D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities

Deliverable D4.4 – Reports on 4 co-creation activities Molly Occhino, University of Southern Denmark Liv Baisner Petersen, University of Southern Denmark September 30, 2025 Project no. 101058537 Project acronym: INSPIRE Project title: INSPIRE: Centre of Excellence on Inclusive Gender Equality in Research & Innovation: Creating Knowledge & Engaging in Collaborative Action Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2021-ERA-01 Start date of project: 01.10.2022 Duration: 48 months Deliverable title: D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Due date of deliverable: 30.09.25 Actual date of submission: 30.09.25 Deliverable Lead Partner: University of Southern Denmark Dissemination level: Public Authors & contributors name and organisation Role Molly Occhino, University of Southern Denmark Liv Baisner Petersen, University of Southern Denmark Lead author(s) Contributor(s) Rachel Palmén, FUOC, chapter 1 Jörg Müller, FUOC, chapter 2 Joanna Beeckmans, UH, chapter 3 Sybille Redil & David Walker, JR, chapter 4 Quality assurance editor The work contained in this document is subjected to a Creative Commons license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Disclaimer While INSPIRE is funded by the European Union, views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the European Research Executive Agency (REA) can be held responsible for them. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101058537. Consortium FUOC Fundació per a la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain JR Joanneum Research Forschungsgesellschaft Mbh, Austria SDU Syddansk Universitet, Denmark UJ Uniwersytet Jagiellonski, Poland Notus Notus, Spain FLACSO Facultad Latinoamericana De Ciencias Sociales, Argentina EM Europa Media Szolgaltato Non Profitkozhasznu Kft, Hungary Portia Portia gGmbH, Germany SRU Stichting Radboud Universiteit Fraunhofer Fraunhofer Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Angewandten Forschung EV, Germany UH Universiteit Hasselt, Belgium ZRC SAZU Znanstvenoraziskovalni Center Slovenske Akademije Znanosti In Umetnosti, Slovenia GESIS GESIS-Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften EV, Germany INNO Innosystems Symvouleutikes Ypiresies Kai Efarmoges Pliroforikis Ypsilis Technologias Monoprosopi Idiotiki Kefalaiouchiki Etaireia, Greece Document History 03 29.9.25 Final draft sent to FUOC for submission Executive Summary This report summarizes the four co-creation activities that translated the research findings within the Horizon Europe project INSPIRE into practice based tools. All four of the co-creation activities were held online and moderated using creative methods engaging the audience members in the co-creation process through MIRO. Each session was well attended and included between 19 and 33 participants across INSPIRE’s Communities of Practices (CoPs), consortium partners and other key stakeholders. Regarding co-creation workshop 2, due to the very helpful and insightful feedback by the audience in the first co-creation 2 workshop, it became clear that a co-creation workshop 2 part 2 would need to be held in order to better loop the feedback by CoP members back into the input going into the design of INSPIRE’s diagnostic tool. Thus, in all, there were 5 activities held, since co-creation workshop 2 was held in two parts. This report covers INSPIRE’s co-creation workshops’ overall design and methods, before delving into each workshop’s aim, methods, results, and conclusion. Table of Contents List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ 5 Version Date Summary of changes Revised by 01 22.09.25 First draft sent to FUOC, UH and JR Molly Occhino Liv Baisner Petersen 02 26.9.25 Revisions sent to SDU Joanna Beeckmans Sybille Reidl David Walker “Find even more easy-to-use tools on the Insert tab, such as to add a hyperlink or insert a comment” List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... 6 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Design and Methodology ............................................................................................ 9 2.2 Co-creation workshop 1 ............................................................................................ 10 2.3 Co-creation workshop 2 ............................................................................................ 21 2.4 Co-creation workshop 2 part 2: GEP Impact ............................................................ 31 2.5 Co-creation Workshop 3 ........................................................................................... 45 2.6 Co-creation Workshop 4 ........................................................................................... 63 3 Annex ....................................................................................................................................... 73 List of Acronyms CoP Community of Practice DEI Diversity, Equity and Inclusion EDI Equity, Diversity and Inclusion GBV Gender-based violence GE Gender Equality GEP Gender Equality Plan KSH Knowledge and Support Hub SPkg Support Package List of Figures Figure 1: INSPIRE's co-creation workshop process ................................................................. 9 Figure 2: Group 1’s RPO MIRO board ................................................................................... 14 Figure 3: Group 2’s RPO MIRO board ................................................................................... 15 Figure 4: Group 3's RPO MIRO board ................................................................................... 15 Figure 5: Group 4’s RPO MIRO board ................................................................................... 16 Figure 6: Group 5’s RFO MIRO board ................................................................................... 18 Figure 7: Group 6’s Policy Makers from GA+ MIRO board .................................................... 20 Figure 8: INSPIRE's 6 Main Factors for Impact/Change ........................................................ 23 Figure 9: Blank MIRO board graph presented to participants, with factors written on virtual sticky-notes ............................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 10: Group 1’s MIRO board on Strategic Commitment ................................................ 25 Figure 11: Group 2’s MIRO board on Evidence Based, Reflexive approach ......................... 26 Figure 12: Group 3’s MIRO board on Knowledge/Competence ............................................. 27 Figure 13: Group 4’s MIRO board on Inclusive Community of Change ................................. 28 Figure 14: Group 5’s MIRO board on Enforceable Legislation ............................................... 29 Figure 15: Group 6’s MIRO board on Supportive Social and Cultural Context ...................... 30 Figure 16: Group 1’s MIRO board on Usefulness of Diagnostic Tool in Everyday Work ....... 34 Figure 17: Group 2’s MIRO board on Usefulness of Diagnostic Tool in Everyday Work ....... 35 Figure 18: Group 3’s MIRO board on Usefulness of Diagnostic Tool in Everyday Work ....... 36 Figure 19: Group 1’s MIRO board on Design and Functionality ............................................. 38 Figure 20: Group 2’s MIRO board on Design and Functionality ............................................. 39 Figure 21: Group 3’s MIRO board on Design and Functionality ............................................. 40 Figure 22: Group 1’s MIRO board Envisioning Results .......................................................... 41 Figure 23: Group 2’s MIRO board Envisioning Results ......................................................... 42 D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 7 of 82 Figure 24: Group 3’s MIRO board Envisioning Results .......................................................... 43 Figure 25: Group 1 round 1’s MIRO board ............................................................................. 47 Figure 26: Group 1 round 2’s MIRO board ............................................................................. 