Guidance

Women in Research Charter

Updated 22 July 2026

Foreword

The UK’s science and research strengths are central to this government’s mission to deliver economic growth, raise productivity, and improve living standards across the country. To realise that ambition, we must ensure that our research and innovation system can attract, retain and support the very best talent, and that means addressing the persistent barriers that prevent too many women from thriving in research careers.

Women have made extraordinary contributions to UK research, from Ada Lovelace and Professor Dame Sarah Gilbert, to Professor Dame Elizabeth Nneka Anionwu and Professor Dame Mary Beard. Yet women remain underrepresented in the UK’s research workforce, particularly in senior roles, and too often face structural barriers that make it harder to build and sustain a research career alongside caring responsibilities.

These barriers are not due to a lack of talent or ambition; they reflect systemic factors that slow progression and push too many women out of research altogether.

We can see the pattern clearly. As a country, we have made progress in the number of girls choosing science and research-related subjects at school. Girls now account for 48% of STEM GCSE entries and women are well-represented at the undergraduate level, making up 53% of students in science-related subjects. However, the picture changes as careers progress: women comprise 51% of junior and mid-level researchers, 44% of senior academic leadership, and only 31% of professors. This disparity is even more stark for women of colour, who make up just 6% of professors compared with around 16% at junior grades.

Women begin to fall behind, in terms of career progression, from around age 35, coinciding with caring responsibilities, and increasing instances of part-time work.

While the picture varies across disciplines, with women in STEM facing particular challenges, overall women face more barriers than men in their pursuit of thriving research careers. These barriers have a clear impact – in the wider R&D workforce, men are nearly 3 times more likely than women to work in R&D, and women earn less on average when they do.

This is an equality issue – and one that is holding us back as a nation. At a time of significant skills shortages in R&D intensive sectors, we cannot afford a system in which half the population faces avoidable barriers to success.

I want a research system where women can progress, lead, and thrive - improving the quality of UK science, leading our growing science and tech sector and inspiring the next generation. This must include success across the most research intensive career paths, in every discipline, in every part of the UK, and across academia, public sector research, and business.

That is why I am launching this new Women in Research Charter and inviting research funders and research performing organisations to support it. The charter is designed to create clear, tangible actions that both funders and research performing organisations can commit to; actions that will drive lasting culture change, improve standards, and bring greater consistency and transparency across the sector.

This charter complements the work of the Women in Tech Taskforce, which is focused on ensuring more talented women can enter, stay and lead in the UK’s technology sector.

Together, these initiatives reflect a broader ambition: that women can thrive across the full research and innovation landscape, from discovery research to university spin-outs, entrepreneurship, and technology leadership.

The charter’s first theme is about improving support for parents and carers, including for doctoral researchers. Too many women are forced to choose between starting a family and continuing their research careers. That undermines talent, damages confidence, and weakens the pipeline into research careers, outcomes wholly at odds with our ambition for a world leading R&D system.

That’s why this charter includes a clear commitment from all signatories, that they will meet, exceed or offer an equivalent family leave offer to the one currently provided by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) for the doctoral students they fund.

But that is not sufficient on its own. As a sector we – government, research funders and research performing organisations together – must be ambitious enough to address the systemic challenges facing women in research to drive real change.

Our 6 themes focus on the outcomes for women researchers that the signatories will work together to deliver, creating shared expectations and accountability. Our ambition for change is evidenced by specific, tangible commitments under each outcome which signatories will implement through their policies, processes, and advocate for in their funding terms.

This charter will only succeed if it builds on, and strengthens, the excellent work already underway across the sector. Universities, funders, learned societies and others have driven important progress, from the Athena Swan Charter to the excellent work of the Daphne Jackson Trust, as well as a wide range of discipline-specific initiatives. We are clear that this charter is not intended to replace or duplicate that activity.

