Building inclusive research organisations: How to use a data-driven approach to designing, implementing & sustaining Gender Equality Plans

Building inclusive research organisations How to use a data-driven approach to designing, implementing & sustaining Gender Equality Plans Claudia Colonnello, Knowledge & Innovation Josepine Fernow, Uppsala University Anna Holm Bodin, Uppsala University Lead contributors Lucio Pisacane, IRPPS - CNR [email protected] Sara Marini, IRPPS - CNR 101006543 – MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White book Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this report are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. MINDtheGEPs (Modifying Institutions by Developing Gender Equality Plans) has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no 101006543. Cristina Solera, University of Turin Federica Turco, University of Turin Reviewers Other contributors 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 1 Abstract The MINDtheGEPs White Book provides a comprehensive, evidence-based framework for designing, implementing, and sustaining Gender Equality Plans (GEPs) in research-performing organizations (RPOs) across Europe. Developed within the Horizon 2020 MINDtheGEPs project, the document draws on lessons learned from seven partner institutions in five countries with traditional gender regimes— Italy, Poland, Ireland, Spain, and Serbia—spanning universities, public research bodies, and private sector R&D centers. The White Book promotes systemic institutional transformation by addressing gender inequality at three interconnected levels: the individual (micro), organizational (meso), and cultural/policy (macro). Central to its approach is the shift from “fixing the women” to “fixing the system,” recognizing that lasting change requires restructuring institutional norms, governance, and practices rather than adapting women to pre-existing models of academic excellence and productivity. The document embraces feminist theoretical frameworks and intersectionality to analyze how structural barriers— such as the ideal of the “unconditional worker”—continue to marginalize not only women, but also other underrepresented groups in research environments. Through extensive qualitative and quantitative data collection, participatory workshops, interviews, and comparative policy analysis, the project developed a stepwise approach to GEP implementation. Key pillars include: data-driven assessment and monitoring, participatory governance structures, dedicated training and capacity-building initiatives, strategic communication, and evaluation mechanisms designed to ensure long-term impact. The White Book also outlines methods for aligning GEPs with EU policy requirements, particularly the five mandatory thematic areas: work-life balance and organizational culture; gender balance in leadership and decision-making; gender equality in recruitment and career progression; integration of the gender dimension in research and teaching; and prevention of gender-based violence and sexual harassment. As a practical guide, the White Book offers actionable recommendations, tools, and checklists aimed at practitioners, policy makers, and institutional leaders committed to building more inclusive, equitable, and effective research and academic institutions. By leveraging data, stakeholder engagement, and context-sensitive strategies, MINDtheGEPs provides a model for embedding gender equality as a core value and operational principle across Europe’s research and innovation landscape. The design and the concept of this document have been a collaborative effort of the MINDtheGEPs research consortium that meet in a dedicated workshop in Rome on 23th and 24 January 2025. 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 2 Table of contents 1. Introduction and aims of this white book ..................................................................................................... 4 2. Presentation of the MINDtheGEPs project ................................................................................................... 5 3. Seven locally grounded gender equality plans .............................................................................................. 6 3.1 National context: Italy .................................................................................................................................. 6 University of Turin (UNITO) ............................................................................................................................ 6 National Research Council of Italy (CNR) ....................................................................................................... 7 3.2 National context: Poland .............................................................................................................................. 8 The University of Gdansk................................................................................................................................ 8 Jagiellonian University .................................................................................................................................... 9 3.3 National context: Ireland ............................................................................................................................ 10 Munster Technological University (MTU)..................................................................................................... 10 3.4 National context: Spain ............................................................................................................................... 11 CTAGGalician Automotive Technology Centre ........................................................................................... 12 3.5 National context: Serbia ............................................................................................................................. 13 ETF - The School of Electrical Engineering of the University of Belgrade ..................................................... 14 4. Designing cultural and structural organisational change ............................................................................ 15 4.1 Theoretical framework: fixing the system, not the women ........................................................................ 15 4.2 Model framework: the MINDtheGEPs approach to evidence-based policies for gender equality plans..... 17 Data collection and monitoring system........................................................................................................ 18 Applying a stepwise approach ...................................................................................................................... 19 Fixing the GEP priorities, defining SMART indicators, monitoring and evaluating process and results ....... 20 5. Sustaining change ....................................................................................................................................... 21 5.1 Governance and monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 22 Developing strategy for monitoring and evaluation .................................................................................... 22 Communicating results ................................................................................................................................. 23 Developing a system for monitoring and evaluation ................................................................................... 23 5.2 Training, awareness and communication ................................................................................................... 24 Training ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Communication ............................................................................................................................................ 26 Raise awareness and make (in)equality visible ............................................................................................ 26 6. Working with the key areas ........................................................................................................................ 27 6.1 Work-life balance and organisational culture ............................................................................................ 27 6.2 Gender balance in leadership and decision making .................................................................................... 29 6.3 Gender equality in recruitment and career progression ............................................................................. 31 6.4 Strenghening the gender dimension in research and teaching .................................................................. 32 Gender dimensions in teaching .................................................................................................................... 32 Gender dimentions in research .................................................................................................................... 33 3. References ................................................................................................................................................. 34 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 3 List of tables Table 1. Micro, meso & macro level: what does it mean? ...................................................................... 4 Table 2. Want to learn more about our theoretical framework? .......................................................... 