48 Figure 27: Group 2 round 1’s MIRO board ............................................................................. 52 Figure 28: Group 2 round 2’s MIRO board ............................................................................. 53 Figure 29: Group 3 round 1’s MIRO board ............................................................................. 55 Figure 30: Group 3 round 2’s MIRO board ............................................................................. 56 Figure 31: Group 4 round 1’s MIRO board ............................................................................. 59 Figure 32: Group 4 round 2’s MIRO board ............................................................................. 60 Figure 33: SPkg 5 Track 1 for applicants ............................................................................... 65 Figure 34: SPkg 5 Track 2 for funders ................................................................................... 66 Figure 35: Breakout group 1’s MIRO board on applicants ..................................................... 69 Figure 36: Breakout group 2’s MIRO board on funders ......................................................... 71 D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 8 of 82 1 Introduction The four co-creation activities were conducted as part of the Horizon Europe project INSPIRE - Centre of Excellence on inclusive Gender Equality in Research and Innovation: Creating Knowledge & Engaging in Collaborative Action. The aim of the co-creation workshops was two-fold: to disseminate research being done in INSPIRE to the INSPIRE Community of Practice (CoP) members, and other relevant stakeholders (e.g., stakeholders and consortium partners from sister projects), and to translate the research findings into practice-based tools for CoP members and practitioners through a creative, collaborative exchange. INSPIRE has involved 12 Communities of Practice (CoPs) in total, who are supported by Knowledge and Support Hubs in the fields of: - 1) sustaining and deepening change - 2) widening participation - 3) intersectionality - 4) innovation A Community of Practice is defined as a group of “people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, McDermott, Snyder 2002 1 ). CoPs in INSPIRE are used as the bridge-builders between knowledge and practice, which is central to the project. As such, in the context of the co-creation workshops, CoP members, drawing upon their rich practice-based experience, gave feedback on the ways INSPIRE project findings could be best translated and adapted into practical tools for change. The cocreation workshops (described in depth in INSPIRE’s Co-Creation Framework under T4.3) are structured online sessions facilitated by SDU and relevant partners to encourage active participation and idea exchange, which help with the development of concepts, policies, solutions and tools among participants. As such, the results feed into T6.1 Production of toolkit/training assets, open training units and support packages. This report summarizes the process and results of each of the co-creation workshops, as well as how the INSPIRE consortium and KSH leaders integrated the feedback in order to best transform their research results into practice-based tools. 2 Co-Creation Workshops In this chapter, we reflect upon the co-creation process and the results captured in the cocreation events as they relate to each workshop’s research and goals. Specifically, we describe and reflect upon the co-creation collaborative process, and we also describe how 1 Wenger, Etienne; McDermott, Richard Arnold; Snyder, William (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business Press. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 9 of 82 the input from each workshop filtered back into INSPIRE’s research and practice-based tools. 2.1 Design and Methodology In terms of design and methods, INSPIRE’s co-creation workshops were designed to bring both researchers and Communities of Practice (CoP) practitioners together, as practitioners are not only important stakeholders but also essential contributors with their own important and intimate knowledge of equality, diversity and inclusion within research and innovation organizations, which is paramount to the success of our project. Co-creation activities can be defined as activities or “practices where actors engage collaboratively […] through interactions within a specific social context” (Frow et al., 2015, p. 26 in Thomson et al. 2023 p. 64). As such, it can be said that co-creation aims to “collaborate, create together, cooperate, and share ideas, knowledge, practice, and build on the existing ideas to develop them further” (64). Indeed, exactly to co-create knowledge and ideas together with CoP members, we planned and carried out co-creation workshops between early summer 2024 to summer 2025 on the following topics a) INSPIRE vision, 2) GEP success, 3) Intersectionality and 4) Innovation Policy Toolkit. SDU planned and facilitated each of the workshops alongside the relevant consortium partners for each workshop. Each workshop was specifically tailored to the theme and needs of the given session, but overarchingly they were informed by the general co-creation framework created for and by INSPIRE partners. Figure 1: INSPIRE's co-creation workshop process Members of INSPIREs Communities of Practice, comprised of networks and communities of researchers and practitioners working on diversity, equity and inclusion and GEP work in research and higher education from our four Knowledge and Support Hubs (KSH) were invited to the events, as were consortium partners, and other relevant stakeholders (e.g. GENDERACTIONplus project partners in co-creation workshop 1 and 4). In the annex, one can find the invitations sent out to all of the co-creation workshops to the CoP members and General co-creation framework D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 16 of 82 Figure 5: Group 4’s RPO MIRO board RFO Results The RFO group also had rich and engaged discussions, contributing to the workshop with invaluable feedback on the policy brief and its operationalization in relation to research funding, which is reflected in their MIRO board input, below. When asked to identify which three key issues in the policy brief were most important for them to operationalize in your area, they highlighted 1) Data monitoring, 2) Integrating an intersectional perspective, and 3) Building CoPs. In relation to data collection, the group noted that while some places collected data on other social categories than gender for GEPs, that the kinds of data allowed to be legally collected due to discrimination laws (other than on voluntary basis) was often a hindering factor. This echoed the input from the RPO groups. Additionally, Vinnova shared about their important work, writing, “Inclusive innovation is a core part of Vinnovas work. We work in two parallel tracks: 1) widening the participation of actors/innovators within our innovation eco-system and 2) promote gendered innovation, that is, the solutions/innovations in the funded projects”. In regard to what was missing from the policy brief and what otherwise needs to be addressed, the group commented that “more gender expertise in the government and D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 17 of 82 institutions” was necessary. And that “perhaps also the creation of central government unit, dedicated to this issue. This could be as useful as the units dedicated to gender in RFO’s.” When asked to reflect on how funding organizations can promote inclusive GEPs, the group had a lot of important reflections that ranged across stakeholders and areas: - Take on a leadership role in promoting gender equality - Asking for GEPs to the applicants when submitting their applications - Awareness Raising o Beginning to use this new designation to create firstly internal and external awareness, share the concerns and actions with other RFO’s in the country - Training in gender equality for applicants and experts - Presenting advantages of GE in R&I projects - Demand to implement the gender dimension into contents of the projects on national level Lastly, the group also had some relevant reflections on how we can build on and operationalize the recommendations from the INSPIRE Policy Brief to be useful in their dayto-day work: - Sharing good practices, producing and disseminating documents advocating the need for action - Promoting gender equality in career - Demand to implement the gender dimension into contents of the projects on national level - Asking for GEPs from the applicants when submitting their application D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 18 of 82 Figure 6: Group 5’s RFO MIRO board Policy Makers (GENDERACTIONplus) The last breakout group consisted both of INSPIRE and GENDERACTIONplus consortium members, with the INSPIRE partners facilitating the room. The important input from the group is captured in Figure 7, illustrated below. When asked to identify the key issues in the policy brief that are most important to operationalize in your area, the participants highlighted the following four areas: 1) Need for conceptual clarity 2) Context specific/policy landscape 3) Defining intersectional data to collect, and 4) Participatory approach These areas very much echoed the areas defined as important by the other stakeholder groups. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 19 of 82 When asked what was missing from the policy brief and what else needed to be addressed, the participants from GA+ pointed out how the following were missing yet important: 1) Alignment with/reference to key concepts as used at the REA forum/EC level 2) Develop further the case of inclusive gendered innovation (examples) 3) Precarity in relation to organizational logics in research and highlighted 4) Common approach/minimum standards across ERA that also consider contextual specificity (if that is possible) 5) Lack of resources Despite the context being different from the previously discussed groups, some of the points, such as lack of resources, mirrored some of the feedback given by the RPOs. In relation to policy work specifically, when asked how inclusive GEPs could be promoted on a national level (e.g., legislation, policy, resource allocation, others?), the group pointed to three key areas: 1) Funding criteria 2) Award schemes, EU, national prizes 3) National networks of GE structures at RPOs/RFOs And when the group reflected on how inclusive GEPs could be monitored on a national level (e.g., prevalence, implementation, impact, others?), the group provided both rich bestpractice examples as well as some more general ideas on national monitoring: 1) Collecting data: balance between specificity of each institution and common indicators 2) Needs some aspects of critical self-assessment by institutions but mitigate against institutional ‘happy talk’ 3) National ‘SHE figures’ 4) Challenge to identify impact of GEPs in isolation when looking at progress on gender equality In regard to the national best practice examples, Marcela and her team shared that the Czech Republic “start round tables next year to open the debates on intersectionality with key stake holders from highlighted and research sectors and the ministries and national authorities” and that “monitoring GEPs at national level, first mapping whether gender+ approach or intersectional approach is used.” Finally, when the group was asked to reflect upon how we can build on and operationalize the recommendations from the INSPIRE Policy brief to be useful in their day-to-day work, and to operationalize this in terms of suggestions on what these policies might look like, the group pointed at numerous different and important ways to do this operationalization. They included: 1) Evidence based policy making 2) Suggest concrete actors that should be developing your recommendations D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 20 of 82 3) Have a commonly agreed and endorsed definition submitted to the Commission, coordinate across the two projects 4) Focus on translating policy into practice rather than justify why we need gender equality work 5) More collaboration – between policy makers and experts 6) Solid conceptual glossary 7) With defined minimum standard 8) Leverage work already done in evidence-based policy making Figure 7: Group 6’s Policy Makers from GA+ MIRO board D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 21 of 82 Co-Creation Workshop 1 Conclusion Co-creation workshop 1 provided a very important opportunity both to gain insights into INSPIRE’s Policy brief 1 and how to operationalize it, but also equally important, provided a space for a cross-fertilization between INSPIRE and GENDERACTIONplus. This mixing was paramount as it provided new and important insights into policy making at national level and also related to EU coordination. While the insights were not fed back into the policy brief (as it was already published), they were instead fed back into the overall project, enhancing multiple sites of the project, and also leading to INSPIRE’s decision to include GENDERACTIONplus as an Open Training Unit 8 in INSPIRE to showcase the important findings coming out of the project. 2.3 Co-creation workshop 2 The main aim of co-creation workshop 2 was to get feedback on whether the indicators developed based on the empirical research in the T3.3 case studies were pertinent for practitioners and their work. The workshop specifically sought feedback on the degree to which the absence/presence of these indicators was associated with real changes towards greater GE in the practitioners’ organizations. Method In terms of attendance of co-creation workshop 2 on GEP success indicators, 33 people participated, including CoP members from all four KSHs as well as INSPIRE consortium members and experts all attended. In terms of workshop structure, one of the lead researchers from the case studies, Jörg Müller, started the session with a brief presentation and explanation of the six GEP success factors for impact/change derived from INSPIREs case studies (as shown in figure 8 below). Indeed, he presented the following six factors and their sub-factors categorized within the main six: 1) Strategic organizational commitment a. GE/ EDI is among key values/ strategic priorities of the organization b. Dedicated resources (at least 2x FTE or equivalent) c. EDI/GE officers participate with voice and vote in top-leadership decision making d. Organization has a GE/EDI governance frame e. Accountability of top-leadership for GEGE/EDI f. Vice-president for GE or EDI 2) Evidence-based, reflexive approach a. Monitoring framework in place tied to GE goals/targets b. Existence of data expert group c. Periodic systematic data collection—including quantitative and qualitative data D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 22 of 82 d. Data systematically feeds into decision-making e. Evaluation of progress made on tackling inequalities 3) Gendered knowledge a. Experiences of discrimination by minoritized groups become part of the knowledge base and feeds into intervention design b. Training for whole organization community is mainstreamed (obligatory/ optional) c. GE becomes a criterion in scientific and administrative decision-making d. Rationale of GEP (social justice/business logic) & scope (beyond gender— intersectional/EDI) e. Gender dimension integrated across all disciplines, including high status disciplines f. State-of-the-art knowledge feeds into GEP design and actions (structural change) 4) Inclusive community for change a. Men are involved in GE/EDI work b. Includes academic & administrative middle management c. Sustainable: GE/EDI work is formally recognized (pay/career progression/reduction of teaching load) d. Effective organizational processes and procedures are implemented e. Bottom-up initiatives, e.g. staff indicatives f. Scope: all/most stakeholders groups are involved in/represented in change process 5) Enforceable legislation a. Effective sanctions b. Presence of comprehensive and progressive national legislation and policies (recourses and status) c. Legislation