Instead, the role of government is to bring this work together, to amplify what is proven to work, and to provide clearer expectations across the system. By setting a small number of shared, evidence-based commitments, we can support greater consistency and increase the pace of change while respecting the diversity of institutions and funding models across UK research.

In return, I expect signatories to be open about the action they are taking, to measure progress transparently, and to learn from each other. Where progress falls short, we will be clear about that too. This is a voluntary charter, but it must drive real change, and we will be expecting signatories to publish their progress on delivering better outcomes for women in research annually and appoint a board member (or equivalent) to be accountable for delivery of all 6 outcomes.

Working together – government, funders and the wider research community – we can build a system that keeps and nurtures the extraordinary talent we already have, and ensures that women can thrive at every stage of a research career.

The Rt Hon Liz Kendall MP,

Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology

Women in Research Charter

What this charter is, and who it is for

The Women in Research Charter is a voluntary commitment to improve outcomes for women across the UK research system.

It includes commitments for both research funders and research performing organisations, including organisations like universities who do both.

Each commitment in the charter includes clarity on what it means in both capacities.

The commitments set out below provide a common framework for action, recognising that organisations differ in size, remit, funding models and starting points. Signatories are expected to support the charter’s outcomes and to make meaningful, demonstrable progress towards them over time, rather than to have implemented every commitment in full at the point of signing. Organisations should apply the commitments in a way that is appropriate to their circumstances, be transparent about the actions they are taking, and publish an update on progress after 12 months.

One of the strengths of the UK research system is its international reach and impact. UK research organisations and funders operate across multiple countries and contexts, helping to ensure that UK research benefits from and contributes to global excellence. While this charter is focused on improving outcomes across the UK research system, signatories are encouraged to promote its principles more widely and share learning internationally. Where activities take place outside the UK, implementation of the charter’s principles may need to reflect different legal and institutional contexts.

Theme 1 - Improved support for parents and carers

Academic careers are precarious, with reliance on short-term contracts. There are ingrained cultural expectations around long working days and travel to conferences, at times multi-day or at the weekend. Seminars and key networking events are often held in the evening. These expectations reduce flexibility and clash with the realities of caring responsibilities and the availability of childcare.

Furthermore, family leave and childcare-related policies are uneven, reliant on varied funders’ approaches and they are often poorly communicated internally and externally by research institutions. While there is some good practice across the sector, with HEIs offering sabbaticals and other flexible working options, birth and parenthood can generally have negative career effects, with time out not being accounted for fairly in workloads, metrics such as publications, and promotion expectations. OECD evidence indicates that academic career progression is organised around uninterrupted, fulltime research activity, which disproportionately disadvantages women during the years when childcare and other caring responsibilities peak.

While doctoral support is a key focus, similar challenges arise at other career stages, particularly for early and mid-career researchers. All these factors create issues for parents sustaining their academic careers and contribute to the ‘motherhood penalty’ suffered by female academics, affecting research outputs, promotion prospects and increasing the rate at which female researchers leave academia altogether. Addressing these challenges will also include greater recognition and support, particularly in academia, for shared caring responsibilities, including the role of fathers and partners.

Outcome: Women researchers can have children and caring responsibilities and still thrive in research careers.

Commitment 1.1 – A minimum standard for doctoral family leave

For research funders this means:

• Meeting, exceeding or offering equivalent maternity and partner leave offers to the ones currently provided by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) for the doctoral students they support.^{[footnote 1]} The minimum level provided will be 52 weeks of maternity leave, with funding to retain the full stipend for 26 weeks and a further 13 weeks of support commensurate with statutory maternity pay. It should also include, as a minimum, 2 weeks of stipend for students who are partners of a mother or birth parent following the birth of their child to take paid partner leave. Maternity and partner leave provision should include the commensurate funded extensions.
• Providing sufficient funding for other family-related leave, including pregnancy-related sickness, adoption of a child, neo-natal care, baby loss and death during a period of maternity.

