Written Evidence Submitted by the Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham
(DIV0046)
1.1. Professor Philip Shipway is the Cripps Professor of Engineering Materials and Associate Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education and Student Experience in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Nottingham.
1.2. Chris Sprange is a Strategic Information Analyst and Deputy Director of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Nottingham.
1.3. Debra Fearnshaw is a Projects Manager for Connected Everything II: Network Plus in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Nottingham. She recently undertook a secondment to the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) to complete a strategic EDI project.
1.4. Lindsay Holowka is the Knowledge Exchange and Impact Manager in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Nottingham.
1.5. Emma Hadfield-Hudson is the EDI Coordinator for the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Nottingham.
1.6. Dr Angela Nothofer is an Assistant Professor in Electromagnetic Applications and Deputy Director of EDI in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Nottingham.
2.1. Encourage the Engineering Council to reconsider the limits on Compensation and Condonement as determined by their policy, and the detrimental implications of implementing such a policy on student progression and diversity of graduates.
2.2. Encourage the publishers of league tables to remove widening participation students from the UCAS entry tariff to prevent disincentivising universities from levelling up and recruiting widening participation students from all backgrounds.
2.3. Research Councils to be given authority to retrospectively add an EDI budget line to existing grants where there is a demonstrable need to support EDI in the funded research.
Question 4: What has been done to address underrepresentation of particular groups in STEM roles?
3.1. Connected Everything: Accelerating Digital Manufacturing Research Collaboration and Innovation is an EPSRC funded Network Plus. The Network is acutely aware of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) barriers that people, particularly women and those from non-traditional backgrounds, face when trying to progress in their research career, in the case of Connected Everything specifically within the field of Digital Manufacturing.
3.2. To address these barriers, the Connected Everything II Network developed its own EDI principles to ensure all aspects of the network and its activities had EDI considerations from development through to execution. These principles can be referred to at: https://connectedeverythingmedia.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/ceediprinciplejan2021.pdf.
3.3. This approach to embedding EDI in network activities has also been included in several other networks which have since been developed.
Question 5: What could and should be done by the UK Government, UK Research and Innovation, other funding bodies, industry and academia to address the issues identified?
4.1. Within most undergraduate degree programmes (including accredited Engineering BEng or MEng degree programmes), there is a process to compensate or condone marginal failures in modules if there is evidence in other modules to justify the passing of a stage (year). This has been particularly important over the years for students in Year 1 of their degree programme which is known (with good reason) as the qualifying stage. At many institutions (including the University of Nottingham), no marks from Year 1 go forward to the determination of a degree classification for this very reason – we recognise that people start from very different points when they arrive at university and Year 1 acts (in some degree) as a year for levelling up. We would suggest that this is particularly important for students from currently underrepresented backgrounds for reasons outlined as follows.
4.2. However, there is pressure elsewhere from those who see such compensation and/or condonement of marginal failure on the part of students as an erosion of standards. As such in 2018, the Engineering Council replaced its guidance on limiting compensation and condonement in Engineering accredited degrees with policy. The Compensation and Condonement Policy details five requirements (limits) which apply to all students (from Year 1) registered on accredited engineering degree programmes as of September 2022. The policy has refined the limits on the amount of compensation and/or condonement universities can allow. “These limits are absolute and no discretion is permitted on the part of Professional Engineering Institutions or accreditation visit panels” (Quote source: https://www.engc.org.uk/media/3840/guidance-note-on-compensation-and-condonement-2021.pdf)
4.3. Quoting directly from the Engineering Council Guidance Note on Compensation and Condonement “no condonement of modules delivering Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes learning outcomes is allowed” and only “a maximum of 30 credits in a Bachelor’s or integrated Master’s degree programme can be compensated, and a maximum of 20 credits in a Master’s degree other than the integrated Master’s degree”
4.4. In our view, the new policy will particularly and disproportionately make things harder for talented students from certain underrepresented groups to progress to successful outcomes on accredited Bachelor’s and Integrated Master’s degrees. Perception is that in Year 1 of such degrees, some very talented students will be in the process of overcoming certain disadvantages associated with their prior educational experiences, whilst others will be in the first stages of adjusting to working and realising their potential in an environment where they may feel themselves to an outsider (i.e., a place where they do not feel that they belong).
4.5. Whilst we in the Universities are working to address these issues in our local contexts, it is our strong belief that the new Engineering Council Policy on Compensation and Condonement is a significant step in the wrong direction in terms of universities promoting both access and success in Bachelor’s and Integrated Master’s Engineering degrees for students from currently underrepresented backgrounds.
4.6. The key issue in this regard is that of carrying over of compensated marginal failures from one stage to another so that a student may fail to complete their degree in light of a number of marginally failed modules. This seems unnecessarily onerous when the bulk of those marginal failures might have been in Year 1 when the student, especially those addressing previous learning disadvantages or those who perceive themselves as outsiders, might have been in the very thick of adjusting to their new environment. As mentioned in 3.1 no marks from Year 1 go forward to the determination of a degree classification but the marginally failed modules would still count towards the 30 credit or 20 credit limits for the award of the accredited degree.
5.1. University league tables, for all their controversary, can play a role in the decision making of a prospective student, research fellow or academic to apply to study or work at a specific university. The main university league tables in the UK all utilise the UCAS entry tariff as one of its criteria in ranking universities and different disciplines.
5.2. With the Government pushing for the UK to ‘level up’ and ensure widening participation students are offered a fair chance at a tertiary education it is apparent there are conflicting targets for universities. A need to perform well in league tables, perpetuated by setting selective entry tariffs, but a responsibility to widening participation which inevitably lowers entry tariffs and thus a universities position in the league tables. If a university chooses to go with the former it impacts on disadvantaged and underrepresented students, affecting the diversity of the student intake.
5.3. In removing widening participation students from the UCAS entry tariff, levelling up recruitment strategies can still be implemented successfully without impacting on a universities league table position and the reputational and financial consequences that can ultimately have. This also provides consistency across all universities.
6.1. During the research grant application stage, EDI barriers to specific researchers or issues with accessibility to research and knowledge exchange activities are often not known or considered. As such EDI funding is not requested as part of the research grant.
6.2. If a research grant can show a demonstrable need for a small EDI fund as the research activities progress, Principal Investigators should be allowed to apply to their Research Council for permission to transfer a small portion their allocated funds into an EDI budget line.
6.3. From discussions with research grant recipients, it is evident that having access to a small EDI fund (often less than £5,000) offers a means to support researchers and address EDI barriers to participation with research grant activities. The EDI fund can, for example, be used to pay for childcare or carer support allowing researchers to attend out of hours conferences and events. Alternatively, it could fund translation, transcription, or British Sign Language (BSL) services for events to improve their inclusivity.
6.4. Research Councils should be given the authority to add an EDI budget line retrospectively to a research grant and approve the transfer of re-allocated costs.
(January 2022)