Synthesis report on contextual factors, gender equality policy analysis and gender bias risk analysis

Ref. Ares(2022)705849 - 31/01/2022 D 5.1. Synthesis report on contextual factors, gender equality policy analysis and gender bias risk analysis D 5.1. DELIVERABLE NUMBER Project no.: 824574 Project acronym: GRANteD Project title: Grant Allocation Disparities from a Gender Perspective Instrument: H2020-SwafS-2018-2020/H2020-SwafS-2018-1 Start of the project: 01.01.2019 Duration: 50 months Work Package: WP5 Due date of deliverable: Month 37 Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: Örebro University Other partners involved: Joanneum Research Document version: v.5 This report has been under a review process. External reviewer comments on version 1 were received by the Scientific Advisory Board: Suzanne de Cheveigné, Michael Meuser, and Renata Siemieńska. Internal reviewer comments on version 1 were received by: Peter van den Besselaar and Michael Ploder. Additional Comments on version 1 were received by: Ulf Sandström. 1 Abstract The project GRANteD (Grant Allocation Disparities from a Gender Perspective) started in January 2019, funded within the European Commission Horizon 2020 programme, to analyse the occurrence and causes of gender bias in research funding in Europe. Six project partners in five countries investigate from different perspectives and with a multi-method approach factors that may cause gender imbalances before, during and after grant submissions. The project adopts a broad, process-oriented, perspective when investigating gender bias in grant allocation, paying particular attention to several different key organisational processes within Research Funding Organisations (RFOs), which structure and systematize grant allocation, such as decisions-making processes, review processes, and selection processes. The GRANteD project includes five empirical, multi-level and multi-method, case studies in which gender bias and gender equality policies are studied in-depth, to produce a multi-faceted understanding of complex issues regarding gender disparities in higher education and science, drawing on both qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection. The case study research design allowed for inclusion of five public RFOs in the European Research Area, situated in: Austria, Ireland, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Sweden, respectively. The countries and the core RFOs were selected to achieve not only a geographical spread but also a variety of research funding landscapes. In each of the five core RFOs, one funding instrument, targeting mainly early career researchers, was selected for a more detailed analysis of gender bias in the funding cycle. This GRANteD report constitutes a synthesis on contextual factors, gender equality policy analysis and gender bias risk analysis. It explores, first, national funding regimes and national gender equality regimes as broader macro contexts of the five core RFOs. This contextual analysis includes how gender equality is or is not foregrounded in the research policies and legislation, as well as gender relations in the research sector. Second, gender equality policies and relevant regulations of the RFOs have been mapped and analysed through timelines, framings, topics addressed, and measures. A grid for assessing gender bias risk in RFOs is introduced in the report as an innovative tool to map potential gender bias risk areas in RFOs, focusing on seven key areas: Strategy; Structure; Language and Communication; Evaluation; Transparency; Accountability; and Monitoring. Third, the five selected funding instruments included in the study are here analysed, adopting a similar framework for identifying potential gender bias risks. Keywords: Gender equality policy; gender equality measures; gender bias risk; research funding organisations. 2 Name Organisation Contribution Liisa Husu Örebro University Main author 1 Helen Peterson Örebro University Main author 2 Helene Schiffbänker Joanneum Research Contributor Jeff Hearn Örebro University Contributor Angelika Sauer Joanneum Research Contributor Marlene Hock Joanneum Research Contributor David Walker Joanneum Research Contributor Dissemination level PU Public Consortium: The GRANteD consortium consists of five partners: JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH (JR) (project leader, Austria) ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY (ORU) (Sweden) AGENCIA ESTATAL CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS (CSIC) (Spain) DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FÜR HOCHSCHULUND WISSENSCHAFTSFORSCHUNG GMBH (DZHW) (Germany) TERESA MOM CONSULTANCY BV (TMC) (Netherlands) FORSKNINGSPOLITIK SVERIGE AB (FPS) (Sweden) To address questions and comments please contact: [email protected], [email protected] 3 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 9 1.2 GRANteD .................................................................................................................... 13 1.2.1 Aim, purpose, and objectives of GRANteD ........................................................ 13 1.2.2 Research questions of GRANteD ........................................................................ 13 1.2.3 The structure of the GRANteD project ............................................................... 14 1.2.4 The GRANteD approach to gender bias in grant allocation ............................... 14 1.3 Work Package 5: Formal policies related to grant allocation .................................... 15 1.3.1 Objectives of WP5 .............................................................................................. 16 1.3.2 Tasks of WP5 ...................................................................................................... 16 1.4 Aim and purpose of report ........................................................................................ 17 1.5 Methodology, method, and empirical material ........................................................ 18 1.5.1 Qualitative textual analysis ................................................................................ 18 1.5.2 Methodological frame and data used ................................................................ 19 1.5.3 Multilevel policy analysis.................................................................................... 23 2 CONTEXTUAL FACTORS: NATIONAL FUNDING REGIMES ................................................. 26 2.1 Background: National funding regimes ..................................................................... 26 2.1.1 Research intensity .............................................................................................. 27 2.1.2 National research policy goals ........................................................................... 29 2.2 National gender equality framework ........................................................................ 30 2.2.1 Austria ................................................................................................................ 30 2.2.2 Ireland ................................................................................................................ 31 2.2.3 Sweden ............................................................................................................... 32 2.2.4 Poland ................................................................................................................. 33 2.2.5 Slovak Republic ................................................................................................... 34 2.3 Gender equality in research and innovation ............................................................. 36 2.3.1 Austria ................................................................................................................ 37 2.3.2 Ireland ................................................................................................................ 39 2.3.3 Sweden ............................................................................................................... 40 2.3.4 Poland ................................................................................................................. 41 4 2.3.5 Slovak Republic ................................................................................................... 42 2.4 Gender balance in research ....................................................................................... 42 2.5 Core RFOs’ overall frameworks ................................................................................. 44 2.5.1 Austrian Science Fund (FWF) .............................................................................. 45 2.5.2 Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) ........................................................................ 46 2.5.3 Swedish Research Council (SRC)......................................................................... 47 2.5.4 Polish National Science Centre (NCN) ................................................................ 