For research performing organisations this means:

• Where doctoral researchers are hosted, RPOs will ensure doctoral researchers can take family leave (as outlined above) and return to complete their programme, including by administering extensions and supporting re-entry.

Commitment 1.2 – Review, and where possible strengthen, caring support-related policies

For research funders this means:

• Signatories will review their caring-related support offers (e.g. conference travel, childcare and other dependants’ care costs), to ensure that they offer to fund this support wherever possible.

For research performing organisations this means:

• RPOs will have clear processes so researchers can access caring support without undue friction, and will avoid systems that make support dependent on individual discretion. For example, inconsistent implementation of policies by line‑managers.

Commitment 1.3 – Family leave and caring support-related policies for all researchers will be published in a clear and consistent format

For both research funders and research performing organisations this means:

• Signatories will publish in a clear and consistent format policies relating to family leave and caring-related support offers, including how and through whom different elements of support should be accessed or claimed. For example, directly from the funder or via the host organisation.

Theme 2 - Consistent data and transparency

Robust, comparable, and transparent data is essential to understanding and addressing the barriers women face in research careers.

Across the UK research system, there is already a significant amount of data – including HESA data on sex by discipline, salary band and institution, alongside a growing body of research on structural barriers. However, this data is fragmented, inconsistent and often difficult to compare across funders and research performing organisations.

As a result, it can be difficult for women researchers (and policymakers) to come to an informed view about which organisations are making meaningful progress and those that are not. In effect, there is too much noise, and not enough clear signal.

This lack of clarity limits accountability. Where data is not comparable or transparent, it is harder to see which organisations are supporting women effectively. Improving the consistency, comparability and accessibility of data across the sector will be vital to strengthening our ability to diagnose problems accurately, design targeted interventions and track progress over time.

We are conscious in this theme in particular of the need for signatories to work together to improve the transparency and consistency of data, while minimising the administrative burden on organisations and researchers themselves. We are also mindful of the need to build on already-existing efforts within the sector.

That is why we are starting with a clear and limited set of comparable metrics, designed to provide a clear baseline across the system and a commitment to continue working across the sector to equip policymakers and researchers with a clearer view on where progress is being made. To reduce burden, we have chosen to focus the RPO-facing aspect of commitment 2.1 on 4 data sets that are already captured as part of existing Athena Swan data reporting.

Outcome: Women researchers and policymakers have a clearer view on where progress is being made, with funders and research performing organisations publishing comparable data on a small set of key metrics related to this issue, enabling transparent scrutiny of performance and driving targeted action to improve outcomes for women researchers.

Commitment 2.1 – A small common dataset, published in a consistent way

For research funders this means:

• Signatories will annually publish data on:
  • Grant applicants broken down by sex
  • Successful grant applicants broken down by sex

For research performing organisations this means:

• Signatories will annually publish data on:
  • Research staff by sex, contract function and grade
  • Research staff by sex, contract type and grade
  • Applications, shortlist and appointments made in recruitment to research posts by sex and grade
  • Applications and success rates for research promotion by sex and grade

DSIT will work with EDIS, Advance HE and HESA to bring signatories together to share effective practice, maximise impact, and collectively improve data transparency, consistency and comparability, including through better use of qualitative data to complement existing metrics. This work will focus on getting the most out of existing data collection processes and strengthening understanding of intersectionality, the institutional and systemic factors shaping women’s progression through research careers, and the effectiveness of existing interventions.

Theme 3 - Enabling more flexible working

Research can involve long hours, inflexible working patterns, and time‑bound funding. These factors can make it difficult to accommodate flexible or part‑time working, particularly for researchers with childcare responsibilities, wider caring responsibilities – such as caring for disabled, ill or older relatives, partners or other dependants – or health-related needs including menopause and perimenopause-related symptoms.

While many funders formally allow flexibility, researchers report a clear “enactment gap”, where flexibility exists in principle but is not consistently applied in practice. Grant conditions, fixed deadlines, and institutional risk aversion can limit the extent to which researchers are able to take up flexible working arrangements. Flexibility is also often dependent on individual line managers, rather than being embedded as a consistent system‑wide expectation.

