Scenario 2 - A Gender Equality Strategy for Researchers (GES4R) - 11:00 - 12:00 CET

Hello everyone, I am Elisabeth Guenther, a social scientist working at the University of Vienna’s Computational Empowerment Lab. My research focusses on the nexus of gender/intersectionality, technology/engineering, learning and organisations such as universities. In the GEDII project, I contributed to the development of the Gender Diversity Index, a measure to capture gender-inclusiveness of research teams. Also, I have some experience when it comes to implement equality measures within universities, as this was part of different roles I held in the past.

I structure my comment along two questions (and will post them in two posts):

Question: In your opinion, what role will this particular GECAS play in advancing gender equality in the EU?
In my experience, gender equality measures benefit from accountability. By this I mean that it is easier for equality measures to become lived practices -and not just a policy paper – if there are consequences related to it. Having a certificate or award (CA) connected to gender equality can help to increase their importance. Research Performing Organisations, such as universities, can highlight their achievements with such CA. This can help them in recruiting talent. More importantly, it can also help them to retain talented staff.

The GES4R asks for applicants to cover at least three areas, most of these areas do address practices within the organisations, e.g. the organizational culture, gender-balance in leadership or the inclusion of gender aspects in research content. This way, the GES4R goes beyond the “Fix the women”-approach and aims for organisations to undo gender inequality. Since this is also linked to the dedication of resources, I think there are good chances that the GES4R could help to advance gender equality within European universities and research organisations.

For this to work, however, it is important that the process and policy of the measures which are presented during the certification process do indeed challenge existing inequalities. The synthetic description of the GES4R states that a “renewal is based on the absence of regression” and that the award stands if there is no change. Here I am wondering, what happens to make sure that this does not cement inequalities in. Perhaps you can elaborate on this a bit more?

One benefit/potential strength is that this could give more importance to equality policies within an organization. It can help Research Performing Organization in their employer branding and it might help universities also in recruiting students, as it indicates to them this is an inclusive place. Moreover, for publicly funded institutions it may also be a way to meet with societal goals, such as to foster equality. But this is likely true for all forms of GECAs.

A benefit of this specific scenario is that it is linked to an already existing scheme (HSR4R), which might make it easier to implement. Moreover, through the capacity building, which is part of the design, it can furthermore help to establish equality practices throughout the organisations.

A potential pitfall might be the 3 year-frame for renewal and that it is static. Both of these aspects depend on the specific designs and details.

Having to report every three year carries the risk to be overburdening, then again this is in line with other audit systems and – as you also pointed out in CASPER_D4.3_Key prerequisites for a Europe-wide gender equality scheme.pdf having a timebound measures is essential for the success. I am wondering whether 4 or 5 years might be better.

As for the GES4R being static – there is a tension: On the one hand, changes will not show within three years, so here it makes sense to only monitor the implementation of the process and not so much the outcome and to say an organization should not regress. On the other hand, however, what happens after 6 or 9 years? Should it then still be static? At what point in time would it be necessary for GES4R to also show some positive effects, and hence also include some outcomes?

Hello everyone! Thank you to the CASPER team for organising this online discussion on the GECAS and for providing an opportunity to reflect in particular on scenario 2 - A Gender Equality Strategy for Researchers (GES4R) as a sister scheme to the HRS4R. My name is Evanthia K. Schmidt and I am Associate Professor and Research Director (with Full Professor qualification) at the Department of Political Science, the Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, and a visiting scholar at the Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway. I have been a visiting professor at the University of Oxford, Université Catholique de Louvain, and the Centre for National University Finance and Management, National Centre of Sciences in Japan. My work focuses on research and innovation policy; RRI; gender in knowledge production and research organizations; European gender policies and strategies; higher education studies; and research evaluation.