49 2.5.5 Slovak Research and Development Agency (SRDA) ........................................... 50 3 GENDER EQUALITY POLICY ANALYSIS OF CORE RFOS ...................................................... 52 3.1 Gender Equality Policy analysis framework .............................................................. 52 3.2 FWF ............................................................................................................................ 54 3.2.1 Timeline .............................................................................................................. 54 3.2.2 Framing of gender equality ................................................................................ 55 3.2.3 Goals and aims of the gender equality policy .................................................... 56 3.2.4 Topics addressed by the gender equality policy ................................................ 57 3.2.5 Gender equality measures in place .................................................................... 57 3.2.6 Other potentially relevant measures and policies ............................................. 58 3.2.7 Summary ............................................................................................................ 60 3.3 SFI ............................................................................................................................... 61 3.3.1 Timeline .............................................................................................................. 61 3.3.2 Framing of gender equality policy ...................................................................... 62 3.3.3 Goals and aims of the gender equality policy .................................................... 63 3.3.4 Topics addressed by the gender equality policy ................................................ 65 3.3.5 Gender equality measures in place .................................................................... 65 3.3.6 Other potentially relevant measures and policies ............................................. 69 3.3.7 Summary ............................................................................................................ 71 3.4 SRC ............................................................................................................................. 72 3.4.1 Timeline .............................................................................................................. 72 3.4.2 Framing of gender equality ................................................................................ 73 3.4.3 Goals and aims of the strategy ........................................................................... 73 3.4.4 Topics addressed by the gender equality policy ................................................ 74 5 3.4.5 Gender equality measures in place .................................................................... 75 3.4.6 Other potentially relevant measures and policies ............................................. 77 3.4.7 Summary ............................................................................................................ 78 3.5 NCN ............................................................................................................................ 79 3.5.1 Timeline .............................................................................................................. 79 3.5.2 Framing of gender equality ................................................................................ 79 3.5.3 Goals and aims of the gender equality policy .................................................... 79 3.5.4 Topics addressed by the gender equality policy ................................................ 80 3.5.5 Gender equality measures in place .................................................................... 80 3.5.6 Other potentially relevant measures ................................................................. 81 3.5.7 Summary ............................................................................................................ 83 3.6 SRDA .......................................................................................................................... 85 3.6.1 Timeline, framework, goals and aims of GE policy ............................................ 85 3.6.2 Topics addressed by the gender equality policy and gender equality measures in place 85 3.6.3 Summary ............................................................................................................ 85 4 OVERALL GENDER BIAS RISK ANALYSIS IN CORE RFOS .................................................... 86 4.1 Bias and impartiality .................................................................................................. 86 4.2 Gender bias – a broader organisational perspective ................................................ 87 4.3 Gender bias risk analysis framework ......................................................................... 88 4.3.1 Strategy .............................................................................................................. 90 4.3.2 Structure ............................................................................................................. 90 4.3.3 Communication and language............................................................................ 90 4.3.4 Criteria and eligibility ......................................................................................... 90 4.3.5 Transparency ...................................................................................................... 91 4.3.6 Accountability ..................................................................................................... 91 4.3.7 Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 91 4.4 A heuristic tool ........................................................................................................... 92 4.5 FWF ............................................................................................................................ 93 4.6 SFI ............................................................................................................................... 94 4.7 SRC ............................................................................................................................. 94 4.8 NCN ............................................................................................................................ 94 4.9 SRDA .......................................................................................................................... 95 6 4.10 Summary ................................................................................................................ 95 5 GENDER BIAS RISK ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC CALLS IN THE CORE RFOS .............................. 97 5.1 Gender bias risk analysis of funding instruments ..................................................... 97 5.2 The funding instruments of core RFOs: overview of key aspects ............................. 98 5.3 FWF: ESPRITEarly Stage Programme ..................................................................... 100 5.3.1 General description .......................................................................................... 100 5.3.2 Decision-making and review process ............................................................... 101 5.3.3 Gender equality measures in place .................................................................. 102 5.3.4 Gender bias risk assessment ............................................................................ 103 5.4 SFI: SFI Frontiers for Future Programme ................................................................. 103 5.4.1 General description .......................................................................................... 103 5.4.2 Decision-making and review process ............................................................... 105 5.4.3 Gender equality measures in place .................................................................. 110 5.4.4 Gender bias risk assessment ............................................................................ 112 5.5 SRC: International Postdoc ...................................................................................... 112 5.5.1 General description .......................................................................................... 112 5.5.2 Decision-making and review process ............................................................... 114 5.5.3 Gender equality measures in place .................................................................. 116 5.5.4 Gender bias risk assessment ............................................................................ 117 5.6 NCN: SONATA .......................................................................................................... 117 5.6.1 General description .......................................................................................... 