17 Table 3. Data, no problem, no policy! ................................................................................................... 19 Table 4. Checklist for collecting data ..................................................................................................... 21 Table 5. Monitoring and evaluation - the basic concepts ..................................................................... 22 Table 6. Monitoring and evaluation: what to consider ......................................................................... 23 Table 7. Tips for organising training ...................................................................................................... 25 Table 8. Developing and providing training .......................................................................................... 25 Table 9. Developing a communications strategy and plan ................................................................... 27 Table 10. Setting up a webpage dedicated to work-family balance ..................................................... 29 Table 11. How to challenge stereotypes about leadership ................................................................... 30 Table 12. Using positive actions as a tool ............................................................................................. 31 Table 13. What to do before: ................................................................................................................ 33 Table 14. What to do during.................................................................................................................. 33 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 4 1. Introduction and aims of this white book These practical guidelines follow and consider the changes introduced by the Horizon Europe Guidance on Gender Equality Plans (2021) delivered by the DG Research and Innovation of the European Commission. The contents proposed are aligned with those recommended by EIGE. The definition of practical guidelines for designing and implementing GEPs is based on evidence from data gathered during the different stages of the project, along with gained experience from sister projects. The information in this white book is based on five different sources: 1. Indications from tasks carried out within the framework of the MINDtheGEPs project itself, including state-of-the-art review, narratives from interviews with partners, or other data collections. 2. Inputs from other projects oriented towards gender equality (such as GE Academy, GEAGendering academia, R&I PEERS, CALIPER, FESTA, GENERA, PLOTINA, TRIGGER, LIBRA, etc.) 3. Experience and existing actions from consortium partners. The MINDtheGEPs consortium consists of 10 different partners, each of them with a different form of organisation and with different initiatives implemented that can serve as feedback within the consortium itself to obtain ideas of good practices. 4. Additional materials provided by desk research, not only related to EU Gender Equality projects, but also any organisation that has been able to add value in some way in aspects related to gender equality. 5. Lessons learned through MINDtheGEPs workshops and activities. The combination of all these tools served as indications to follow in order to develop the core of this deliverable. The proposed indicators have been sorted out by considering the best practices in existing GEPs. Table 1. Micro, meso & macro level: what does it mean? In the literature, gender imbalance is interpreted using mechanisms operating on three interconnected levels: the individual (micro), organizational (meso), and cultural (macro). The individual – micro level – is focused on gender-characterized self-selection processes, for example competitiveness, scientific productivity, the balance between research and teaching, the field you chose to study, your parenting choices, and self-confidence. These mechanisms originate from socio-educational models, and the structural and organizational conditions within the academic space, where the problem of balancing work and caregiving burdens is exacerbated by the precariousness of early stage academic careers, that have critical implications for parenting choices and access to maternity and parental leave. The organisational – meso level – is linked to organizational cultures (that are not gender neutral. Instead, most organisations operate with a masculinized model of worker, specific recruitment and promotion procedures (that fit men better), gender stereotypes that are reproduced in recruitment through review committee members, and the composition of committees that mirror late stage (predominantly male) higher positions in academic careers The cultural – macro level – refers to the construction of criteria such as “merit” and “excellence”. When women do more teaching, they have less merit and with less time for research, there will be fewer publications, citations and other metrics that are considered key for assessing excellence . 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 5 2. Presentation of the MINDtheGEPs project Over the past decades, the EU Commission has called for overcoming gender differences in research and innovation to stop the leaking pipeline and break the glass ceiling and the glass door. Gender Equality Plans (GEPs) have become firmly established as an eligibility criterion for receiving Horizon Europe funding. MINDtheGEPs is one of several H2020 projects aiming to support the development and implementation of GEPs in research-performing organisations. What makes this effort unique is the use of a data-driven approach to tailor measures to the needs of seven organisations under the project umbrella. MINDtheGEPs have identified and a multitude of obstacles that need to be addressed on the journey toward gender equality in research and innovation organizations. In line with the European Research Area’s key priorities on gender equality, MINDtheGEPs aimed to remove barriers to recruitment, retention and career progression for female researchers, and improve work-life balance, addressing gender imbalances in decision making and strengthening the gender dimension in research and teaching. These barriers represent key challenges that need to be addressed in order to halt the waste of talent that is undermining Europe’s future progress, and diversify views and methodologies to help increase the quality, methodological accuracy, and relevance of both research and the wellbeing of individuals and society. Moreover, the results from MINDtheGEPs shed light on how the dominant logic of science creates an ideal ‘devoted unconditional worker’ that is harmful for women, men, and the entire organization. MINDtheGEPs takes a multidisciplinary, multidimensional approach to challenging gender imbalances across five different countries considered to have ‘traditional gender regimes' in various types of Research Performing Organisations (RPOs). The partners designing and implementing GEPs represent five public universities (Turin, Tralee, Gdansk, Jagiellonian), one public research institute (National Research Council of Italy, CNR); one academic (University of Belgrade’s School of Electrical Engineering, ETF) and one private company in the automotive industry (CTAG). The consortium is led by the University of Turin’s interdisciplinary Research Centre for Women’s and Gender Studies CIRSDe, representing an important knowledge base. The efforts are supported by three organizations bringing complementary expertise in monitoring and evaluation (Knowledge and Innovation), research communication (Uppsala University) and scientific publishing (Elsevier). In order to promote systemic institutional change and following the “no data-no policy” principle, the project started by collecting and mapping data from the seven implementing organisations, and produced new qualitative and quantitative evidence with the help of tools from other projects run by CIRSDe. This data formed the basis for the design and implementation of actions that addressed both the structural and cultural levels of the seven organisations. To address gender inequalities on the cultural level, MINDtheGEPs organised training, starting with joint ‘train the trainers’ workshops for all seven organisations, followed by training ‘laboratories’ tailored to different partners' needs. To address inequalities on the structural level, MINDtheGEPs introduced measures designed to address work-family balance, making sure efforts that also target men were included, along with equality targets for decision-making bodies and for gender-sensitive research. The establishment of gender databases and governance structures for the project and the GEP created conditions that ensure the sustainability of actions beyond the project’s life span. In all seven organizations, multidisciplinary teams (including key roles in middle or top management) were established, coupled with project 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 6 Advisory Boards (that include relevant national authorities), and professional associations both in STEMM and SSH, contributing to a successful change in RPOs and in society at large. Efforts targeting both structural and cultural inequalities were designed to address the key areas identified by the European Commission: work-life balance and organizational culture, gender balance in leadership and decision-making, gender equality in recruitment and career progression, integration of the gender dimension into research and teaching content, and measures against gender-based violence, including sexual harassment. 