These barriers disproportionately affect women, who continue to carry a greater share of caring responsibilities, contributing to reduced retention and progression. However, enabling flexible working for all researchers, including men, will be critical in ensuring that, in particular, caring responsibilities do not disproportionately fall on women.

Outcome: Women researchers can access and use flexible working arrangements without detriment to their career progression or access to research opportunities.

Commitment 3.1 – Funding and processes enable flexible working in practice

For research funders this means: Signatories will ensure that their funding schemes can be delivered flexibly, including through part-time working, adjusted timelines, and accessible application and assessment processes, so that key opportunities are not closed off due to caring responsibilities or career breaks.

For research performing organisations this means: RPOs will enable flexible use of externally funded research grants in practice, ensuring that researchers can work flexibly without this being dependent on individual discretion or creating informal penalties in workload, progression or access to opportunity.

Commitment 3.2 – Funded flexibilities are clearly communicated and consistently enacted

For research funders this means: Signatories will clearly set out the flexibilities available within their funding terms and conditions, and will expect organisations they fund to apply these consistently so that researchers are able to make use of them.

For research performing organisations this means: RPOs will ensure that researchers are aware of, and able to access, available flexibilities throughout the lifecycle of a grant, including through clear guidance and consistent local practice.

Theme 4 - Eliminating bias from grant and job application processes

Assessment processes in research funding and career progression often rely on proxies for excellence, such as publication volume, uninterrupted career progression, or international mobility, which can disadvantage those with non-linear careers or caring responsibilities.

Although many funders and institutions have experimented with approaches such as narrative CVs, changes to application forms or an assessment of ‘academic age’, women report that these are not always applied consistently in practice either by grant awarding panels or by other decision-making processes. Time spent away from research or working part-time can continue to be interpreted as lower productivity, even where this reflects caring responsibilities rather than capability.

There are also challenges in ensuring fair and inclusive panel processes. While more equitable representation is important and should be pursued, it can create an over-reliance and burden on a small number of senior women – perpetuating the impression that this is a problem for women to solve. Meaningful change depends on how decisions are made, as well as who is involved.

Improving how research and academic performance is assessed is an important part of the UK’s efforts to focus R&D investment on outcomes. Ensuring that we address biases that create barriers for women will be central.

Outcome: Women researchers are assessed fairly, with breaks in career or flexible working patterns not disadvantaging progression or success rates.

Commitment 4.1 – Research expertise and performance is assessed in the context of individual career paths

For research funders this means: Signatories will ensure that grant assessment processes take account of career breaks, part-time working and non-linear career paths, through clear guidance and expectations for applicants and panels.

For research performing organisations this means: RPOs will support applicants and ensure that internal processes, including promotion and selection decisions, reflect fair assessment of achievement in context, rather than relying on uninterrupted career trajectories.

Commitment 4.2 – Decision-making processes minimise bias

For research funders this means: Signatories will strengthen assessment and panel processes to support fair and consistent decision-making. This may include strengthening guidance and practice around panel diversity, including the representation of women, while accounting for undue burden where panel pools are limited.

For research performing organisations this means: RPOs will ensure that local decision-making processes, including recruitment and promotion, apply consistent and inclusive criteria, and do not disadvantage researchers with caring responsibilities or non-linear careers.

Theme 5 - Ensuring an inclusive workplace culture with zero tolerance for bullying and harassment

A safe and inclusive working environment offering strong psychological safety is fundamental to enabling women to begin, progress, and thrive in research careers.

However, women report persistent issues of bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct across many parts of the research system, and reasonable adjustments according to need – be it physical, sensory, neurodiverse or other – are provided inconsistently.