specifies organizational GE/EDI thematic content & process elements d. Solid external certification/quality standard checks in place (compliance check) e. Academic freedom undermining equality work 6) Supportive cultural and social context a. Discriminatory behavior is called out and tackled by the majority b. Empathy and respect are the default c. Gender equality is strived for and permeates the organization d. Existence of social feminist movements inside and outside the organization e. Extensive network of NGOs and civil society organizations f. Wider social consensus in favor of gender equality D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 23 of 82 Figure 8: INSPIRE's 6 Main Factors for Impact/Change Following the presentation, CoP members were put into random break-out groups on Zoom, where they were asked to place the indicators (each factor was written down on a post-it note for the participants to place on the graph) on a continuum scale on a MIRO board according to degree of consensus; the Y-axis represented the degree of importance, from very important to least important, and the X-axis represented the degree of which the indicator contributes to deep and positive change: from “item contributes positively to deep structural change/”success” to “absence/lack of item contributes to the status quo, no change, or even backlash.” Figure 2, below, depicts the design of the MIRO boards, specifically the one on strategic commitment, that was presented to the participants. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 24 of 82 Figure 9: Blank MIRO board graph presented to participants, with factors written on virtual sticky-notes Participants were asked to discuss the indicators and place factors on the sticky notes on the graph. Additionally, participants were also given blank post-it notes (colored indigo) where they could identify missing indicators. During the placing, researchers from the INSPIRE T3.3 case studies facilitated conversations about the extent to which the indicators reflect the power to change organizations for a greater gender equality as was the extent to which the indicators reflect embedding equality practices within the organization. Rapporteur from each group asked to share group feedback in plenum session with the whole group, where we had a larger discussion about the factors. Results Overall, the groups had very rich input to the different factors. It is notable that all groups besides group 1 decided to have each participant place a post-it for each indicator on the MIRO board. Group 1’s group discussed the indicators and agreed together on where they should be located. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 25 of 82 Factor 1: Strategic Commitment Figure 10: Group 1’s MIRO board on Strategic Commitment Group 1’s feedback on the GEP success factor, Strategic Organizational Commitment, revealed mixed experiences regarding its implementation. Out of the three participants in the break-out room, only one reported that the proposed indicators had been largely implemented within their organization. The other two participants described their organizations as either having just started the process or struggling due to a lack of topmanagement support, with one participant even describing their efforts as a “lone-warrior” initiative. This indicates that the indicators identified key elements of change, but these changes are not always self-evident or widely adopted within organizations. The indicators could be said to identify key elements of change which are not self-evident within organizations. A main element identified as missing from the indicator or main factor involves the ability to attach gender equality needs to other priorities of the organization. The possibility to latch onto other issues was identified as a productive strategy for change. Another important aspect discussed concerns legislation which was also deemed a “burden” if not sufficient resources are available to implement actions that are needed for the compliance with the policy recommendation or legal requirements. Lastly, another point raised identified training activities implemented in an organization as making a rather small contribution. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 32 of 82  Potential respondents: single person, 1 person per stakeholder group (approx. 6), multiple respondents per organization  Structure: 6 main thematic block (main factors), 4-6 sub-sections.  Question types / answers: detailed questions versus self-assignment to one level of calibration table(s). (see attached slide)  Online questionnaire tool with centralized data gathering (enables comparison)  How do you envision the output (visually, text)? What results do we envision? (15 min)  Diagnostics I: Where does each organization stand on each factor? Relevant especially with multiple respondents (level of agreement)?  Diagnostics II: Where does my organization stand in relation to structural change, i.e. transformation of power/status hierarchy?  Benchmarking: Compare own organization to similar other organizations.  Tailored recommendations This session was followed up by a rich plenum discussion where all groups could share their input and offer feedback on each other’s. The workshop was closed by SDU. Results The workshop proved to foster rich and diverse discussions that indicated a great need for a diagnostic tool for organizations and practitioners. When asked how such a diagnostic tool might be useful for their everyday work, participants’ responses can be summarized in the following eight key points, which all have several subcomponents. 1. Helpful for monitoring, design and evaluation a. Helpful to get information about the status quo internal diagnostic b. Helpful for comparison across universities/within networks (knowledge sharing)  inspiring and sharing best practices c. Helpful during beginning whole phase of GEP  checklist of data (qual/quant) e.g. culture hard to interpret at institutional level d. Helpful as a reference book or consulting manual for GEP work, also in working groups 2. Helpful for gathering information and dissemination across stakeholders a. It can help to know who is "doing well" b. A diagnose methodology which is complementary to field observation c. involve people that do not generally work in GE topics d. important for identifying gaps and room for improvement during annual/biannual revisions 3. Helpful to provide evidence (and for implementation) that helps answer the question “why do we need [(I)GEPs]” a. Leverage to be used with management/powerful stakeholders D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 33 of 82 b. Evidence is also interesting for researchers 4. Helpful for establishing didactic process 5. Helpful if it can measure impact a. Also to correlate with GEP Impact in the broader sense 6. Useful for validation, as it’s done by external experts in the field a. Removes “bias” coming from internal organization 7. Empowering for gender equality officers/experts 8. Helpful if it can be used to qualify other plans a. E.g. for frameworks of other programs/instruments of broader contexts Noted also, however, was that one participant shared that in terms of monitoring and evaluation of GEPs, indicators are mostly already available. Additionally, in the prompt, participants were asked to reflect upon any specific features the tool should have, where only one group responded explicitly on features, asking for an additional feature where inspiring best practice/”stories” could be shared. Figures 16, 17, and 18 below illustrate the feedback on use of the tool, as captured on the three MIRO boards in the first part of the breakout session. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 34 of 82 Figure 16: Group 1’s MIRO board on Usefulness of Diagnostic Tool in Everyday Work D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 35 of 82 Figure 17: Group 2’s MIRO board on Usefulness of Diagnostic Tool in Everyday Work D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 36 of 82 Figure 18: Group 3’s MIRO board on Usefulness of Diagnostic Tool in Everyday Work D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 37 of 82 In the second part of the workshop, the groups were asked to reflect upon the design of the tool and what kind of design would be most practical for them in their work, and what kinds of functionality options would be most relevant to have in the tool. The responses across the three groups can be synthesized into the following main points: 1. Design feature defining and illustrating different factors and their indicators a. Clear explanations on definitions and defined minimum thresholds for each indicator/sub-areas are important b. Consider incorporating anonymized stories and examples from case studies to illustrate them 2. Design feature sharing best practices a. Consider resources like time 3. Importance of respondent(s) involvement, knowledge and power a. One central person to coordinate, in collaboration with respective persons b. context-dependent  Solution: many people can access and provide input c. difficulty in the plurality of voices: identify and clarify who is answering the question d. plurality in the interview, allow for different points of view e. Potential respondents being not the top management, but someone who has organizational understanding but is still close to the people. E.g. associate Dean--connected to power, but also not top leadership 4. Keep clarity of result representation 5. Fewer questions and less time to respond a. Consider Likert scale or options A-D to reflect fully in and fully out. 6. Aim for pragmatic strategies a. Adapting very practical cases and data into more general strategies b. Applicability of the tool for other institutional strategies would make it very attractive c. Opening for dialogue check box options alone might be hard and close discussions. 7. Accessibility a. Pedagogical definitions b. Tool should not be too time consuming 8. Results a. Immediate b. Results at the end of each 6 thematic blocks gives some kind of advice, policy recommendations, etc. to help organizations know what to do next Figures 19, 20 and 21, below, depict the MIRO boards from the three breakout groups regarding their input to the design and functionality. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 38 of 82 Figure 19: Group 1’s MIRO board on Design and Functionality D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 39 of 82 Figure 20: Group 2’s MIRO board on Design and Functionality D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 40 of 82 Figure 21: Group 3’s MIRO board on Design and Functionality D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 41 of 82 In the last part of the session, participants were asked to reflect upon what results they envisioned, and how they envision it to be used in their organization. Some of the responses in this part overlapped with responses captured in parts 1 and 2 of the workshop, but there were still many important insights provided. The input from the three groups on this topic were captured in the MIRO boards in figures 22, 23, and 24, below. Figure 22: Group 1’s MIRO board Envisioning Results D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 48 of 82 Figure 26: Group 1 round 2’s MIRO board In terms of the first question regarding which terminology is used in the participants’ institutions, participants’ feedback can be summarized in the following key points: 1. Non-prioritization of GE and DEI a. Discrimination is not considered a problem at their institution b. Working on gender equality is already contested c. Resistance to GE and even more to intersectionality as new term (coming from critical race theory) 2. Fear of gender dilution if the focus does not remain on gender equality in EU mandates 3. Strategic framing a. DEI plan starting to work with intersectionality through gender mainstreaming b. Making a specific action in the DEI plan focused on working towards an intersectional approach 4. Overcome resistances 5. Inclusive gendered innovation or norm critical innovation a. It’s a language companies and funders know b. “Trojan horse”  take the approach but don’t name it D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 49 of 82 6. Legislation inhibiting broader diversity and anti-discrimination work by requiring silos a. E.g. in Spain where Separate GEP and LGBTQ+ action plan are obliged by law to be two separate plans These overall points were supplemented by rich empirical examples given by the CoP participants on their specific national and organizational contexts. For example, one participant from a Polish institution noted that in terms of gender equality, anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies, an intersectional approach is included in the policies in some places, but this does not extend to practice. It was also noted that “intersectionality” as term was not very popular in their context and was only used at the individual level (research centres/university/lectures), not at the institutional level. In the Danish context, a CoP member shared that similarly, the focus was on gender equality mainly, and not really on intersectionality. The participant added that intersectional inequality wasn’t seen really as a problem in their context, and that the Danish cultural imaginary of the country being in a “post-feminist” era was a difficult to address. This attitude was compounded by a blindness and denial of the country’s colonial history, which compounded the difficulty to focus on e.g. gender and race. In the Spanish context, one CoP participant shared that while it was positive that there was a new legal mandate requiring a LGBTQ+ action plan, that in practice, it requires a siloed approach to discrimination and remains rather narrow, which makes it very difficult to make the plan intersectional and requires double the work. When the groups were asked about how intersectionality could be introduced using the terminology, both groups had many different ideas, which can be summarized in the following main points: 1. Focus on the language of talent recruitment and talent retention a. No focus on notion of ‘fairness’, anti-sexism, anti-racism 2. Individual/personal strategies of implementing intersectionality instead of institutional support 3. EU frame as pressure point to do intersectionality a. Use this to management “it’s going to come anyway so might as well do it already” 4. Establishing networks (gender network/taskforce) a. Creates (1) stakeholder support, (2) broad participation, (3) putting pressure, (4) gather different stakeholders vertically and horizontally (5) visibility and communication to start seeing different positionings 5. Anti-discrimination law does not help to widen from gender to intersectionality because the public opinion doesn’t believe that there is discrimination happening 6. Intersectionality in practice but not in policy a. Case-to-case analysis of inequality takes an intersectional approach but not mentioned as such by the policy documents D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 50 of 82 Additionally, the Spanish CoP member in the group underscored again how it was prohibited to integrate different policies into a holistic policy, giving again the example of the GEP and LGBTQ+ policy that need to be separated In the final part of the group work, participants were asked to reflect upon the risks and benefits of the different strategies, where the groups together identified and spent more time identifying risks slightly more than benefits: Risks: 1. Lack of understanding a. Belief that intersectionality will only have a limited impact on implementation because a few people believe in it/understand it 2. Ambivalence a. Moving beyond mere naming intersectionality by doing intersectionality b. Addressing more business case terms can hinder to address actual inequalities however, those who have power want to minimize the work c. Rethink the language to different stakeholders, adopt different communication strategies 3. Complexity of the concept a. Difficulties to convince others to work with it b. Need shared understanding of what is meant by it in