3. Seven locally grounded gender equality plans 3.1 National context: Italy Italy ranks 12th in the EU on the Gender Equality Index with a score of 64.8, 3.9 points below the EU average. Since 2010, Italy’s score has increased by 11.3 points, indicating a faster pace of progress compared to other EU countries. However, gender inequalities remain significant, particularly in the domains of power, knowledge and the workplace (European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), Gender Equality Index, 2023). Legislation addressing gender equality has evolved slowly, with gender quotas in politics established only in 2017. The 1991 Positive Actions law laid the groundwork, but effective implementation of Positive Action Plans (PAPs) only began in 2006. The National Code of Equal Opportunities between Women and Men (Dec. n. 198/2006) and decree number 5/2010 (implements Directive 2006/54/CE on equal opportunities and treatment for men and women in employment) mandate public organizations, including state universities, to create PAPs every three years, detailing actions to promote gender equality and allocate resources accordingly. However, the lack of specific guidelines allows organizations to independently determine their actions. The Department for Equal Opportunities, founded in 1997, oversees gender equality but lacks sufficient resources. The Guarantee Committee for Equal Opportunities, established by Law n.183/2010, is responsible for implementing PAPs in research public organizations. While this law outlines a framework for the committee, it allows public administrations to define their own internal procedures and mandates the appointment of a Confidential Advisor to address harassment issues. The only directive that contains indication for the development of PAP is the Directive of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers of 23 May 2007 on equal opportunities in public administrations, that identifies the instruments and the areas of intervention: positive actions aiming at balancing female representation in sectors and professional levels where they are underrepresented; the organization of work aiming at promoting work-life balance; hiring and promotional mechanisms targeting women. University of Turin (UNITO) Motto: Gendering science from culture to structure! The University of Turin published its first Gender Equality Plan in 2023, as part of a Horizon 2020 project, MINDtheGEPs. As the first part of UNITO GEP, entitled “The Context,” clearly establishes, in accordance with the basic principle of “No data no policy,” the work on the GEP was preceded by a long phase of data collection and analysis. Developing a GEP that might effectively intercept the needs 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 7 of the academic community could not be achieved without conceiving a democratic, thoughtful, and participatory process. A horizontal process promoted by the UniTO research group responsible for MINDtheGEPs, which strongly favoured the involvement of all departments and administrative divisions. In fact, the UniTO GEP was discussed and designed with the Gender Equality Plan Implementing Board (GEPIB) and the Network of Delegates from departments and administrative directorates (set up by the MINDtheGEPs Project), through highly participatory meetings. It has been the subject of continuous exchanges with the CUG, the Rector, the Inclusion, Equal Opportunity and Gender Policy Delegate, and the General Director, and has ultimately been the subject of formal discussion in the Academic Senate before its approval. The driving force behind the whole process of elaborating the GEP centres around the concept of gender justice, considered in an intersectional perspective. As many different barriers need to be overcome, a whole range of approaches has been adopted, comprising a virtuous mix of actions, to overcome the glass ceilings and glass doors. These actions must necessarily be both cultural and structural. We have, therefore, envisaged structural measures, such as a babysitting bonus and extra research funds or reduced teaching for those returning from maternity leave; the purpose is to provide support for women at a delicate time in their lives and careers, while also considering cultural actions that might revise our understanding of care as a feminine occupation and consider it instead as a right and duty for everyone, men included. To see the UNITO GEPs actions in details: https://www.unito.it/ateneo/organizzazione/organi-diateneo/comitato-unico-di-garanzia/bilancio-di-genere-e-gep/gender National Research Council of Italy (CNR) Motto: DATA-PLACED. The strategic role of data in addressing gender inequalities In Spring 2022, the National Research Council of Italy (CNR) launched its first Gender Equality Plan (GEP) to promote equal participation in scientific and administrative activities. This plan focuses on enhancing diversity, combating gender discrimination, and ensuring transparency. The GEP's development included analyzing administrative data, conducting interviews, and surveying staff perceptions. It consists of two main transversal pillars: A) Governance and monitoring for implementation and assessment, and B) Training and communication on gender equality issues along with five key areas. A key achievement has been creating a data warehouse based on administrative data for intersectional analysis and implementing an annual Gender Balance Report since 2022. Following the "Train the Trainer" approach, CNR established a network of eight employees from diverse backgrounds and profiles who received specialized gender training. These employees became trainers for the CNR scientific network, which comprises more than 90 research institutes across Italy. In 2023, a Gender Equality Team (GET) was established at the Presidency level to oversee GEP initiatives, promote equality, combat discrimination, and facilitate communication on gender policies. The GET includes diverse expertise focusing on governance, data monitoring, communication, training, and work-life balance, aiming to transform CNR's internal culture through collaboration and engagement The CNR GEP is available here: https://www.cnr.it/sites/default/files/public/media/attivita/genderequality/GEP_CNR_FINALE.pdf 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 8 3.2 National context: Poland With 63.4 points out of 100, Poland ranks 18th in the EU on the Gender Equality Index in 2024. Its score is 7.4 points below the score for the EU as a whole. Since 2010, Poland’s score has increased by 7.9 points, as much as the European average. Gender inequalities remain significant, particularly in the domains of power, and, to a lesser degree, knowledge, and work (European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), Gender Equality Index, 2024). In SheFigures (2024) scores 72,4 points. The principle of gender equality is embedded in the Polish Constitution and the Labour Code. Article 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (1997) states that men and women shall have equal rights in family, political, social and economic life, in particular regarding education, employment and promotion, and shall have the right to equal compensation for work of similar value, to social security, to hold offices, and to receive public honours and decorations. The Labour Code (1974) includes provisions on equal treatment in employment prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sex, age, disability, race and other premises about establishing and terminating an employment relationship, employment conditions, promotion conditions, and access to training to improve professional qualifications and remuneration. The Labour Code also distinguishes between direct and indirect discrimination and identifies sexual harassment as a form of discrimination on the grounds of sex. There is neither a separate legal act nor a set of provisions within a wider legal act referring to gender equality in research and higher education. The Act on the implementation of some regulations of the European Union regarding equal treatment (2010) sets general framework conditions for equal treatment policy in Poland and specifies the competent bodies in equal treatment issues, i.e. the Plenipotentiary for Equal Treatment as the government body and the Commissioner for Human Rights as the independent equality body. However, the Act does not cover discrimination based on gender in higher education. There is no reference to gender equality or equal treatment in the current Law on Higher Education and Science (2018), as there were no regulations concerning gender equality in the previous legal acts on higher education. Although there is no official law on gender equality in research and higher education, organisations set up their internal regulations concerning the prevention of gender (and other forms of) discrimination and the promotion of gender equality. They do it as a response to requirements set by the European Union in its funding programs (including the GEP eligibility criterion in Horizon Europe), as a result of adopting the European Charter and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers and as an effect of participation in the EU-funded projects on structural change in academia. At the same time, Poland has no legal provisions to enforce gender mainstreaming and thus there are