Trust in existing reporting mechanisms is often low, with concerns about confidentiality, lack of transparency, and inconsistent follow-up. In some cases, individuals may be reluctant to report issues due to fears of personal or professional consequences. The power imbalances inherent in academia, particularly smaller disciplines, can exacerbate this issue. Evidence also suggests that formal reporting does not capture the full extent of the problem, as many incidents go unreported.

Women have highlighted the need for clearer expectations, greater consistency, and stronger accountability in how issues are addressed.

Outcome: Women researchers can work in environments that are safe, respectful and inclusive, with trusted mechanisms in place to address bullying, harassment and misconduct without fear of repercussions, and that offer reasonable adjustments based on need.

Commitment 5.1 – Clear and consistent standards for reporting and support

For research funders this means: Signatories will set clear expectations that organisations they fund have effective and accessible mechanisms to report and address bullying, harassment and misconduct - including appropriate protections for those who raise concerns - as well as consistently offer reasonable adjustments according to need.

For research performing organisations this means: RPOs will maintain clear, transparent and trusted reporting routes, ensuring that researchers understand how to raise concerns and what support and protections are available.

Theme 6 - Sharing and implementing best practice across the research sector

Many individuals and organisations are already working hard to improve outcomes for women researchers, in particular through initiatives such as Athena Swan, WE Innovate National, and programmes led by the National Academies among many others. Different funders and institutions are experimenting with innovative approaches to support inclusion and progression. Where appropriate, government will support and amplify those efforts and avoid introducing duplication. However, best practice remains fragmented and unevenly implemented. Improved sharing of best practice between academia and business, and across different institutions, sectors of the economy, and research disciplines could make a significant difference.

There is also much to be learned from global examples. One of the strengths of the UK research system is its international reach and impact, with UK research funders and research performing organisations supporting, conducting and collaborating on research across multiple countries and contexts. This enables the UK research system both to contribute to and benefit from the global exchange of evidence, learning and best practice. While this charter is focused on improving outcomes across the UK research system, signatories are encouraged to promote its principles more widely and share learning internationally. Where activities take place outside the UK, implementation of the charter’s principles may need to reflect different legal and institutional contexts.

The whole sector, including government as a leading funder, has a role in identifying, evaluating and sharing effective interventions, alongside strengthening expectations that good practice is adopted consistently across the sector.

Outcome: Effective interventions to support women in research are shared, adopted, and amplified across the sector, leading to more consistent and sustained improvements in outcomes.

Commitment 6.1 – Sharing and learning from effective practice

For both research funders and research performing organisations this means: Signatories will work together, building on existing forums and networks where possible, to identify, evaluate and share approaches that improve outcomes for women in research.

Commitment 6.2 – Transparency on implementation and progress

For both research funders and research performing organisations this means: Signatories will be transparent about the actions they are taking under this charter, including what changes have been implemented and what has been learned. This will include publishing annually how they are making changes to deliver on the outcomes committed to within this charter.

Annex: Charter implementation and ongoing governance

This annex sets out how the Women in Research Charter will be implemented, monitored and supported over time, with a focus on driving real change through transparency, accountability and shared expectations.

Expectations of signatories

All signatories will appoint a board member (or equivalent) to be accountable for delivery of all 6 outcomes.

Research funders will:

• Implement commitments through:
  • funding terms and conditions
  • application and assessment processes
  • expectations of funded organisations

• translate charter commitments into clear, actionable expectations of organisations they fund

• publish annual updates on:
  • progress against charter outcomes
  • actions taken

Research performing organisations (RPOs) will:

• Implement expectations set by signatories through:
  • institutional policies and practices, including publishing existing policies in a clear and consistent (across the sector) manner
  • improving support for researchers in areas of their responsibility
• Contribute relevant data and best practice examples to support reporting and evaluation

Data, reporting and use

Signatories will:

• publish a small, standardised dataset annually
• use existing data sources and reporting vehicles where possible (e.g. HESA, REF, OfS)
• avoid duplication of reporting requirements

Published data should:

• enable comparison across funders and organisations
• identify gaps and disparities in outcomes
• be accompanied by clear explanations of how findings will inform actions to improve outcomes

We recognise this may be difficult for smaller organisations and cohorts. Signatories will continue to have to balance managing re-identification risks associated with small datasets with improving transparency and accountability. We will continue to work on this post-publication.