117 5.6.2 Decision-making and review process ............................................................... 119 5.6.3 Gender equality measures in place .................................................................. 121 5.6.4 Gender bias risk assessment ............................................................................ 121 5.7 SRDA: General Call ................................................................................................... 122 5.7.1 General description .......................................................................................... 122 5.7.2 Decision-making and review process ............................................................... 123 5.7.3 Gender equality measures in place .................................................................. 125 5.7.4 Gender bias risk assessment ............................................................................ 125 6 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 126 6.1 National funding regimes ........................................................................................ 125 7 6.2 Gender equality emphasis in the European Research Area .................................... 127 6.3 Gender Equality Policies of the RFOs ...................................................................... 129 6.4 Gender bias risk ....................................................................................................... 130 6.5 Continuing work in GRANteD .................................................................................. 131 7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 133 8 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... 142 8.1 Documents analysed ............................................................................................... 142 8.1.1 Austrian Science Fund (FWF) ............................................................................ 142 8.1.2 Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) ...................................................................... 143 8.1.3 National Science Centre (NCN)......................................................................... 145 8.1.4 Slovak Research and Development Agency (SRDA) ......................................... 145 8.1.5 Swedish Research Council (SRC)....................................................................... 145 8 TABLES Table 2.1. Research intensity in the national contexts of the core RFOs ................................. 28 Table 2.2. Women researchers in higher education institutions, women in grade A positions, in scientific boards and of University leaders, % ...................................................................... 43 Table 2.3. Overview of the core Research Funding Organisations .......................................... 44 Table 3.1. Topics addressed in the core RFOs’ gender equality policy .................................... 52 Table 3.2. Gender equality measures in the GRANteD core RFOs ........................................... 53 Table 4.1. Potential gender bias risk areas and factors in Research Funding Organisations ... 92 Table 5.1. Funding instruments in the five core RFOs analysed by GRANteD: key aspects .... 99 Table 5.2. Basic information on the FWF ESPRIT Programme................................................ 101 Table 5.3. Basic information on the FRONTIERS FOR THE FUTURE programme .................... 104 Table 5.4. Basic information on the SRC International Postdoc Grant .................................. 113 Table 5.5. Basic information on the SONATA programme, 2021 (SONATA 17) ..................... 118 Table 5.6. Basic information on the General Call VV 2020 programme ................................. 122 FIGURES Figure 5.1. Funding cycle and gender equality policy and measures ....................................... 98 Figure 6.1. Gender equality policy cycle in Research Funding Organisations ........................ 129 15 explanations for the outcome. Likewise, equal success rates of women and men is not necessarily an indication that there is no gender bias in the research funding process. Instead: “[…] the proof of whether there is gender bias relates to the selection/decision processes” (van den Besselaar et al., 2020, p.10, emphasis in original; cf. e.g., Beck & Halloin, 2017). This is thus also the organizational process perspective on gender bias which is adopted in this report. This report focuses on how some of the research funding processes in RFOs (for example decisionmaking, recruitment of reviewers, etcetera) are organized, structured, and systematized and how they organize, structure, and systematize research funding. The report particularly addresses issues concerning how national funding regimes influence these processes, and whether gender equality policies are facilitating them or if the lack of such policies brings into these processes potential gender bias risks. This perspective will be further developed below when Work Package 5 is described in more detail, and in the subsequent chapters (see primarily introduction of chapter 4 and section 4.2). 1.3 Work Package 5: Formal policies related to grant allocation8 This report is the main Deliverable (D5.1) of the Work Package 5 (WP5) of the GRANteD project, with the work package title Formal policies related to grant allocation, with leading partner Örebro University (ORU), in Sweden, and participating partner Joanneum Research (JR), in Austria. As such, this report also constitutes the outcome of the fifth and last task of WP5, Task 5.5 Synthesis report on contextual factors, gender bias risks analysis and gender equality policy analysis. WP5 is a complex and multifaceted work package focusing on policies related to research funding and grant allocation. The overall aim of WP5 is to provide the contextual background for the study of how policies are being implemented and practiced in grant allocation processes in the five selected socalled GRANteD core Research Funding Organisations (core RFOs) in five European countries: Austria, Ireland, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Sweden. The WP5 policy analysis therefore informs other Work Packages in GRANteD, specifically the empirical data collection and analysis in Work Package 6 (WP6) Practices in grant allocation processes, as well as Work Package 9 (WP9) Consolidating results and developing recommendations. The results from WP5 will also inform the GRANteD conceptual model which was developed to assess gender bias in grant allocation procedures and to assess the career effects for women and men. The conceptual model was developed in WP2 and used and tested in WP4. For this model WP5 provides several core variables concerning gender equality policies on both national level and organisational level as well as other contextual factors. 8 This section draws on the GRANteD Proposal (Schiffbaenker et al., 2018) and is provided here as a background and point of reference for readers outside of the GRANteD consortium. 16 The contribution of WP5 to the conceptual model is thus to systematically identify potential gender bias risks along the whole funding process. That information enables the project to analyse the relevance of national and organisational policies and of context factors on (gendered) funding outcomes. Chapter 6 in this report summarizes these core variables from WP5. 1.3.1 Objectives of WP5 The specific objectives of WP5 have been: • To map national funding regimes including national research policies and the funding landscape in countries where the five core RFOs are situated • To map specific regulations and policies guiding national RFOs • To map specific regulations and policies related to grant allocation in the core RFOs including their gender policies in place • To identify factors that may lead to gender bias in the grant allocation process, assess their relevance for policy development, including specific measures to counteract them according to previous studies and evidence in the area • To conduct a thorough analysis and assessment of regulations and policies and their consistency and potential gaps in relation to existing evidence on gender biases in grant allocation processes. 1.3.2 Tasks of WP5 The five objectives of WP5 are reflected in the five Tasks (T5.1-T5.5) of WP5: 1.3.2.1 Task 5.1 Mapping of national research (funding) regimes Task 5.1 involved, as a first step in WP5, the development of a framework for a systematic mapping of national research policies and the funding landscape, national regulations and policies that specifically concern grant allocation processes, in countries where the core RFOs are located. The framework that was developed also intended to identify relevant contextual factors for studying gender bias risks in grant allocation processes and gender equality policies in core RFOs. In the second step, this framework was used to collect and systematize the data considered as relevant in each of the five countries where the core RFOs were located. To systematize the data collection and facilitate the comparison between countries a template was developed and used. The results of T5.1 are presented in this report. 