Reflections on leading the Equalities Committee (ECO)
This is an interview with Dr Michela MacDonald, who is stepping back from her role as co-lead of the EECS Equalities Committee (ECO) after five years.
What would you say are your main achievements in the five years?
I started this role at the same time as Dr Mustafa Bozkurt, and we stepped down together after completing Athena SWAN Silver submission for EECS, in November 2025. We have now handed over to Dr Charalampos Saitis and Dr Habiba Akter.
Over the past five years, the ECO Committee has become more visible and more connected to the everyday life of the School. We have helped start and sustain more conversations about EDI – through staff meetings as well as smaller, practical initiatives. Importantly, this work has started, but it is by no means finished.
A key achievement has been bringing together what is available into a clearer, shared platform, so colleagues can see what is being done and how to engage, for example through initiatives such as the Women in Higher Education Network (WHEN) led on by Dr Ekaterina Ivanova and Dr Anna Xambo Sedo. Alongside this, we have put more emphasis on evaluation, so we can tell whether measures are effective in practice rather than simply well-intentioned.
We have also helped build a more robust foundation for future activity. That includes improving how EDI-related work is recognised and acknowledged; something that can be genuinely game-changing over time. The workload allocation model (which I hope will be introduced soon) is open and should clearly show everyone what colleagues do.
A major thing while you have been a lead is the preparation for the Athena SWAN award. Tell me about that.
[Note: A few days after this interview EECS was awarded the Silver Athena SWAN for the first time.]
The Athena SWAN process is a structured opportunity to review what we do as a School around gender equality: what the issues are, what the data says, and what we can meaningfully address within the constraints the sector is facing – post-COVID reality, limited funding, and capacity pressures.
Putting the submission together also highlighted something important: some measures can be high impact without needing major investment. They often require commitment, coordination, and good management rather than new budgets. Policies that support colleagues returning from maternity leave, and policies around menopause, are good examples. The workload allocation model also did not require additional funding – it was adopted from approaches used in other schools – yet it can significantly affect how people experience their work.
On a personal level, leading the process was a learning curve. Project and people management were skills I developed largely “on the job.” Once you find the right people to ask, colleagues are extremely helpful and knowledgeable; but it can take time to identify who holds specific information or where certain decisions sit. Overall, though, the process gave me a strong sense of collegiality: people tried their best to contribute, provide information, and support the work.
Is there anything you feel is “unfinished business”?
Yes – data and impact measurement. We want to be able to measure the effect of what we do more consistently, but in many cases, we still lack mechanisms and access to the right datasets. Some data is not collected at School level, and some is difficult to access for those who need it. Collating information can still be cumbersome, even though we have improved things.
Athena SWAN also places emphasis on intersectional analysis – understanding experiences where characteristics overlap (for example gender and disability). We did not always have reliable ways to separate and analyse that information, and this is an area where there is still a lot to improve.
Personally, I would also like to see more focus on EDI within the Joint Programmes (programmes with universities overseas). Staff who are not based in London can be more isolated from the main campus, and the rhythm of their work can be different – yet this is not always reflected in staff surveys or the data we collect. The distinction between joint-programme staff and London-based staff is significant, and we need better ways to recognise and understand that experience.
Do you have any advice for the new Equalities Committee?
Everything can be changed – you do not have to do things the way they have always been done. Rethink what you do with a fresh perspective. Change is not a bad thing.
Be clear about roles and tasks so it is obvious who is doing what. And I would really like to see more engagement from colleagues who want to get involved. Finding people who are willing to participate can be challenging, but it is essential for building momentum. Wider involvement also generates more communication and collegiality within the School.
Do you have some final thoughts?
I have learned a great deal about the School and Faculty, and I have developed my own skills – especially in organising and coordinating people. It has been a learning curve, but I have enjoyed it. At the same time, I recognise that it is the right moment to hand over to others.