no actions coordinated at the national level (EIGE, 2020). In 2025 the position of Plenipotentiary of the Minister of Science and Higher Education for Equal Treatment in the Area of Higher Education and Science has been established. The University of Gdansk Motto: Step by step - building an inclusive workplace for everyone The first Gender Equality Plan for the University of Gdansk: Equality Measures for the years 2022 - 2023 (GEP for UG) was designed and introduced in 2021. GEP for UG has been elaborated by a dedicated group of experts from various fields, representatives of UG researchers and administrative staff and the core team members of the Horizon 2020 project MINDtheGEPs Modifying Institutions by Developing Gender Equality Plans (2021 – 2025). GEP for UG has been approved officially by the university authorities, the UG Rector in the order no 182/R/21 of 29 December 2021 and came into 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 15 academic and decision-making roles, using gender‑disaggregated data gathering across departments, 3) Awareness-raising activities, including a dedicated webpage, workshops, and public communication by the ETF’s leadership. For the implementation of its GEP, the ETF established a devoted core team composed by researchers and employees, external collaborators, and experts in Gender Equality. The appointment of female role models, notably including a first female Vice‑Dean for Academic Affairs, was another steps forward in this regard. The Gender Equality Officer, within the Central Administration, was also appointed, with the role to provide advice on gender, inclusion, diversity management and sexual harassment prevention, and to coordinate the GEP implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The ETF's GEP is available here: https://www.etf.bg.ac.rs/uploads/files/Akta_fakulteta/Plan_za_postizanje_rodne_ravnopravnosti_v 2.pdf 4. Designing cultural and structural organisational change 4.1 Theoretical framework: fixing the system, not the women Applying a feminist theoretical framework was a strategic choice in MINDtheGEPs. Feminist epistemologies (Harding 1986, Haraway 1988) serve as a reminder for the fact that the economic and political context in which Western science has developed has led to scientific paradigms and organisational cultures that perpetuate inequalities. This means that achieving equality requires not only welcoming more women in the sciences, but also a rethinking of how we do science and how it fits into our lives. It is not just about the numbers; we also need to change institutions and the knowledge system, allowing the pendulum to swing back and forth between culture and structure. Cultural actions are unlikely to succeed unless they are accompanied by structural actions, which in MINDtheGEPs meant taking the role of both cultural and material dimensions within social processes into account on the micro, meso and macro levels, and acknowledging the fact that gender is a social structure that is characterized by multiple intersected barriers, which in turn requires multiple intersected actions to be removed (Acker 2009, Connell 1987, Risman 2018). Applying a ‘women approach’ emphasises the systemic disadvantage that women face in comparison to men. This perspective sheds light on the barriers to women’s participation in the labour market, politics, and decision-making processes and examines measures to reduce discrimination such as implementing gender quotas and promoting work-life balance initiatives (Kantola and Lombardo, 2017). This approach fails to address inequalities while neglecting to address the deeper social structures, discriminatory norms and social practices at play, assuming a ‘fixing the women’ lens (Schiebinger, 2021). Additionally, the current dictat “publish or perish” (Weisshaar, 2017) imposes detrimental effects on individuals of all genders, across various scientific disciplines, prioritizing quantity over quality in research output. MINDtheGEPs aims to fix the system, not the women. The aim goes beyond increasing the number of women. Instead, we aimed to change the way science and academic endeavors are experienced and undertaken. Instead of fixing women by asking them (and other marginalized groups) to conform to existing structures for advancement, MINDtheGEPs advocates for fixing the system; urging institutions to adapt to individuals in order to promote well-being, and science that is truly inclusive and beneficial for the community. We believe that excellent researchers and scientists are not who 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 16 adhere to the unconditional worker model sacrificing their personal lives under constant pressure. Neither the excellent and innovative institutions are not necessarily those that produce the hightest number of publication. From this point-of-view, ’gendering’ the sciences is not only about broadening and diversifying the range of individuals who conduct and disseminate research. It also requires the adoption of alternative models, based on cooperation (rather than competition), coexistence and intersectionality (as opposed to trade-offs between different aspects of one’s life). By encouraging more diverse research teams – and leadership – we are able to offer a wider range of perspectives: not just in terms of research content, but also in the ways we do science, how we define excellence, and how we make recruitment and promotion processes work. This way, the results of efforts to promote gender equality can be more innovative, and bring benefit for many. What fixing the system entails: • Rethinking how we do science • Changing the institutions • Changing the knowledge system • Applying feminist epistemologies • Moving beyond seeing gender as equivalent to sex, viewing it as both ‘regime’ and a social structure, characterized by multiple intersected barriers and lines of inequality • Applying an intersectional approach • Ascribing value to caring and organisational work (often referred to as ‘academic housework’) and make it visible • Bringing down the ideal of the ‘devoted and unconditional worker’ that harms not only women but also men and the entire organization What fixing the women entails: • Stopping at welcoming more women into the field • Leaving (national) evaluation systems unchanged • Reinforcing quantitative criteria for selection and recruitment • Perceiving merit and excellence as neutral • Only providing measures to compensate for motherhood penalty • Excluding men from the target of measures • Only focusing on sex and gender, forgetting to acknowledge racialization processes, sexual orientation, age, class, religion and disability. • Only valorizing publications, not including networking and teaching • Working overtime and/or asking colleagues to do overtime in the evening hours, during weekends and holidays 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 17 Table 2. Want to learn more about our theoretical framework? • Acker, J. (2009). Gendered Institutional Theory: Sex Roles and Gendered Institutions. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 759-799. • Raewyn Connell. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Allen & Unwin • Kantola, J., Lombardo, E. (2017). Gender and the Politics of the Economic Crisis in Europe. In: Kantola, J., Lombardo, E. (eds) Gender and the Economic Crisis in Europe. Gender and Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. • Haraway D.J., Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective, in “Feminist Studies”, vol. 14, n. 3, 1988 • Harding, Sandra, 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca-New York: Cornell university Press. • Risman, B.J. (2018). Gender as a Social Structure. In: Risman, B., Froyum, C., Scarborough, W. (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of Gender. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76333-0_2 • Schiebinger, L. (2021). Gendered Innovations: integrating sex, gender, and intersectional analysis into science, health & medicine, engineering, and environment. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 4(1). • Weisshaar, K. (2017). Publish and perish? An assessment of gender gaps in promotion to tenure in academia. Social Forces, 96(2), 529-560. 4.2 Model framework: the MINDtheGEPs approach to evidencebased policies for gender equality plans A stepwise approach to gender equality Gender equality changes over time, and so should the plan: an ongoing process for improving gender equality. The European Institute for Gender Equality’s definition states that providing a tailored GEP requires defining a process aimed at achieving gender equality by identifying specific organisations’ needs. “An effective GEP should be founded on a model of change that identifies the problems it seeks to address, their causes and desired outcomes, including targets; it should detail the set of activities that are required to achieve the aims, and indicators to monitor progress. A GEP should engage the whole organisation, from senior leaders to staff, students (in the case of a teaching organisation) and stakeholders, and it should form an ongoing process that encourages self-reflection and review of processes and practices”. (EU, 2021) The lifecycle of a typical GEP is a circular and iterative process consisting of five consecutive phases: 1. audit, (collection of data, review of existing practices, analysis of law) it’s the diagnosys phase, where sex-disaggregated data is collected); 2. planning (identification of targets and allocation of resources, activities to achieve objectives, needs and concerns are defined); 3. implementation (planned activities start to build capacity and support); 4. monitoring (pay attention to process and progresses of the implemented activities and measure their); 5. impact and evaluation (evaluate and ensure the sustainability of the implemented GEP, and refining starting from the top, as a circular and iterative process, ongoing review of findings and progresses). 