d in the evenings, most worked a lot on weekends (72.2% female; 56.2% male) and many often gave up annual leave (51.7% female; 37% male). Many respondents called for <strong>more transparent workload models<\/strong> to combat these inequalities.<\/p>\n<p>Respondents highlighted how the effects of overwork and an unhealthy working culture were exacerbated by a <strong>lack of support for caring responsibilities<\/strong>, which are still more likely to affect women. Nearly a fifth of respondents (19%) reported that maternity leave policy was implemented partly or hardly at all in their workplace. Female respondents reported <strong>mid-career issues returning to work after maternity leave<\/strong>, with many feeling they have been overlooked for promotion (44.5%) or become stuck in certain roles (52.9%).<\/p>\n<p>Nearly half (47.8%) of female respondents reported their working lives had been affected by <strong>discrimination<\/strong>, and 18.2% reported <strong>sexual harassment. <\/strong>Both men and women also reported widespread issues of bullying and intimidation. Issues of gender discrimination were often particularly pronounced for <strong>female early-career historians<\/strong>: over a fifth (21%) reported being subject to sexual harassment, while many observed or experienced <strong>gender inequality in conference programming, keynote lectures, publishing, and teaching<\/strong>; indeed large numbers of historians at all levels reported the same. The RHS is also very concerned by strong evidence of <strong>negative gender bias in student evaluations<\/strong>, particularly in advance of the implementation of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) at subject-level.<\/p>\n<p>The report concludes with specific action points and guidance for Heads of department, teaching staff, appointment panels, promotion committees, editors, and conference organisers. The recent RHS report on <em>Race, Ethnicity &amp; Equality in UK History<\/em> emphasises that <strong>inequalities intersect<\/strong>, and the Society is committed to History becoming more inclusive for women, non-binary, Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) and other underrepresented groups of historians. This report provides essential data and guidance to <strong>promote a more equal and diverse profession, which will ensure and expand the intellectual vitality of our discipline<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>The full report is available\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/files.royalhistsoc.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/17205324\/RHS_Gender_Report_2018.pdf\">here.<\/a><\/p>\n<p>The full results of our survey are available\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/files.royalhistsoc.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/17205324\/RHS-Gender-Survey-Results-2018.pdf\">here.<\/a><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p>Image: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.history.ac.uk\/exhibitions\/womenhistorians\/#gallery\">London Women Historians Exhibition<\/a>, Institute of Historical Research; Dr Laura Carter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Royal Historical Society report highlights gender inequality in UK History A new report published today (6 November 2018) by the Royal Historical Society (RHS) recommends steps to promote gender equality in UK History, following the RHS\u2019s recent report on race in UK History. Recent spotlights on the #MeToo movement, \u201cEveryday Sexism\u201d, and the centenary of <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/royalhistsoc.org\/genderreport2018\/\">&#8230;Continue reading &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":19876,"parent":0,"menu_order":155,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","inline_featured_image":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-19866","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/royalhistsoc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/19866","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/royalhistsoc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/royalhistsoc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/royalhistsoc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/royalhistsoc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19866"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/royalhistsoc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/19866\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/royalhistsoc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/19876"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/royalhistsoc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}