practice, not merely in the policy documents 4. Resistance due to gender dilution and overload of more tasks (lack of resources) 5. Lack of intersectional data a. Makes it difficult to make a statement on why it is important b. However, easy used as an “excuse” to do nothing, or focus on separate diversity markers 6. Risk that mandates to do intersectionality creates a “bureaucratisation effect” a. Everything needs to be built around data b. However, not doing intersectionality can be used to window-dress and focus on celebrating diversity and inclusion instead of tackling the existing inequalities Benefits: 1. Belief that intersectionality is more inclusive and holistic, so the approach needs to stay 2. Most critique that intersectionality is on paper but not in practice turn it around: not having intersectionality overtly on paper might facilitate to have it in practice D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 51 of 82 3. Use different languages to different stakeholders: use repertoires 4. Use the mandatory requirements as a starting point, even when additive approach 5. Build from familiar concepts (gender, diversity, inclusion) a. Intersectionality is already a few steps ahead but can create incentive to look for how different groups might have the same objectives toward equality Group 2: Doing Intersectionality in Equality Policies through Governance Mechanisms ad fostering dialogue and coordination In this group, participants in both rounds were asked to first reflect upon the kinds of governance mechanisms (e.g., structural dialogue fora, coordination body or actor, combination of leadership and participation) that foster dialogue and coordination to advance intersectionality in their institutions, and then asked how such governance mechanisms should be set up to ensure that silos are overcome and inequality reduced. The answers are recorded on their MIRO boards, as seen below in figures 27 and 28. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 52 of 82 Figure 27: Group 2 round 1’s MIRO board D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 53 of 82 Figure 28: Group 2 round 2’s MIRO board In terms of the first question on governance mechanisms that foster dialogue and coordination of the advancement of intersectionality in institutions, CoP members were very engaged and had many different kinds of feedback on both existing governance structures and new ideas to foster dialogue and coordination. Regarding governance structures, it was apparent that there was a great diversity across national contexts as well as institutional contexts, and that many different groups and stakeholders were involved in various ways across these different approaches. 1. Lack of governance 2. Differences in group rights and power a. Visible vs. Non-visible groups. Groups claiming rights vs. non claiming rights 3. Gap between policies and implementation 4. Alignment with law and regulations a. Take into account the law and regulations before designing governance D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 54 of 82 b. Danger of box ticking exercise 5. Difficulty of integrating intersectionality, when GE is not “so far” a. How to make a “bigger” change in GE AND intersectionality by doing them all at once. 6. Integration across university main tasks a. E.g. part of the teaching curriculum 7. Involvement of stakeholders a. HR b. Importance of getting unions on board, especially places with collective agreements e.g. in Spain In addition to these overall points that were discussed, there were also rich empirical examples of how individual institutions’ governance mechanisms were organized. For example, in one Spanish institution, the EDI governance structure includes: The vice-rector + EDI Taskforce + EDI Commission (5 admin, 5 academics, 5 students) + EDI Committee with unions + 1 EDI delegate (vice -dean) per faculty. While in another, the coordination of multiple policies is done by a task force that designs and implements them under the lead of a director of equality. For example, first surveys and focus groups were employed to gather needs from the community in different areas (e.g. gender, LGBTQI) and then working groups with volunteers were organized to implement actions. Information from the working group was combined with the steering committee (directorate) In some countries (e.g., Latvia), there is no equality policy governance body. The EU regulation is adopted on paper, to qualify for grants, but there is no clear body that is accountable for it. There were also some contexts where the governance structure greatly varied across universities, where one university described that their Gender Equality Team supports departments with their strategy on diversity and the implementation of actions (so, despite the name, the scope is broader), and that this team is embedded in a specific faculty and supports from there. This indicates that the specific structures might be the product of specific trajectories of development of equality policies, rather than from a broader governance structure. It was also noted that in some organizations, there are even multiple committees for the same ground of inequality (e.g., disability), meaning governance was diffused across multiple places. In some countries (e.g., Cyprus), there is still very overt gender equality. However, in this context it was noted that there might be other entry points (inequality axes) into advancing equality. In terms of the second question in which participants had to reflect upon how governance structures should be set up to ensure that silos are overcome and inequality reduced, there was much less direct engagement with the question. Group 1 noted that it was difficult to avoid silos sometimes. While plans targeting different groups can contain similar strategic goals or values, the operative goals and specific actions will be different for each vulnerable group. Group 2 didn’t post any input directly to the question. However, some of the answers in the first part of the groupwork on fostering dialogue and coordination could be said to feed D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 55 of 82 into this question, for example, by looking at some of the more robust governance mechanisms, such as the example above in the Spanish context. Group 3: Fostering intersectional equality policy implementation through ownership and accountability structures In this group, participants were asked to discuss concrete strategies for fostering intersectional policy implementation through ownership and accountability. The input from groups in the first and second round can be seen in figures 29 and 30, below. Figure 29: Group 3 round 1’s MIRO board D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 56 of 82 Figure 30: Group 3 round 2’s MIRO board In the first part of the session, the group was asked to reflect upon what ownership mechanisms (role definition, formalization of procedures, participation mechanisms for different stakeholders…) and accountability mechanisms (goal definition, integration of intersectional equality indicators in leadership and careers, evaluations and formulation of consequences...) could be installed to ensure implementation of intersectional equality policies. Here, the groups discussed the following key areas: 1. Ownership a. Working groups to create sense of ownership 2. Support from top leadership 3. Strategic framing of justice and excellence a. Show positive evidence in area 4. Resources 5. Clear policies 6. Importance of constant monitoring—through qualitative and quantitative data 7. Create motivation incentives for groups to motivate them to follow policies D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 57 of 82 a. Promote training among researchers, administrators, students 8. Responsibility a. Importance of sharing responsibility b. Importance of assigning responsibility 9. Transparency a. Incl. making the workload visible 10. Establish equality representative as first contact point Indeed, expanding these points, the groups discussed how efforts to advance intersectional policymaking