糖心原创

June McCombie is a senior research officer in the 糖心原创’s school of chemistry and chairs the Institute’s Juno Panel. This year has been significant for the Institute in terms of its commitment to a programme for the advancement of women’s careers in physics higher education (HE). It has been the first full year of the operation of the Juno Project and it has seen many departments in physics HE add depth to their engagement with the process of addressing the under-representation of women in university physics. We have things to celebrate. The Institute’s diversity programme was set up in 2004 and the Institute is to be applauded for giving significant weight to diversity issues within its structure. Few other professional bodies within the STEM arena have shown such concrete support for a diversity programme, and the presence of its programme leader and co-ordinator posts indicates that this is not mere lip service. Real resources have been put behind the programme and as such this is a flagship statement by a professional body that recognises that we should be concerned with increasing diversity in the physics community. Apart from the view that it is the “right” thing to do there are some simple arguments that support the idea that diversity enriches the science in which we’re engaged. First, the greater the number of people working in physics, the more likely it is that talented practitioners will emerge. Second, research suggests that a diversity of perspectives enriches the science carried out. Think about a room of people listening to music: the responses within that room will be varied and different individuals will respond differently to the nuances of the sound. Our response to science is similarly modulated. A lack of diversity is part of the equation that has seen the number of students in HE increase overall by 40% over the past 20 years but the number of physics undergraduates remain static. Reflective dialogue Over the past 20 years the position of women in science has changed dramatically, but it is not where it needs to be and while women have reached a critical mass in many areas this has not been the case within the physics HE community. Only 20% of those taking A-level physics, studying undergraduate physics courses or working for a doctorate are female, with this figure dropping at each subsequent stage of the academic pipeline. Just 4% of physics professors are female. The Juno Project addresses that under-representation. One of its strengths is that in setting out practical ideas for action, it emphasises the need for dialogue, transparency and openness. This makes engagement in it a valuable undertaking for all members of university physics departments. What’s been remarkable, from the perspective of someone engaging with the physics HE sector around Juno over the past year, has been the openness with which many departments have embraced the project and the simple fact that the majority of UK departments have engaged. This is not a comment on the number of departments that have signed up as Supporters (a painless process – albeit a significant step) but on the number that have attended a briefing, set up an internal Juno committee, put into place action plans, and asked for feedback and site visits. These departments have started the process of examining their own processes and procedures and embarked on a reflective dialogue on the degree of transparency and openness with which they operate. The process of moving from Juno Supporter to Champion is not trivial. The move is from endorsing the principles of the code of practice to being confirmed as meeting them. For the majority of departments this is not a short journey, and that is indicative of the circumstances that lead to the attrition in the academic pipeline that occurs. No one involved in the process will underestimate either the effort involved or the benefit that might accrue to all members of a department. This leads to perhaps the most significant comment that is made at the meetings structured around site visits: “Best practice benefits all in a department.”While Juno began in response to the under-representation of women, the principles of best practice address the working environment for everyone. Who hasn’t clamoured for greater transparency and openness in their workplace at one stage or another in their career? Who hasn’t had periods when their personal circumstances created a need for good, flexible working practices? The past year has been a learning curve for the Institute, departments and the Juno Panel. The sign-up to the code of practice has clearly shown that university physics departments in this country realise that promotion of diversity is not only the right thing to do but also that strategy will enrich the science community. The Juno Panel members have learnt to never underestimate the commitment that they will encounter. The Juno Champions are to be greatly congratulated and their achievement celebrated. No less effort should be made in celebrating the achievement of many other departments who have taken significant steps over the past year towards achieving this goal.