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 18 A GEP should be the result of a reflection of all employees concerning crucial areas for the wellbeing of women, men (and hopefully of all minoritised subjectivities present) of all levels, roles, profiles, type of contract (full-term, part-time, permanent, fixed term). Establishing governance structures Functional and recognised governance structures are essential for the implementation of measures and plans to effectively lead structural change. In MINDtheGEPs, partners set up several governance structures with clearly defined mandates, roles, and responsibilities: • A board responsible for implementing the GEP (Gender Equality Plan Implementing Board and similar structures): • Network of representatives from different departments (Delegates Network, or similar representative bodies of complex organizational structures) • Gender equality manager • Gender database manager Steps for setting up a GEP In the EIGE approach, GEPs should: 1. be formal public documents, signed by the institution’s top management, and demonstrate a clear commitment to gender equality 2. have dedicated resources (staff and funds) for design, implementation and monitoring 3. include arrangements for data collection and monitoring that assure the GEP is based on evidence, and sex (or gender) disaggregated data 4. be supported by training and capacity building activities. In addition to these mandatory process-related requirements, the European Commission requires that GEPs address (at minimum) following five thematic areas: 1) work-life balance and organisational culture; 2) gender balance in leadership and decision-making; 3) gender equality in recruitment and career progression; 4) integration of the gender dimension into research and teaching content; and 5) measures against gender-based violence including sexual harassment (European Commission 2021b, p. 13). The GEP architecture rests on three pillars: data collection, monitoring, and training, requiring cross-thematic and complex actions across all five areas. Data collection and monitoring system Policy cannot address and solve problems without clear and defined knowledge of the situation that the policy is meant to fix. That requires issue-specific data. For GEPs, the evidence-base should be sexor gender-disaggregated baseline data for all staff categories. Data can help unveil existing differences between women and men in different roles and levels. Data can also reflect the organisation, describing the personnel and their skills, the research and teaching performance, the ability for outreachl, the success in attracting skills and funding, as well as the relations and agreements with the local and national industrial system. 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 19 Table 3. Data, no problem, no policy! • GEPs are strategic policy documents • Design your GEP based on evidence, such as facts and figures • Make sure you operate under the assumption that, without data, there will be no policy Why should we collect data? Sex and gender variables in data collection can support: 1. The establishment of a baseline for mapping gender inequalities within the organisation and serving as a benchmark for evaluating structural and cultural improvements; 2. Gender equality analysis to identify strengths and weaknesses in the organisation, and help define actions in line with the organisation’s priorities; 3. Monitoring to guide and adjust the GEP process and evaluate progress; 4. Communication to staff, students, other key stakeholders, and the wider public about the organisation’s commitment to gender equality and the progress made. Using data to assess inequalities: Gender inequalities within an organisation are not always obvious at first glance. The challenge is not only to identify the number of men and women in each role or part of the organisational structure, but also to highlight potential inequalities in all activities carried out by the organisation itself: research and teaching, but also in more political, managerial, and administrative tasks. Applying a stepwise approach We recommend structuring the efforts in accordance with the five key areas suggested by the European Commission, using a five-step approach: Step 1: setting up a working group with experts. Ensure resources are made available and decide who carries out the initial assessment. If your organisation doesn’t ahve a person or body responsible for gender equality, start by identifying the available expertise to support the assessment from a theoretical point of view (gender and organisational sociology, data analysis), and consider including heads of administrative offices that already collect the data we are interested in (this will openin an ongoing dialogue with data providers), expertise from outside the organisation. Since much of the data that will be processed are personal and particular in nature, the inclusion of the data protection officer can help ensure compliance from the very beginning of the process. Moreover, an official mandate to perform the initial assessment is essential for success. Step 2: mapping data and identifying providers. Assessment requires available data, but organisations are not always collecting data from a gender perspective, and the data is not always structured in queryable databases. Mapping is essential before starting the assessment, creating a list of data that (1) can be processed immediately; (2) need time to be systematised and then analysed; (3) are not present or accessible from a gender perspective and therefore require joint work with the administrative offices to be usable (e.g., restructuring databases and the way data are collected through new internal procedures to fill the information gap). 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 20 Step 3: create a vision. Very often, data are not collected by a single office. Each aspect of an RPO's activity has its own method of data collection and a database in which the data are organised, serving administrative and management purposes. These different systems, however, are not always interlinked and do not serve gender analysis purposes. However, data collected and systematised from a gender perspective can enable the central administration to plan internal policies on all work aspects not necessarily related to gender inequalities only. One challenge convincing the top management that a gender assessment is useful. Providing a strategic vision can be useful for getting management involved: illustrating the potential of this data for improving effectiveness and efficiency. Step 4: design the context analyses. Before starting the assessment, make sure you have knowledge of the European and national legislative framework concerning gender equality and non-discrimination is useful.. Here, the five key areas can provide the framework for the initial assessment. Mapping creates a top-down snapshot of the organisation that will serve as the basis for defining the GEP's objectives and actions. However, if information is missing, you can apply a bottom-up approach to supplement the data e.g., an. An online survey addressed to all employees can supplement aspects that are not captured from a gender perspective; i correct information that has been incorrectly recorded; i collect information on temporary staff; and collect information on the organisational culture (e.g. the presence of gender stereotypes, perceptions on success factors in the career, opinions on the organisation). Here, the Gender Equality Audit and Monitoring (GEAM) tool and the UniSAFE project offer support on both content and technical aspects. Step 5: carrying out the assessment of gender inequalities/Imbalances. Data collection can be extremely time-consuming. It is t important to plan the actions well, and fit them to the available human resourcese. Once the data collection phase has been completed, the assessment can be carried out through descriptive statistics and describing the results. If some specific aspects are not captured through administrative data or a quantitative questionnaire, this can be complemented with interviews or focus groups to bridge information gaps. Benchmarking agaist other similar organisations in your country, or aggregated natiional statistics (e.g. SheFigures or the EIGE databases) can also serve as a reference context. Fixing the GEP priorities, defining SMART indicators, monitoring and evaluating process and results Once the data has been analysed, it is possible to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation along with gender imbalances that are relevant to address in a context-sensitive GEP. From here, you will be able to define a list of areas where gender balance can be improved, and identifypriority elements. This exercise allows the objectives and related actions of the GEP to be clearly formulated, as well as the time frame in which they should be placed and implemented. Data flow and its relations: The