can be strengthened by building on existing structures developed for genderrelated policies, which offer valuable experience, knowledge, and team capacity. Clear and well-communicated policies are essential, as they enable employees to assert their rights when policies are not upheld, fostering a form of bottom-up accountability. They also discussed how establishing working groups that include diverse stakeholders can promote a sense of ownership and shared responsibility, while also distributing the workload more evenly. But in all constellations, it’s important to sustain engagement by allocating sufficient resources, especially since those involved often face high workloads and engage in emotional labour. Furthermore, making the time and effort individuals devote to equity, diversity, and inclusion visible and measurable can further support their continued involvement. Additionally, introducing incentives—such as recognizing DEI roles in promotion, evaluation, or bonus systems—can reinforce the value of these efforts. For example, allowing DEI work to count toward career advancement can help institutionalize and reward meaningful participation. On a more organizational level, ensuring accountability requires constant monitoring, both in a qualitative and quantitative way. The latter can involve using surveys or checking whether certain steps have been taken. Qualitative monitoring can involve focus groups with staff. To the point on ensuring accountability, it was discussed that top management needs to stress the importance of the policies. Here, in order to support buy-in, the group also pointed out that building a clear business case that reflects the work and priorities of implementors is important. For example, convince heads of research groups that their research will benefit through their work on DEI. And lastly, in terms of successful implementation, clear roles and contact points, resource prioritization, and clear responsibility division are all important. The groups discussed how it was important to ensure that there are DEI representatives close enough to the implementation process (e.g., in each faculty). They can be a point of contact and information for both the implementers and the potential beneficiaries. Make sure these individuals have resources available depending on the amount of time they have to spend on their role. For example, to deal with crises which might require much time. Additionally, it was noted that in order to ensure good implementation, somebody should be made clearly responsible for it. This also means the person should be clearly informed about what they are expected to do. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 64 of 82 1) what are inclusive gendered innovations? 2) why are they relevant? 3) a glossary of terms, before splitting into two main tracks, explained below. Track 1: For Research Applicants – 5-Step Innovation Cycle 1. Inclusion Relevance & Project Design: Guidance on identifying inclusion relevance, shaping inclusive project goals, and composing diverse teams. Includes reflective questions and external resources. 2. Inclusive Analysis: Addresses sampling, literature reviews, inclusive data collection and analysis methods tailored to diverse user groups. 3. Co-creation & Ideation: Offers participatory design methods, decision-making techniques, and examples for inclusive concept generation. 4. Testing & Evaluation: Guides on inclusive testing of products and prototypes, building diverse user samples, and inclusive interpretation of findings. 5. Dissemination & Sustainability: Covers inclusive communication, reporting practices, and ideas for embedding results within organizational routines. A continuous section addresses management, monitoring, and reflection across all stages. Figure 33, below, depicts Track 1’s structure in SPkg 5 as it was visualized on MIRO for participants. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 65 of 82 Figure 33: SPkg 5 Track 1 for applicants Track 2: For Funding Organizations – 9-Step Funding Cycle 1. Programming & Budget Allocation: Tools and questions for setting inclusive strategic priorities. 2. Designing the Program: Embedding IGI before calls are written, including inclusive objectives and criteria. 3. Writing the Call: Templates and advice for writing IGI-aligned calls. 4. Outreach & Launch: Guidance on inclusive communication strategies and outreach to underrepresented stakeholders. 5. Supporting Applicants: Materials and sessions to help applicants engage with IGI meaningfully. 6. Selecting Reviewers & Panels: Ensuring gender balance and IGI expertise. 7. Defining Evaluation Criteria: Examples of IGI-focused evaluation metrics and guidance. 8. Assessment Process: Rubrics, reviewer training, and templates for consistency and fairness. 9. Feedback & Monitoring: Guidance on closing the loop with applicants and integrating IGI insights into institutional learning. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 66 of 82 Figure 34, below, depicts Track 2’s structure in SPkg 5 as it was visualized on MIRO for participants. Figure 34: SPkg 5 Track 2 for funders D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 67 of 82 Joanneum Research consortium partners demonstrated this modular content using a MIRO board, which allows users to explore and access relevant guidance interactively. Following the presentation of the SPkg 5 content and structure, two breakout groups were created—one for funders and one for applicants, aligning with the two tracks of the SPkg 5. Additionally, in order to create synergies between INSPIRE and GENDERACTIONplus, and to ensure a varied critical mass, consortium partners from the GENDERACTIONplus Funding CoP were also invited to the workshop. In the breakout sessions, facilitators from INSPIRE asked the groups to discuss the structure and steps for track 1 and 2 respectively. The groups used the yellow "comments" post-its to note what they thought of the structure (what steps are unclear, what is very clear, what is helpful or not helpful). Then they were given time to discuss what was missing (and use the red post-its to document their input). Following up on these discussions, in the final part of the breakout session, participants were asked to rank their priorities using the colored dot voting system on the MIRO board to indicate which step they felt they needed the most information about. Following the group discussions, SDU facilitated a plenary discussion where each group (the funders and applicants) briefly presented their MIRO board and summarized their group discussion, whereafter the other group was invited to give feedback and comment or ask questions to the presenting group. Lastly, SDU and JR explained the next steps of the SPkg 5 preparation and how the input from the session would be integrated, before closing the session. Results Participants in both of the groups discussed and provided important feedback on the structure, content, and usability of SPkg 5. Breakout Group 1: Applicants & Innovation Cycle This group reflected on the SPkg 5 section for research performers, raising key points about usability and clarity:  Understanding Relevance: Some participants felt uncertain whether their projects “qualified” for IGI — prompting a request for more guidance or examples to help applicants self-assess.  Pedagogical Framing: Discussion emerged around whether to begin with a section on projects that might not be suitable. It was suggested to take a more affirmative approach, assuming that all research has some IGI relevance.  Introductory Sections: The "Why IGI" part should include stronger arguments showing added value for research quality, impact, and innovation — especially for audiences unfamiliar with gender dimensions. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 68 of 82  Practical Use Cases: Support materials should also target project managers and research support offices — not only applicants — to ensure broader uptake.  External Resources: The inclusion of links to toolkits, webinars, and field-specific guidance was appreciated and should be expanded further.  