I have been involved in a number of European projects focusing on gender, in particular on the implementation and evaluation of gender equality plans, structural change and RRI (EFFORTI, STAGES, PRAGES, WHIST and STARBIOS). I am currently involved in two H2020 projects, one focusing on RRI in biosciences (RESBIOS) and another one on citizens science (STEP-CHANGE), while a third project, funded by the Norwegian Research Council, focuses on gender, citizenship and academic power (GAP). I have assisted the EC as member of two EU groups of experts, one working on the ex-ante impact assessment of H2020 (Environment and Climate Change) and the other on the ex-post evaluation of FP7 (International Cooperation) and have been engaged as expert in the evaluations of FP6, FP7 and H2020 project proposals. I am the EC appointed Danish expert member of the European RTD Evaluation Network and former expert member of the H2020 Advisory Group for Gender. To find my publications, click here

As the European higher education institutions and other RPOs contexts vary greatly, it is obvious that we need a dynamic and flexible framework and effective mechanisms to develop a robust and suitable GECAS. This particular practical GECAS will provide a common Europe-wide framework for gender equality and a standardised approach, facilitating the creation of a common basis across diverse national contexts as a complement to the already employed HRS4R European scheme. Implementation of GES4R could be facilitated by the fact that there already are structures in place in many countries to accommodate the scheme in connection with the HRS4R. However, additional (limited) dedicated resources would be needed to the establishment and function of the new commissions/panels with GE experts. A precondition is the availability of gender competence at institutional level. Overall, this scheme could be attractive for many, in particular for countries that have limited experience from GEPs, as the mechanisms to operate the new GE scheme are the same as the ones for the HRS4R.

Focusing on the scope of the expected changes, gender equality, diversity and inclusion are wide-ranging concepts that go beyond HR policies and involve broader structural and cultural changes, but implicate also cognitive aspects. Starting from an existing scheme and building a sister scheme to the HRS4R, may involve the risk that the GES4R could easily be misinterpreted as targeting only HR and in particular only researchers. It could also make for example the integration of the gender dimension in research and teaching more challenging to incorporate in the award scheme. Research shows that it is difficult to address inequalities with GEPs that are limited in scope since institutional change is a complex phenomenon. GEPs have been criticized for failing to recognize the complexity of structural, cultural, and institutional factors. Thus, it is crucial to establish an all-embracing framework for the GE work with a coordinated set of guidelines, indicators and benchmarks.

Moreover, in line with the HRS4R scheme, only policy and process are considered in GES4R, but not outcomes. To avoid box-ticking exercises and window dressing, the award scheme should be linked to requirements for tangible progress in gender equality and suggest how to consider outcomes as well. Outcomes may be expected in terms of contribution to change, improved conditions to foster change, and work to increase the probability that change can occur. What is more, while higher education institutions and RPOs are dynamic, with emerging issues popping-up continuously in their contexts, the scheme is static in its nature and thus fail to address new conditions. Continuous monitoring and adaptation of the GAPs in response to implementation feedback, new emerging conditions, unintended consequences, and changes in the local dynamics are crucial to achieve institutional change.

In addition, studies reveal that in some cases when the human resource departments lead the implementation of gender equality measures, academics may resist putting them into practice, because they are not willing to introduce changes proposed by non-scientific bodies.

Finally, the scheme involves a simple pass or fail assessment instead of different levels of achievement and does not provide the necessary incentives to work for progression beyond compliance. A more ambitious scheme could encompass setting up requirements for higher education institutions and other RPOs to gradually achieve higher levels of gender equality outcomes, supporting thus sustainable institutional change.

I do however think that from an institutional point of view - linking a scheme - to an ongoing certification might be perceived as somehow 'less work' - and therefore more manageable to assume for an institution... 

The HRS4R scheme focuses on HR/staff. How relevant is the gender dimension in research and teaching in the proposed scheme? Are students also considered?

I like the idea that capacity building is one building block of this scenario, because this way more people within the organisations can take up responsibilities. However, how can this scenario make sure that it does not only reach the already converted, i.e. people who do consider gender equality an important issue. In many universities recruitment decissions are made more or less autonomous by working groups, and HR only has limited influence.

So, I think much of the effectiveness here is linked to how the process is desinged, so it makes sure it does not only "preach to the converted" and really has an impact.