1.3.2.2 Task 5.2 Framework for assessing risk of gender bias and gender equality policy in core RFOs. Task 5.2 entailed a development of a similar systematic framework that was produced in T5.1. However, while T5.1 focused on the macro level of national settings, T5.2 targeted the meso level of research funding organisations. For T5.2 the framework was intended to identify various elements of the institutional setup of RFOs, such as formal regulations and procedures, as well as contextual factors, that may lead to gender bias in the grant allocation process. The framework was also supposed 17 to include a systematization of equality policies in RFOs and relevant factors that support or inhibit their successful implementation. Based on the framework an extensive case report structure was produced to systematize the analysis of the institutional setup and gender equality policies (used for T5.3 and T5.4). This template was also used as a starting point for parts of the empirical data collection in WP6 (primarily Task 6.1 Interviews with RFO staff on practices of reviewer selection, decision making and training of panel members). 1.3.2.3 Task 5.3 Gender equality policy analysis Task 5.3 involved adopting and using the framework developed in T5.2 for an analysis of national and organisational gender (or diversity) equality regulation and policies, relevant for the organisation of grant allocation processes. This analysis included the intervention logic, consistency, and potential gaps to assess the potential of specific policies developed to promote gender fair grant allocation to lead to the intended effects. The framework, with the case report structure and templates, developed as T5.2, facilitated a systematic and comparative approach for the five RFOs analysed. The results from T5.3 are summarized and presented in this report. 1.3.2.4 Task 5.4 Gender bias risk analysis The report template developed in T5.2 was also further expanded to be used for an analysis of regulations, policies, and steering documents in the RFOs, relevant for examining the consistency and potential gaps in relation to existing evidence on gender biases, such as procedures related to reviewer selection and panel composition, eligibility and evaluation criteria and the decision-making process. The framework was used to analyse the potential risk for gender bias and identify policies and regulations that can generate gender bias in grant allocation processes. The results from this analysis were compared with the results from the analysis in 5.3 to reveal potential gaps. The results from T5.4 are summarized and presented in this report. 1.3.2.5 Task 5.5 Synthesis report on contextual factors, gender bias risks analysis and gender equality policy analysis The synthesis report, that is, this Deliverable 5.1, contains a summary of results from T5.1, T5.3 and T5.4 for each core RFO. Furthermore, it compiles the main synthesis results from WP5 (T5.1-T5.5) to provide input for recommendations for future policy development. 1.4 Aim and purpose of report This report presents a synthesis of gender equality policy analysis and gender bias risk analysis in the five European Research Funding Organisations (RFOs) in which GRANteD is conducting qualitative research on policies and practices, in Austria, Ireland, Poland, Slovak Republic and Sweden. The report also includes a contextual analysis of the RFOs in all five RFO national contexts. Moreover, a detailed analysis of one funding call and instrument in each of the five RFOs is included. This report thus focuses on gender equality policies in RFOs, situated within their national context and frameworks (i.e., their funding regimes, see chapter 2). It includes analyses of both macro level and meso level. The macro level addresses the national context of RFOs while the meso level focuses on 18 the level of the RFOs themselves. One more level of analysis is embraced in the report. Although this third level of analysis is not what traditionally has been understood as a micro level analysis (see e.g., O’Connor & Irvine, 2020), in this context, it could be understood as such, with the final analytical policy level addressing the funding instruments themselves. The analysis thus traces policies and gender bias risks from the national macro level, through the organisational RFO meso level, down to the micro level of the specific funding instrument. 1.5 Methodology, method, and empirical material 1.5.1 Qualitative textual analysis The general research strategy adopted in WP5 is of qualitative character. This qualitative approach involves a focus on gaining an understanding of context-dependent findings by careful and systematic analysis and interpretations of meanings, concepts and patterns, and evaluations of the research subject (Creswell, 2014). Such a qualitative approach provides rich empirical data and analyses, appropriate for the aim of WP5. More specifically the qualitative approach adopted in WP5 is that of textual analysis (cf. Silverman, 1993). The empirical data analysed was constituted by written texts such as policy documents, call texts, statements on gender equality approaches, guidelines for applicants and reviewers, etcetera (for a list of documents analysed, see Appendix) The texts were initially explored with the use of a qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 2013). The content analytical approach, which was adopted, entailed a preliminary coding process to assist in the interpretation and analysis of the texts, rather than mechanically counting the number of instances concepts or sentences appeared in the texts. The content analysis thus provided an initial and systematic overview of the content of the documents (cf. Krippendorff, 2013). The content analysis was guided by several different descriptive research questions, for example to which extent the documents included references to gender, gender equality, gender bias or similar expressions. Another important objective with the content analysis was to systematize the content of the descriptions of the application and review processes (primarily in the analysis of the instruments and call texts). These questions and objectives constituted the main so called textual categories, established as relevant for guiding the content analysis. However, more than merely counting the frequencies of the occurrences of these categories (or ‘codes’) in the texts, the methodological approach adopted for the textual analysis had a broader vision (Joffe & Yardley, 2004). This broader vision was executed with the use of thematic analysis, which thus complemented the initial content analysis approach by both deepening and focusing the interpretation of the data in the second step. The thematic analysis focused primarily on the manifest content of the data but also included themes on a more latent level and implicit references to for example equality. With the use of thematic analysis, the documents could be analysed in a more focused manner, concentrating the analysis on the primary themes (with ‘themes’ defined as “specific patterns found in the data in which one is interested” (Joffe & Yardley, 2004, p. 57)). The themes were developed both by deductive and inductive coding, meaning that some of the themes were identified in previous research and thus included in the code books used for the analysis, while other themes were derived from the texts themselves (cf. Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). The results from these thematic analyses are accounted for in the following chapters and systematically illustrated in grids and tables where themes 19 and codes are included. It is important to note that WP5 did not include studying documents-in-use (cf. Jacobsson, 2016). This perspective has instead been developed in WP6, the work package in which staff at the RFOs and panellists who review applications are interviewed about how the policies are implemented. Neither is WP5 concerned with the policy development, the production of documents and texts or the process that produced these documents (cf. Jacobsson, 2016), even if the historical timeline is shortly commented on especially in case of RFOs with very long history of engagement with gender equality. To some extent, however, the analysis situates the texts within a particular context and includes a focus on how the documents function in, and impact on, schemes of social interaction and social organisation (cf. Prior, 2016). 