Accountability and mechanism of change

This charter is voluntary, but is designed to drive change through:

• Transparency: public reporting of actions and outcomes
• Peer comparison: enabling benchmarking across signatories
• Expectation-setting: embedding commitments into funding terms and processes
• Collective scrutiny: shared visibility of where progress is being made or where it is limited

Together, these mechanisms are intended to:

• encourage continuous improvement
• highlight effective approaches
• create system-wide incentives to address persistent barriers

Government role and sector leadership

Government will:

• convene signatories periodically to review progress and share learning
• identify areas where further action or alignment is needed
• support coordination with related initiatives (e.g. Athena Swan, Researcher Development Concordat)

This convening role is intended to:

• maintain momentum
• strengthen shared accountability
• support consistency across the research system

Relationship to existing initiatives

This charter is designed to:

• build on existing frameworks (e.g. Athena Swan, Researcher Development Concordat)
• focus on areas where funders can add distinct value

To minimise burden:

• reporting will align with existing data collections wherever possible
• no new data will be required where equivalent data is already collected

Supporting implementation and learning

To support delivery, government and signatories will:

• share best practice, recognising variation across contexts
• support evaluation of interventions where possible
• use existing sector forums and networks to disseminate learning
• encourage cross-sector and cross-discipline learning (including between academia, industry and different research fields)

Flexibility and proportionality

Recognising variation across disciplines, sectors and funding models:

• the charter sets minimum expectations, not a single delivery model
• signatories may implement commitments in different ways
• expectations should be applied proportionately, including for international portfolios

Sign the charter

If you are a funder of research in the UK or a UK research performing organisation and would like to sign up to the charter, please contact RDengagement@dsit.gov.uk for details.

Charter signatories

• Abertay University
• Academy of Medical Sciences
• Advanced Research and Invention Agency
• Babraham Institute
• Bath Spa University
• Biomathematics & Statistics Scotland
• British Academy
• British Heart Foundation
• Brunel University of London
• Cancer Research UK
• Canterbury Christ Church University
• Cardiff Metropolitan University
• Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
• Coventry University
• Glasgow Caledonian University
• Hartpury University
• Health Sciences University
• Heriot-Watt University
• James Hutton Institute
• King’s College London
• Leeds Beckett University
• Lincoln Bishop University
• Liverpool Hope University
• London Metropolitan University
• London South Bank University
• Met Office
• Moorfields Eye Charity
• National Institute for Health and Care Research
• National Museums Northern Ireland
• National Oceanography Centre
• National Physical Laboratory
• Newcastle University
• Northumbria University
• Queen Margaret University
• Queen’s University Belfast
• Rosalind Franklin Institute
• Royal Academy of Engineering
• Royal Holloway, University of London
• Royal Society
• The Alan Turing Institute
• The Earlham Institute
• The Glasgow School of Art
• The Open University
• The Place
• The Scottish Association for Marine Science
• The Quadram Institute
• UK Research and Innovation
• Ulster University
• University for the Creative Arts
• University of Aberdeen
• University of Birmingham
• University of Chichester
• University of Edinburgh
• University of Glasgow
• University of Huddersfield
• University of Hull
• University of Kent
• University of Leicester
• University of Nottingham
• University of Oxford
• University of Portsmouth
• University of Salford
• University of Southampton
• University of St Andrews
• University of Surrey
• University of Warwick
• University of Westminster
• University of Wolverhampton
• University of Worcester
• University of York
• Wellcome Trust
• Wrexham University

1. Signatories will not be bound by any future changes to UKRI terms and conditions. ↩