Resistance & Complexity: There was interest in adding content on how to respond to pushback or ambiguity in applying IGI in conservative or politically sensitive environments. Importantly, participants noted that they felt they needed more information/the most help on steps 1, 2, 3 and 5. Notably, step 5 was the most requested step, with six participants marking that they needed more information about that step. The MIRO board from the group capturing the entirety of the input is depicted in figure 35, below. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 69 of 82 Figure 35: Breakout group 1’s MIRO board on applicants D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 70 of 82 Breakout Group 2: Funding Organizations The breakout group had very rich discussions across INSPIRE and GENDERACTIONplus consortium and CoP partners. The MIRO board for the group is illustrated below in figure 36. The group provided important, nuanced input reflecting the diversity and complexity of funding processes across organizations:  Chronology of Steps: Participants stressed that SPkg 5 should not assume a strict sequence. For example, in some organizations, evaluation criteria are defined before reviewers are selected, while in others the opposite holds. Flexibility of SPkg 5 is essential.  Step 0 – Awareness-Building: Several voices advocated for an initial step focused on building organizational awareness and preparing structures for IGI(P) implementation. This includes training, sensitization, and culture change.  Evaluation Criteria: Seen as one of the most critical and contested components. Timing and placement vary widely; some include criteria already at the call design phase.  Decision-Making Layers: Participants called for a clearer distinction between assessment and final decision-making. Steering committees or boards often make final selections after expert assessments — this phase deserves more visibility.  Resistance and Context: Suggestions were made to include tools for navigating organizational resistance and political climates that may hinder IGI adoption.  Panel Composition & Guidance: Need for practical tools to support reviewers and panel moderators, including inclusive language training and facilitation guidance. Importantly as well, multiple participants noted that steps 7-9 were the steps that they felt like they needed more information about, indicating a great need. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 71 of 82 Figure 36: Breakout group 2’s MIRO board on funders D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 72 of 82 Both groups found the modular structure of SPkg 5 helpful but emphasized the need to ensure adaptability to different institutional settings and varying levels of familiarity with IGI principles. Importantly, some of the group members found the topic of the other group also relevant for their group, and there was one member (placed in the applicant’s group) who during the last part of the groupwork scrolled over to the funder’s group to rank her priorities on what information she needed more of. This suggests that, while the workshop did plan a crossfertilization discussion session in the plenum, that there was still a need to work across topics more than the workshop allowed. Co-creation 4 conclusion Overall, the workshop validated the design of SPkg 5 and offered valuable direction for further refinement. Discussions highlighted the need for modularity, inclusive terminology, beginner-oriented guidance, and support for complex decision-making processes. The session concluded with a commitment to co-develop SPkg 5 into a strategic and practical tool for inclusive gendered innovation. In addition to refining SPkg 5 and co-developing practical recommendations for improving gender-sensitive R&I policies and implementation, input from the workshop also contributed to the development of Open Training Unit 7 (OTU 7): Innovation Policy Toolkit, which aims to provide practical examples and insights on Inclusive Gendered Innovation Policies for innovation funders. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 73 of 82 3 Works Cited Palmén, R., & Müller, J. (2023). A community of practice approach to improving gender equality in research. Taylor & Francis. Thomson, A., Rabsch, K., Barnard, S., Hassan, T., & Dainty, A. (2023). Co-creation methods for Communities of Practice. In R. Palmén, & J. Müller (Eds.), A community of practice approach to improving gender equality in research. Taylor & Francis. Wenger, Etienne; McDermott, Richard Arnold; Snyder, William (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business Press. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 80 of 82 Circulated invitation to CoP members for co-creation workshop 4: Dear CoP facilitator We are excited to invite you to INSPIRE’s fourth co-creation workshop—a collaborative and creative session between INSPIRE consortium members and Community of Practice (CoP) representatives. Date and Time: April 29, 2025, from 13:00 to 15:00 CET, Online This workshop will focus on Support Package 5 (SPkg 5): Improving Quality and (Gender) Equality in Research and Innovation (R&I). This support package aims to help integrate the gender and other diversity dimensions into the content of research and innovation (R&I). It focuses on the design of research policies that promote inclusive gendered innovation and private sector engagement. Another focus is on practical support for the implementation of inclusive gendered innovation projects. SPkg 5 includes training materials, expert consultations and tailored resources to promote gender-sensitive innovation. As part of the development process of the INSPIRE Support Packages, we invite your input and reflections on SPkg 5. Your expertise and insights will help us assess its relevance, refine its content, and ensure it meets the needs of Research Performing Organisations, Research Funding Organisations (RFOs), and private-sector actors. We aim to co-develop practical recommendations for improving gender-sensitive R&I policies and implementation. The workshop discussion will also contribute to the development of Open Training Unit 7 (OTU 7): Innovation Policy Toolkit, which aims to provide practical examples and insights on Inclusive Gendered Innovation Policies for companies and innovation funders. Why Your Participation Matters: - Your feedback will play a crucial role in shaping the final version of SPkg 5. Specifically, we will explore: - How SPkg 5 can best support CoPs and organisations in integrating gender equality into innovation processes. - How Research & Innovation (R&I) companies can be better supported by RFOs through gender-inclusive policies and funding instruments. - What additional tools or resources could enhance the effectiveness of SPkg 5. D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 81 of 82 To ensure broad representation and meaningful collaboration, we kindly ask you to extend this invitation to your CoP members and identify two representatives from your CoP to participate. How to Register: Please coordinate within your CoP and confirm the names of your two participants by April 22, 2025. Send their names to Liv Baisner Petersen, [email protected]k. Since attendance is crucial to the workshop’s success, we kindly ask that if a confirmed participant is unable to attend, a substitute be found from your CoP. A Zoom invitation will be sent to all registered participants after April 22, 2025. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to co-creating with you! Best regards, Sybille, Helene, Sarah, David, Molly and Liv D4.4 Reports on 4 co-creation activities Page 82 of 82 Disclaimer While INSPIRE is funded by the European Union, views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the European Research Executive Agency (REA) can be held responsible for them. The work contained in this document is subjected to a Creative Commons license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Please visit https://www.inspirequality.eu This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101058537.