1.5.2 Methodological frame and data used 1.5.2.1 Selection of countries and RFOs The design of the selection process and the criteria which are considered in the selection of cases is crucial in all scientific research. The selection of the five so called core RFOs in GRANteD included in the WP5 analyses was guided by a purposeful sampling strategy known as maximum variation sampling. Information-rich cases were thus purposefully selected to include a range of variation of countries and RFOs on dimensions of interests (Patton, 1990). Despite an emphasis on having a diverse sample with regional variety covering all Europe, it was not possible for the GRANteD project to include a core RFO from a country in Southern Europe. Instead, the sample countries consisted of one country in Western Europe (Austria), one country sometimes categorized as belonging to the British Isles, but also as part of the Western Europe countries, (Ireland), two countries in Central and Eastern Europe (Poland, Slovak Republic) and, finally one country in Northern Europe (Sweden). Three of these countries are sometimes also categorized together as belonging to Central Europe (Austria, Poland, Slovak Republic). Two of these are however also distinguished as being post socialist countries (Poland, Slovak Republic), which added one more dimension to the country selection. The variety of the five countries included in the GRANteD project could also be reflected upon in relation to the categorization mentioned above, made by the European Commission expert group (European Commission, 2009), which introduced the distinction between proactive and relatively inactive countries and national funding agencies regarding policies and activities on gender equality. Austria, Ireland, and Sweden were all categorized as proactive countries, with Sweden sub-grouped as one of the global gender equality leaders. Austria was included in a second sub-group of newly active countries with fewer women in research, while Ireland was named newly active with more women in research. Poland and the Slovak Republic were included in the group of relatively inactive countries. The selection process regarding the RFOs was not managed within WP5, but WP1 and WP2, and was decided upon by the GRANteD consortium in the Project Steering Group Meeting in September 2019. Of the first choice RFOs selected, four out of five were successfully recruited to participate in GRANteD as core RFOs, and the fifth was recruited from the reserve list. All the five RFOs included as so-called 20 core RFOs in the GRANteD project and analysed in this report have agreed to collaborate with GRANteD. They have been informed about the scope, purpose and operationalization of the project and signed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining the formal collaboration agreement. For WP5 the most important aspect of this collaboration agreement included the willingness of the RFOs to provide the data needed for the analyses. The details of the selection process or how the RFOs were identified and approached will however not be addressed extensively in this report, which concerns the activities in WP5.9 Instead, at this point we will only highlight some characteristics of the selected core RFOs. The first three core RFOs, which were selected in GRANteD, had demonstrated an advanced level of engagement with gender equality actions. The two other core RFOs were therefore selected based on them being so-called “starters” in the field of gender equality, with no or minor gender policies implemented. To include this variation and mix of RFOs was considered as essential in GRANteD where the focus is on studying gender bias, what influences bias, and how bias can be minimized, in different settings.10 The five selected RFOs thus constitute a heterogeneous sample displaying a variety of gender equality policies, timelines, and approaches. The selection of the five core RFOs, as will be further elaborated throughout the report, thus provides a unique opportunity to analyse both RFOs characterized by relatively long established and proactive traditions of gender equality policies, and RFOs in the beginning of developing such a policy framework. The five GRANteD core RFOs are: o Austrian Science Foundation (FWF) o Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) o Polish National Science Centre (NCN) o Slovak Research and Development Agency (SRDA) o Swedish Research Council (SRC)11 The selection process regarding core RFOs in GRANteD also involved identifying and selecting one specific funding call and funding instrument in each core RFO for a more in-depth study. More information on that selection process and the results of that process will be provided in chapter 5 of this report where the analysis of the funding calls and funding instruments are included. 9 For more information on the selection of the five RFOs see Work Package 1; Deliverable 1.2 RFO Mapping and their GE policies, and Work Package 2; Task 2.3 Selecting core RFOs for case studies and Task 2.3 Approaching the core-RFOs. The Swedish Research Council (SRC) did not sign a MoU with agreement about data sharing and receiving research findings in return as the Swedish legislation and public procurement act would prohibit this. Instead, SRC provided the data considered public information according to the principle of public access to official records upon request from GRANteD. 10 These arguments are further elaborated and explained in GRANteD Deliverable 1.3 from Work Package 1 and Deliverable 2.1 from Work Package 2. 21 1.5.2.2 Selection of documents and mapping activities The documents selected to be included as empirical material for WP5 and analysed in this report are primarily of two types, and were collected during two separate phases. In the first phase, the empirical material for Task 5.1 was collected, to map national research funding regimes for the five countries included in GRANteD. This type of empirical data was collected by means of desk research and included public national and international policy documents regarding research, innovation, development, and gender equality, primarily in the selected five countries. This mapping involved producing a profile for the research funding regimes in each of the five countries by consulting international, European, and national research policy documents, and compiling key gender disaggregated statistics published primarily by supranational organisations such as the European Commission (EC) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). The mapping also included not only explicit gender equality policies but also seemingly gender-neutral policies which might have an impact on gender equality and gender bias. The mapping of national research funding regimes also encompassed contextual factors such as existing gender equality legislation, both for society at large and specifically for the R&D sector, as well as reviewing whether gender aspects were integrated in more general legislation related to the R&D sector. This information was gathered via national websites, documents, and websites from the RFOs, and from European and national reports used to collect the quantitative information described above. The second type of mapping activities continued in the second phase of data collection with Task 5.2 and Task 5.3 and involved policies and additional other relevant administrative and strategic organisational documents of the core RFOs. Several of the documents used for the gender equality policy analysis of the five RFOs were provided by the RFOs; indirectly as they were publicly available on their websites, or directly upon request from the authors. Some of the documents and policies were identified during the kick-off meetings which were arranged with each of the five RFOs, to initiate the 11 The RFOs are here presented in alphabetical order according to country: Austria, Ireland, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Sweden. For the reminder of the report, we however choose to depart from this order and instead present them in an order which reflects a categorization of them into two groups. To facilitate a more coherent and sound analysis and discussion we have chosen to present the three countries/RFOs/instruments with the most extensive policies and measures first (Austria/FWF, Ireland/SFI, Sweden/SRC) and the two countries/RFOs which are developing their policies and measures second (Poland/NCN, Slovak Republic/SRDA). This is thus also the order in which they will be presented in the analysis. 22 collaboration between the RFOs and GRANteD and facilitate the data collection. Participating in these kick-off meetings were GRANteD representatives from the work packages that gather primary data (WP5, WP6 and WP7), and from the RFOs, and on the agenda for the meetings were presentations of GRANteD, research to be conducted for WP5, WP6 and WP7, and presentations by the RFOs on their structures, policies and the specific funding instruments selected for more detailed analysis in GRANteD. In these kick-off meetings the GRANteD WP5, WP6 and WP7 teams were thus informed about relevant documents and the priorities of each RFO. In a few cases the staff interviews, performed as part of WP6, have also informed the analysis and the identification of certain documents important to include in the analysis. Most of the documents analysed are, however, publicly available on the websites of the RFOs. The documents were also complemented with information published directly on the websites of the RFOs (primarily about the RFO and the structure of the RFO). All the documents, and webpages, used in the analysis, are listed in the Appendices of this report. 