initial assessment will produce a knowledge base and a point-ofdeparture. Data will most likely be missing in the first assessment, hence we propose to expand the data collection every year. Implement procedures to make data collection and analysis as automatic as possible, ensuring a constant flow of data from the relevant offices to the group in charge of the process. data should collected and published annually. Collecting data on an annual basis allows the monitoring process to start at the same time as the GEP is implemented, and provide guidance. There is partial overlap between the gender data assessment and Gender Budgeting, a process that provides 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 21 a more static overview of the organisation's situation at a certain date (often 31 December). Gender budgets are commonly drafted every two years, whereas the assessment required for the GEP is updated annually, and provides much more detailed information that feeds into the GEP's own monitoring process. If the GEP's actions have a real impact, changes will be recorded by Gender Budgeting, which will track changes over time. Conversely, the main results of Gender Budgeting will allow the organisation to update, enrich and modify the GEP because they will be part of the evaluation of the Plan itself, creating a continuous process that should be strengthened over time. Capturing data about the factors that shape gender inequalities: Gender is a social structure characterized by multiple intersected barriers, which in turn requires multiple intersected actions to be removed. This means that we need several types of data to be able to capture the various push and pull factors that (de)construct gender inequalities in the early-, middle-, and late stages of research careers, on the (individual (micro), organizational (meso), and national or cultural (macro) level. Table 4. Checklist for collecting data • Remember that GEPs are strategic documents: design your GEP on evidence, facts and figures • Operate under the assumption that without data, there will be no policy • Use data to assess inequalities and identify gaps by capturing data about the factors that shape gender inequalities on the micro, meso, and macro levels • Make sure you collect data that is disaggregated by sex and gender • Complement with data about gender identity and include a third category for non-binary (when possible and in accordance with legal requirements) • Structure your work following the five key areas suggested by the European Commission • Define your priorities, define indicators, monitor, and evaluate the process and results • Avoid “fixing the women” by focusing on increasing the numbers • Make sure the GEP actions have a broad focus (it is not just about increasing the number of women in different fields) • Include diversity management 5. Sustaining change The main challenges to ensuring sustainability are related to funding, budget allocation, and time. Having experts within the organisation is not sufficient, as key decisions are often made elsewhere. To achieve real and lasting change, sustainability efforts require a strategically positioned role dedicated to coordination — for instance, a gender officer embedded at an institutional level. However, enthusiasm alone does not equate to commitment; it must be supported by an allocated budget and formal authority. For meaningful transformation to occur, four elements are essential: (1) bottom-up approaches that foster participation and ownership; (2) strategic alliances with experts; (3) the systematic use of data as evidence; and (4) the active engagement of decision-makers. While funding enables a wide range of activities, the longevity of any initiative depends on the integration of gender equality actions into the organisation’s overall strategy. Moreover, institutional approaches must consider national cultural and political contexts. Political and legal frameworks can serve as important drivers by providing legitimacy, mandates, and accountability mechanisms for gender equality. However, they may also act as barriers when existing regulations are fragmented, outdated, or inconsistently enforced, or when political priorities shift away from equality objectives. Recognising both the enabling and constraining dimensions of these contexts is therefore crucial to designing sustainable and adaptive gender strategies. 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 22 Sustainable success requires strong relationships between unions, management, and leadership, as well as alignment with legal requirements. Organisational culture and structure should be strategically leveraged to frame gender equality as a long-term goal and as a metric of institutional excellence. Importantly, culture and structure can evolve from within. To this end, we recommend building alliances with three key groups: (1) gender and equality experts, (2) men as allies and advocates, and (3) students as change agents. These groups should be actively engaged from the outset to ensure inclusivity and shared ownership of initiatives. Finally, effective communication is crucial. While it may be easier to rely on existing networks, potential allies can often be found in unexpected places. We therefore recommend promoting transparency through open calls across the organisation and formalising internal networks for communication and dissemination, ensuring that information and opportunities reach all institutional levels. More strategic actions and tactic in achieving sustainability could be found in the MINDtheGEPs report D8.4 – Sustainability plan. 5.1 Governance and monitoring Monitoring and evaluation are an integral part of any process of change, allowing organisations to assess effectiveness. Having a monitoring and evaluation strategy in place makes it possible to monitor and support the process of implementing gender equality plans, thus increasing the impact. However, effective monitoring and evaluation requires careful planning to make sure it fits within the GEP architecture. Table 5. Monitoring and evaluation - the basic concepts Monitoring is a continuous process, in which data is systematically collected in order to provide management and key stakeholders with regular updates on the progress and achievement of objectives and the use of allocated funds. Evaluation relates to a systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing or completed project, programme or policy based on the monitoring data, providing lessons learnt for the planning of future measures. Monitoring ensures that we focus on the right thing, targeting the implementation of a gender equality plan. Evaluation, on the other hand, ensures we achieve the right outcomes and is focused on the strategic level, i.e. the impact or outcome that we want the GEP to achieve. They have different time frames: monitoring happens on an ongoing basis, and records the progress of each action, while evaluation happens at the end of the GEP life-cycle, and requires a more in-depth analysis. Source: Taking a reflexive approach to gender equality for institutional transformation, report from the TARGET project (https://www.gendertarget.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/D4.1-Monitoring-tool.pdf) Developing strategy for monitoring and evaluation Monitoring starts with selecting indicators, provided by the offices and bodies responsible for carrying out the actions, and the databases used for the initial assessment. To ensure monitoring happens in a structured way, it may be useful to set up monitoring sessions with the offices and bodies connected to the plan. This kind of regular scheduled meetings can serve both to reduce workload and increase engagement. When it comes to evaluation, it is important to take a close look at the organisational context (available from the original assessment), monitoring reports, gender budgets. To go beyond 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 23 quantitative aspects, we recommend also using qualitative data (e.g. focus groups or interviews with key groups or roles in the organization) to explore the impact on the structural and cultural levels. Communicating results Communication is an integral part of evaluation, and plays an important role in (potential) structural and cultural change. Reports should be disseminated through official documents and become available through the organization’s website, along with the results of the final evaluation. Continuous communication can also help make leaders part of the process of change, by ensuring that top-level management receives regular updates on both progress and challenges through regular meeting structures (with ad hoc meetings if need be). Moreover, both progress and the final evaluation should be shared with different stakeholders and departments, to secure their engagement and support for different activities and measures. Finally, communication can help set the stage for a new GEP lifecycle that allows us to improve, and close any remaining gaps that have become visible through available data, negotiations within the organisation, and the process of implementing actions, monitoring and evaluation. Developing a system for monitoring and evaluation In MINDtheGEPs, monitoring and evaluation setted up a system for all seven organsiations with three cornerstones: • Looking at evaluation as a proactive, non judgemental, support activity • Looking at evaluation as non-linear implementation process • Focusing on the iterative nature of evaluation This allowed the project to deal with complexity, , develop long-term relationships between evaluators and project or programme staff. With ongoing evaluation is ongoing, we were able to manage continous feedback in a way that helped support learning and decision-making. This approach is particularly appropriate for programmes working in complex or uncertain environments, or in situations that require collaboration between many different stakeholders from different organisaitons or sectors. Table 6. Monitoring and evaluation: what to consider Monitoring and evaluation supports self-reflexivity through participative evaluation efforts. It can also contribute to: • Quality control: providing structures to oversee the action flow, control compliance and adherence with main evaluation criteria • Problem solving: identifying and overcoming obstacles, and facilitating mitigation Develop good indicators • Make sure you have a baseline that can be used for comparison at different intervals. • Use both quantitative and qualitative indicators Assess four dimensions of plans and actions: • How effective is the action: does it achieve its objectives? - • How relevant is the action: is it dynamic) it is related to different dimensions of change and negotiation? (interpretive, symbolic, institutional, operational) • Is the impact objective (measurable short term changes) or subjective (building on consensus) • Is the activity sustainable: did the change become a permanent part of the organisation, with resources allocated? 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 24 5.2 Training, awareness and communication Awareness of inequality is at the core of the “no data no policy” principle. Proactive communication, dissemination and training activities have played a key role in supporting cultural change, and the data collected across organisations have helped pinpoint both actions for the GEPs, and informed the efforts to design different efforts to raise awareness. Training In MINDtheGEPs, efforts were made to ensure the consortium had the capacity to raise awareness. Training is one of the most effective tools to raise and increase awareness and sensitivity about gender equality, diversity and inclusion. MINDtheGEPs used a "train the trainers" approach, delivered workshops with trainers from organisations across the project, followed by training within the different organisations. Training should be designed to "fix the system”, not the women, which means training should include everyone, not focus on only women, or only early career researchers. In MINDtheGEPs, we have worked in line with the three principles outlined in the EIGEs gender equality training toolkit, stressing the importance of e1) engaging the whole organisation, 2) assessing training on evidence-based organisational needs, and 3) creating an ongoing and long-term process. In order to guarantee that actions are feasible, it is important to identify: • Who is leading the work (department and/or individuals), who supports the work, which part of the organisation is responsible for training employees, and if there is a gender equality office/officer in the organisation. • Who the training is for (management, manager and leaders, researchers and teachers, administrative and technical staff) • The human resources: identifying trainers is part of developing a training plan. • The economic resources: making sure that there is a devoted budget for training activities. Gender equality training programmes can comprise a wide range of educational tools and processes: face-to-face training; staff induction programmes, online modules, guidance materials and compendia of resources, networks for sharing expertise. Regardless of format, the best approach is to integrate training into existing training plans. This requires: • Identifying the training needs for different groups, for example through surveys in the organisation, focusing on basic concepts of gender equality and gender stereotypes; design, methods and techniques for the implementing plans, and the gender dimension in research projects in different STEM and SSH disciplines. • Identifying trainers, for example by inviting staff who are already providing training for the organisaiton to express interest. However, in some cases you might need to look for expertise outside the organisation. • Implement a system for accreditation and/or reward participation i • Make sure dates are in the calendar, for example by making sure training is part of the annual planning of courses for staff. • Consider using a “train-the-trainers” approach, building competence on gender equality that can benefit the organisation in the long term. 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 31 Table 12. Using positive actions as a tool Positive action is controversial, and includes gender quotas and economic incentives. There are three general pathways to implement positive action: through legislation, enforced by academic institutions, or mandated by research funding organisations. When positive action is used, attention to the context is key. Otherwise, you run the risk of implementing actions that turn out to be ineffective. Quotas can be used in recruitment, to steer the composition of evaluation committees, and to guide the allocation of research grants and fellowships. Quotas can be used to mitigate unconscious biases inherent in review processes. Studies revealing discrimination against women during the review process provide support for quotas. Quotas can also increase the applicant pool, reflecting diverse perspectives and backgrounds (non-neutrality and positioning in research). Moreover, ensuring equal success rates regardless of gender sends a positive message to underrepresented groups, potentially boosting application rates. In addition, making women in senior academic roles more visible can inspire female students and young researchers and have a “role model effect.” Quotas can help organisations overcome cultural and material limits to participation in cases where other inclusive recruitment strategies are not in place 6.3 Gender equality in recruitment and career progression We recommend that you take an intersectional perspective, focus on consensus building and approach gender equality from a cross-sectional point of view. This will help generate buy-in from more groups. A holistic approach is needed to address more than one policy simultaneously, and promote a cultural shift within organisations. • Communicate the fact that equality is not a zero-sum exercise, we are adding value • Pay attention to recruitment, and look at the composition of evaluation teams • Pay attention to the allocation of research grants and fellowships, and ensure the selection process is transparent • Pay attention to traditional career advancement models: they might hide gender bias, and they might be different for researchers and technical/administrative staff • Look at the criteria you use to evaluate performance and merit; some of the work women often do is undervalued in formal evaluations, gender balance can contribute to excellence; address bias related to factors like international mobility; and learn from examples of successful revisions to selection criteria, such as those at Mondragon Unibertsitatea. • Promote gender-neutral (non-sexist) selection processes through inclusive job design and transparent practices. • Consider financial incentives, for example, rewarding increased recruitment of women for leadership positions • Take advantage of push factors, e.g. EU legislations • Implement policy actions to raise awareness at both the bottom and the top of gendered organizational practices in recruitment, retention, and career progression • Collect data about gender inequalities through existing databases, and surveys; analyse the needs (for the organisation and individuals); and design measures that are addressing the problems you have • Provide training for all personnel, including leaders, get them on board to co-create training and have them lead by example. Don’t forget to train members of selection committees! 