1.5.2.1 Developing frameworks, templates, and report structures A draft for a framework for T5.1-T5.5 and for the analysis of gender equality policy and for assessing risk of gender bias in the GRANteD core RFOs was described in the GRANteD proposal. It was, however, also necessary to further develop and elaborate on this initial framework. The development of the framework for the tasks in WP5 was informed by the GRANteD literature review in Work Package 1 (Cruz-Castro & Sanz-Menéndez, 2019). The framework was also expanded on by drawing on earlier qualitative research on gender equality in research funding, which the authors and GRANteD members had previously been engaged in, including the European Commission report Gender Challenge in Research Funding (EC, 2009; Husu & DeCheveigné, 2010; DeCheveigné et al., 2010); the GENDERC study (Schiffbänker et al.,forthcoming; Vinkenburg et al., 2021; van den Besselaar et al., 2018) and the gender equality review of Swedish funding agency Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (Husu & Callerstig, 2018). The mapping activities in Task 5.1 were guided by several contextual factors considered as essential for an analysis of a funding regime, for example: research intensity, global innovation index score, global competitiveness index score, women researchers in higher education institutions (HEIs), women in grade A positions, as HEI leaders, and in scientific boards. Two more indicators were included as key for the comparison between national research funding regimes: the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the EIGE Gender Equality Index (GEI). All these factors and indicators were compiled and systematized into templates and tables to provide a clear overview. The results from this mapping exercise and the tables used are included in this report. The next step in WP5 involved building on these five national context reviews to address Task 5.2 and the development of the framework for the gender equality policies of the five RFOs and the gender bias risk analysis. This framework was developed by reviewing factors suggested to be relevant by the research literature: the history/timeline of gender equality actions in the RFOs, overall gender equality framework and goals, issues and topics addressed by the policy in more detail, responsibility and 23 accountability of the gender equality actions within the RFO, specific gender equality measures in place in more detail, also including other potentially relevant measures and practices that are not necessarily gender-marked. As part of Task 5.2 these factors were systematized and arranged into templates to increase overview and comparability between the RFOs. The templates that were developed as part of Task 5.2 were subsequently used for Task 5.3, as tools for analysing institutional setup and gender equality policies in RFOs. Two complementing templates were developed. One of these templates systematised and arranged the topics in the gender equality policy, while the other template addressed the gender equality measures in place in the RFOs. Both templates are included, and used, in this report. For Task 5.3 the gender equality policies of the five RFOs were compiled in five case reports, one for each RFO. Two of these case reports (for FWF and SRDA) were compiled by the Joanneum Research (JR) team, while three (SRC, SFI and NCN) were compiled by the Örebro University (ORU) team. These individual RFO case reports comprise extensive data and large parts of them are included in this report. The compilation of the data was structured according to the factors mentioned above. Task 5.2 also involved developing a framework for Task 5.4 and the gender bias risk analysis in core RFOs. The framework for assessing potential gender bias risk areas draws on the gender equality policy analysis framework. In the GRANteD proposal this framework is described as involving the identification of various elements of the institutional setup of RFOs, like formal regulations and procedures as well as contextual factors that may lead to gender bias in the grant allocation process. The GRANteD proposal identified several features of grant allocation processes on the base of earlier research as important for emergent gender bias: selection of reviewers/panel composition; evaluation criteria (including eligibility criteria, like age and leave taken to care for children/sick/old people); decision making process, and language use. These criteria and features were similarly further developed in Task 5.4 in the same manner as in Tasks 5.1-5.3. The framework, the templates, and the case report structures and the results of applying them on the empirical data is synthesized in this synthesis report on contextual factors, gender bias risk analysis and gender equality policy analysis (Task 5.5). The report also deepens and elaborates the analysis beyond that in the individual case reports and thus presents a synthesis of these five more extensive and detailed, although primarily descriptive, case reports. 1.5.3 Multilevel policy analysis As O’Connor and Irvine (2020) point out, much previous work on gender equality policy and policy implementation has been focused on the organisational level, while a smaller number of studies have addressed the national or supranational level. Fewer still have included a multilevel approach. This type of multilevel approach to policy analysis was, however, considered as necessary for the GRANteD project. Research funding processes and grant allocation processes, which are the main areas for 24 investigation in GRANteD, are embedded in, and influenced by, a broader cultural, social, and economic context of the RFOs but also of a national and supranational context. This means that these processes are both directly and indirectly impacted by both formal guidelines, structures, regulations, laws, and policies on several levels, as well as informal values, norms, and power relations on these levels: supranational level, national level, and institutional level (Veselý, 2017). Gender equality policies are in themselves often “developed and operationalized in a multi-level environment” (Alonso, 2016, p. 174) and part of a “multi-level agenda on equality in science” (Alonso, 2016, p. 181). These different levels not only influence the RFO context – the relationship and connection between these levels are also key for gender equality change and for achieving non-biased grant allocation processes. O’Connor and Irvine conclude their study of gender equality in Irish HEIs: “The best possibility of leveraging change arises when measures to promote gender equality are driven at the state (macro); the HEI (meso); and the situational (micro) level simultaneously” (O’Connor & Irvine, 2020, p. 16). The five core RFOs in GRANteD are public funding organisations and therefore influenced not only by their internal policies but also by state interventions and regulated by national legislation and national research policies (see e.g., OECD, 2018; EIGE, n.d.-a-e). Moreover, they are also positioned within countries which are member states of the European Union and the European Research Area (ERA) and thus adhere to the EU legal framework (European Commission, 2021c). ERA is an area which the European Union set out to create in 2000, constituting a single, borderless market for research, innovation, and technology across the EU with seamless mobility of researchers and sharing of knowledge across borders. The national roadmaps for the European Research Area outline the measures that each member state implement to help strengthen the priorities agreed at EU level and how each member state will deepen its engagement with ERA. One of the ERA priority areas has, since 2015, been Gender Equality and Gender Mainstreaming in Research (ERA Priority 4). This priority area involves addressing gender imbalances in research institutions and decision-making bodies and integrating the gender dimension into R&D policies, programmes, and projects. The indicator, used by the European Commission, to monitor the progress in this area is the proportion of women A grade in Higher Education Sector.12 The EU legal framework is commonly perceived to exercise considerable influence on the national and regional level: “There is general consensus regarding how EU equality policies have helped promote gender equality in member states” (Alonso, 2016, p. 176). And this influence is not only associated with EU ‘hard and binding law’, but also ‘soft law’, and non-binding measures, benchmarking activities and initiatives and so called naming and shaming strategies. Alonso (2016, p. 177), writing about gender mainstreaming, describes the influence: “EU moral leverage, the provision of EU funding, or the dissemination of good practices all represent significant incentives to implement this strategy [gender mainstreaming] in member states”. One example of EU influence on gender equality in higher 12 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_1749 31 The Constitution includes references to the gender mainstreaming tool of gender budgeting since 2009 and since 2011 gender mainstreaming, including gender budgeting and gender-neutral language, has been implemented in legislation, funding programmes and public procurement (EIGE, 2019a). In Austrian government, the national gender equality machinery, the Department for Women and Equality was established 1997 in the Federal Chancellery, and having since been administratively located under different Ministries, is back in the Federal Chancellery since 2018. The Department has seven sections and is headed by the Minister for Gender Equality and Women24. The Department monitors and reports on issues regarding the elimination of discrimination against women and equal treatment and reports to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (EIGE, 2019a). 2.2.2 Ireland In Ireland, gender equality legislation was introduced in the 1970s after Ireland first became a member of the European Economic Community (EEC). The introduction of broader equality legislation in the Equal Status Acts (2000-2015) and the Employment Equality Acts (1998-2004/2008), together with new equality infrastructure in the 2000s, established protection against discrimination on nine grounds (including gender) in employment and in access to services (EIGE, n.d.-b). The principle of equality and gender equality is also embedded in the Equal Status Acts 2000-2011, the Disability Act, 2005, and in the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act, 2014 (IHREC Act 2014). By these laws all public Irish institutions are legally obliged to promote equal opportunities and eliminate discrimination in accordance with their Public Equality and Human Rights Duty (Section 42 of the IHREC Act 2014) (HEA, 2016). The actions applicable to all government departments and public bodies include to carry out ongoing gender impact assessments, gather sex-disaggregated data, address emerging inequalities and report annually on their progress and plans for further actions, address gender equality formally in strategic planning, policies and practices, and annual reports, including in recruitment and promotion of staff in the public service. Departments can also develop inhouse expertise in gender mainstreaming and consider gender impact in the development or review of strategies, as well as ensuring that the design and review of funding and grant schemes include measures on gender equality (EIGE, n.d.-b). In a report from EIGE (2019b) on gender equality framework in Ireland, it is noted that gender equality is not mentioned in the constitution of Ireland and that some of the articles in the constitution “recognize a narrow role for women, in the home and as mothers, with no similar passage on fathers” EIGE, 2019b, no page).25 24 https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/agenda/frauen-und-gleichstellung/ueber-die-sektion.html 25 https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/countries/ireland 32 2.2.3 Sweden Gender equality is high on the policy agenda in Sweden and has been an important policy focus since the 1970s. Current Swedish government has declared itself to be a feminist government. The principle of gender mainstreaming has been applied in gender equality policy since 1994. In Sweden, equality between women and men is addressed by both general laws and regulations, and those focusing specifically on the higher education and research sector: the Instrument of Government Chapter 1 Section 2 (part of the Constitution), the Discrimination Act (2008:467), the Higher Education Act (1992:1434), the Higher Education Ordinance (1993:100), and the Governmental Ordinances of the national research funding organisations: the Swedish Research Council, SRC (Ordinance 2009:975), the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Forte (Ordinance 2007:1431), the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, Formas (Ordinance 2009:1024), and Sweden’s Innovation Agency, Vinnova (Ordinance 2009:1101). The government regulation of both HEIs and RFOs in the Higher Education Act and the Higher Education Ordinance is complemented by a system of so called annual appropriations directions via so called regulations letter (in Swedish „regleringsbrev“), which are annual public service agreements from the Ministry of Education and Research, to the HEIs and the RFOs which also include gender equality duties (EIGE, n.d.-e). Furthermore, official statistics are legally obliged to present person-based data by gender, if there are not specific reasons for not doing so (Ordinance 2001:100, paragraph 14). The objective of the governmental gender equality policy is that women and men are to have the same power to shape society and their own lives. This overall objective has six interim objectives: (i) economic equality, (ii) equal division of power and influence, (iii) gender equality in education, (iv) equal distribution of unpaid housework and provision of care, (v) gender equality in health, care, and social services, and (vi) men's violence against women must stop. These objectives were set up in 2006 in a government bill titled Makt att forma samhället och sitt eget liv – nya mål i jämställdhetspolitiken [The Power to Shape Society and Your Own Life: Towards New Gender Equality Policy Objectives] (2005/06:155: only available in Swedish). In November 2016, the government presented a policy document titled Makt, mål och myndighet – en feministisk politik för en jämställd framtid [Power, Aims and Authority – Feminist Policy for a Gender-Equal Future] (2016/17:10; only available in Swedish) to the national parliament. The document set out the future direction of Swedish gender equality policy with an organisation for policy implementation, a system for follow-up, a 10-year national strategy for the prevention and elimination of men’s violence against women and two new policy sub-goals (concerning equality in education and health, care, and social services). Currently (2021), responsibility for gender equality and human rights issues in the cabinet are placed in the Ministry of Labour. Two important national authorities in this respect are the Discrimination Ombudsman and the Swedish Gender Equality Agency. The Discrimination Ombudsman is an independent authority who works against discrimination based on six discrimination grounds, reviews complaints on discrimination and harassment and surveys how employers, universities, and schools work to prevent discrimination (Discrimination Act 2008:567; Act on the Discrimination Ombudsman 2008: 568). The Swedish Gender Equality Agency26 was established in 2018 to contribute to effective 33 implementation of Swedish gender equality policy. The agency works in close cooperation with other government agencies, municipalities, county councils, regions, civil society and business and industry. The main task of the gender equality agency is to coordinate, follow up and provide various forms of support in the area of gender equality. The work is carried out in the following domains: Analysis and follow-up of the development towards gender equality; support to government agencies, county councils, regions, and municipalities in the implementation of gender equality policy; coordination and implementation of certain assignments in the area of gender equality policy. The National Secretariat for Gender Research at Gothenburg University is a national and Nordic knowledge hub, originally established in 1998 and funded by the government, currently focusing on: ”sustainable conditions for education, research and working life”27. 