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 32 6.4 Strenghening the gender dimension in research and teaching Introducing and strengthening the gender dimension in research and teaching requires us to increase gender awareness in research content and funding; in team composition and leadership; in research funding procedures; gender our scientific publications; and increase gender sensitivity in teaching for a long-term effect. Gender dimensions in teaching Gendering teaching requires action before, during, and after a course. Before: Review course materials for diverse gender perspectives, move beyond male-centric content, and invest in gender-inclusive communication training. Consider how gender affects learning processes and problem-solving to make sure everyone can be heard, address biases, identify inequalities in your subject, and refresh your knowledge of inclusive statistical methods. During: Stay up-to-date with research, highlight gender disparities, and encourage exploration of diverse perspectives. Acknowledge contributions from all genders, promote classroom diversity, and use inclusive language. Distinguish between sex (biological) and gender (socio-cultural). Use diverse, stereotype-free images, especially in professional or role-based contexts. After: Evaluate your efforts to confirm gender sensitivity by asking specific questions about how well it acknowledges gender considerations, if the teacher effectively addresses gender-related issues and present different gender-perspectives, if different opinions are welcome and discussed, and if gender-neutral language use is encouraged. Advocating for formalisation: Promote formal policies and structures that embed gender, diversity and inclusion into research and learning environments, this shifts responsibility from individuals to institutions, ensuring sustainability and accountability. This includes updating syllabi to reflect gendersensitive content, teaching students how to analyse from a gender perspective, critically assess texts and data, use non-androcentric frameworks and statistics, identify and address gender inequalities, especially in labour division in their own field, and evaluate policies through a gender lens. Formalisation also includes offering regular, role-specific training for staff, teaching them how to recognise and overcome biases, overcoming classroom conflicts, understanding how gender constructs affect individuals and science, and using real-life student experience to ensure representation. Żadkowska, Magdalena., Kosakowska-Berezecka, Natasza., Dziedzic, Marta., Raszczyk, Izabela., Drecun, Aleksandra., Jovanovic, Kosta., Trumic, Maja., & Solera, Cristina. (2024) Teaching with gender in mind: Tools for gender-conscious teaching & inclusive learning environments. Zenodo, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13836843 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 33 Table 13. What to do before: ● Include a gender perspective in your course ● Define gender-sensitive competences to be developed during teaching ● Critically evaluate course materials to ensure they encompass diverse gender perspectives and experiences ● Expand toolkit with alternative analytical frameworks that go beyond traditional white, able-bodied, middle-class male-centric viewpoints, enabling to offer more inclusive and nuanced perspectives within your field ● Invest in training to refine communication strategies, to promote inclusive dialogue and understanding among both peers and students ● Incorporate instructional methods that deepen awareness of how gender influences learning processes and problem-solving approaches, creating a supportive learning environment that caters to the needs of all students ● Address biases in course content by engaging in critical reflection to identify and address biases within your academic discipline, fostering awareness of how gender biases may manifest in research, teaching materials, and societal norms. ● Identify gender inequalities within your subject(s), demonstrating a commitment to promoting gender equity and social justice within your academic pursuits ● Training how to use statistical methods that account for diverse gender experiences, ensuring your research and analysis accurately reflect the complexities of gender dynamics in various contexts Table 14. What to do during ● Continue to stay up to date with how gender is studied in your field and recent findings ● Highlight gender disparities and discuss the impact of the phenomenon on people, broken down by gender. For instance, in a sociology class studying poverty, examine how it affects women and men differently and keep in mind that gender is not only binary and keep in mind that gender is not only binary ● Encourage students to explore diverse perspectives and methodologies including and recognizing works by authors from different cultural backgrounds and genders ● Encourage diversity in your classroom by considering culture, age, and gender when forming student groups, to ensure a rich and inclusive learning environment ● Differentiate correctly between gender and sex and between gender identity and sex assigned at birth. Ensure your language reflects this difference. ● Make sure the images you use depict diversity and do not reinforce gender stereotypes. For example, show different gender persons in leadership positions or in care roles ● Mind your language and use inclusive terms and choose empowering terminology ● Training how to use statistical methods that account for diverse gender experiences, ensuring your research and analysis accurately reflect the complexities of gender dynamics in various contexts Gender dimentions in research While no single person or team can fix systemic gender inequality, collective efforts can drive meaningful change. Brainstorming: Consider gender dynamics from the outset, including during brainstorming. Examine how stereotypes about binary sex and gender may influence research questions, methods, and literature review. Proposal writing: When crafting proposals, explicitly state the availability of genderrelated evidence, formulate gender-sensitive hypotheses, and avoid generalizations. Consider social, historical, and cultural contexts, and ensure inclusive methodologies. Team building & working: Build diverse, multidisciplinary teams and ensure inclusive sampling by stratifying by sex, age, and socioeconomic status. Design variables and methods that reflect gender as a spectrum and account 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 34 for intersecting factors like ethnicity and orientation. Use culturally sensitive tools and disaggregate data by relevant axes. Sharing & disseminating: Present findings with gender sensitivity, using inclusive, non-discriminatory language. Avoid male-centric terms, use people-first language, and distinguish between sex and gender. Disseminate findings through gender-focused platforms to amplify diverse perspectives and promote equity in academia and beyond. Żadkowska, Magdalena., KosakowskaBerezecka, Natasza., Dziedzic, Marta., Raszczyk, Izabela., Drecun, Aleksandra., Jovanovic, Kosta., Trumic, Maja., & Solera, Cristina. (2024) Research through a gender lens: Tools for gender-conscious research across various fields & organisations. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13884172 3. References Acker, J. (2009). Gendered institutional theory: Sex roles and gendered institutions. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 759–799. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Allen & Unwin. Council of the European Union. (2006). Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32006L0054 EIGE – European Institute for Gender Equality. (2020). Gender equality in academia and research: GEAR tool. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear EIGE – European Institute for Gender Equality. (2023). Gender Equality Index: Italy. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index EIGE – European Institute for Gender Equality. (2024). Gender Equality Index: Poland. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index European Commission. (2021). Horizon Europe guidance on gender equality plans. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. https://op.europa.eu/s/oqJJ GE Academy. Gender equality training project funded by Horizon 2020. https://geacademy.eu/ GENERA. Gender Equality Network in the European Research Area. https://genera-project.com/ Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press. Haraway, D. J. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. Kantola, J., & Lombardo, E. (2017). Gender and the politics of the economic crisis in Europe. In J. Kantola & E. Lombardo (Eds.), Gender and the economic crisis in Europe (pp. xx–xx). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50781-4 LIBRA, project Gender equality in life sciences. https://www.eu-libra.eu/ Ministry of Science and Innovation (Spain). (2025). Women in science in numbers. https://www.ciencia.gob.es National Code of Equal Opportunities Between Women and Men, Decreto Legislativo 11 aprile 2006, n. 198 (Italy). 101006543– MINDtheGEPs The MINDtheGEPs White Book 35 Organic Law 2/2024, of 1 August, on gender-balanced representation and presence in decision-making bodies (Spain). Organic Law 3/2007, of 22 March, for effective equality between women and men (Spain). https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2007-6115 PLOTINA project, Promoting gender balance and inclusion in research, innovation and training. https://www.plotina.eu/ R&I PEERS, prohject Piloting experiences for improving gender equality in research organisations. https://ripeers.eu/ Risman, B. J. (2018). Gender as a social structure. In B. J. Risman, C. M. Froyum, & W. J. Scarborough (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of gender (pp. 19–44). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-76333-0_2 Schiebinger, L. (2021). Gendered innovations: Integrating sex, gender, and intersectional analysis into science, health & medicine, engineering, and environment. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 1–28. She Figures. (2024). Gender in research and innovation statistics. European Commission. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/statistics/she-figures_en TARGET Project. (2022). Taking a reflexive approach to gender equality for institutional transformation: Monitoring tool (D4.1). https://www.gendertarget.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/D4.1Monitoring-tool.pdf TRIGGER. (n.d.). Transforming institutions by gendering contents and gaining equality in research. https://triggerproject.eu/ Weisshaar, K. (2017). Publish and perish? An assessment of gender gaps in promotion to tenure in academia. Social Forces, 96(2), 529–560. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sox052