2.2.4 Poland The most important laws in Poland related to gender equality are the Constitution, the AntiDiscrimination Law and the Labour Act. The Polish Constitution adopted in 1997 assures equal rights for women and men in all spheres of life. In particular, Article 33 of the Constitution states that: “men and women shall have equal rights [...] regarding education, employment and promotion, and shall have the right to equal compensation for work of similar value, to social security, to hold office, and to receive public honours and decorations”. Additionally, Article 18 defines marriage as “being a union of a man and a woman” and guarantees the protection of “family, parenthood and motherhood”. Article 71 states that mothers before and after birth should receive assistance from the public authorities28. Furthermore, the Act on Implementation of Several EU Regulations on Equal Treatment from 2010 provides the legal ground for the Plenipotentiary for Equal Treatment, as well as delegates part of the responsibilities for monitoring the principle of equal treatment to the Human Rights Defender (Szelewa, 2016).29 30 There is no separate gender equality machinery, as discrimination based on gender is one of several fields of discrimination covered by the activities of the Plenipotentiary for Civil Society/for Equal Treatment. The Plenipotentiary for Civil Society and Equal Treatment is the central government institution for monitoring and carrying out the policies aimed at combating discrimination, and the Commissioner for Human Rights as the non-political, constitutional body (Szelewa, 2016). The Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsperson) is the constitutional authority, who is responsible for the legal protection of human rights and freedoms. According to the Law on Equal 26 https://www.jamstalldhetsmyndigheten.se/en 27 https://www.gu.se/en/nsfg 28 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571372/IPOL_STU(2016)571372_EN.pdf 29 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571372/IPOL_STU(2016)571372_EN.pdf 30 https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5505-poland-country-report-gender-equality-2021-1-87-mb 34 Treatment of 2010, The Commission for Human Rights is the second national institution which involves the national machinery for the enactment of equal treatment. In consequence, the responsibilities with regards to the policy field of equal treatment have been added to the main tasks performed by the Commissioner.31 The Law on HE and Science 2018 does not mention gender equality but has some pregnancy and parenthood related protections for both staff and students.32 The Act on the Principles of Financing Science (Journal of Laws [Dz. U.] of 4 June 2010) stipulates that maternity and paternal leave should not be included in the calculation of maximum age for young researchers in the grant application process.33 The anti-feminist attitudes and anti-gender campaigns in the Polish society should also be mentioned as an important part of the gender equality policy context as these attitudes have been depicted as reflected in „the aversion towards the gender equality policies that were part of the state-socialist policies and official propaganda“ (Szelewa, 2016, p. 7). 2.2.5 Slovak Republic The legal framework concerning gender equality in Slovakia consists of the Constitutional ban of discrimination and other constitutional protection of equality between men and women, and the AntiDiscrimination Act from 2004.34 The Constitution35 article 12 states that: “’people are free and equal in dignity and rights’” and that: “‘fundamental rights and freedoms are guaranteed to everyone in the territory of the Slovak Republic regardless of sex, race, colour of skin, language, faith and religion, political or other thoughts, national or social origin, nationality or ethnic origin, property, descent [‘rod’ in Slovak]36 or other status. No one may be harmed, preferred or discriminated against on these grounds’“ (Magurová, 2020, p. 10).37 Furthermore, the Constitution also permits special protection and 31 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571372/IPOL_STU(2016)571372_EN.pdf 32 https://konstytucjadlanauki.gov.pl/content/uploads/2020/06/act-of-20-july-2018-the-law-on-highereducation-and-science.pdf 33 https://en.uw.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/act_on_the_principles_of_financing_science.pdf 34 All the Slovak Acts are available in Slovak online in Slov-Lex, a legislative and information portal: https://www.slov-lex.sk/web/en. Some of them, including the Constitution, are also available and translated into English: elsewhere https://www.vop.gov.sk/constitution-of-the-slovak-republic, https://www.ustavnysud.sk/ustava-slovenskej-republiky 35 Act No. 460/1992 Coll. Constitution of the Slovak Republic. 36 “The term ‘gender’ is translated into Slovak as ‘rod’. The Slovak term’rod’ is also used as the translation of ‘descent’ and ‘lineage’. Some institutions translate the Slovak term ‘rod’ as ‘gender’ and as a result identify not only sex, but also gender, understood as socially constructed differences between sexes, as ground of prohibited discrimination that is expressly stated in the Constitution and other laws” (Magurová, 2020, p. 14). 37 These translations of the Slovak Constitution into English are reproduced from the Country report on: “Gender equality. How are EU rules transposed into national law” for Slovakia, reported on by Zuzana Magurová, to the European Commission, as part of the European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination: https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5303-slovakia-country-report-gender- 35 preferential treatment for certain groups – women, minors, and disabled people. These include Chapter Five on economic, social, and cultural rights, Article 38, which guarantees to women, minors and the disabled an increased level of health protection at work and special working conditions, and Article 41, Section 2 that guarantees to pregnant women special treatment, protection in labour relations and corresponding working conditions.38 The Anti-discrimination Act39 is a general act on equal treatment in public and private relationships and protection against discrimination. Article 2 Section 1 of the Anti-discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the following grounds: sex, religion or belief, race, nationality or ethnic origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital or family status, colour, language, political affiliation, or other conviction, national or social origin, property, lineage [‘rod’ in Slovak] or any other status or on grounds of reporting of crime or any other wrongdoing. It covers direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment, instruction to discriminate, incitement to discriminate and victimisation and, after the second amendment, in effect since April 2008, also sexual harassment.40 The Department of Gender and Equal Opportunities41 (within the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, and the Family, MLSAF) is responsible for coordinating Slovakia’s gender equality policy. The Department is part of the MLSAF and is under the direct supervision of the Minister. It is recognised as the main body responsible for the gender equality agenda at government level. No other ministries or state agencies have a gender equality unit or focal points (EIGE, n.d.-d). The Department coordinates the activities of the Committee for Gender Equality, an advisory body of the Governmental Council for Human Rights, Minorities and Gender Equality. The Governmental Council was established in 2011. It serves as an expert, advisory and consultative mechanism of the government. It is headed by the Minister of Justice and is composed of high-level representatives of each ministry and experts in the related areas of the Council's responsibilities (EIGE, n.d.-d). The Slovak National Centre for Human Rights was established in 1993. Since 2004, it has served as a national independent body under the Equal Treatment Directive of the EU. Its role is governed by the Anti-discrimination Act. The Centre monitors, evaluates and issues expert opinions on compliance with the equal treatment principle and the Anti-discrimination Act, provides legal assistance (including legal representation) to victims of discrimination, prepares, and publishes reports and recommendations on issues related to discrimination, and carries out training and awareness-raising activities. The Centre is equality-2020-pdf-1-37-mb. This second-hand source is selected due to Magurová including the explanation on the interpretation of the Slovak word “rod”. 38 https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5303-slovakia-country-report-gender-equality-2020-pdf-1-37-mb 39 Act No. 365/2004 Coll. on Equal Treatment in Certain Areas and on Protection against Discrimination and on amendment of certain Acts (Anti-discrimination Act). 40 https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5303-slovakia-country-report-gender-equality-2020-pdf-1-37-mb 41 https://www.gender.gov.sk/en/ 36 responsible for providing assistance to the victims of discrimination on all grounds covered by the Antidiscrimination Act (EIGE, n.d.-d).42 Slovakia is committed to gender mainstreaming but without a legal commitment. The National Gender Equality Strategy for the Years 2014–2019 provides the only framework for gender mainstreaming and foresees it as the principal policy method to increase gender equality. As the Strategy was adopted by the government, it represents a binding commitment. However, the implementation infrastructure for gender mainstreaming is missing (EIGE, n.d.-d). The first document in Slovakia to define gender mainstreaming and include measures to tackle structural aspects of gender inequality was the National Strategy for Gender Equality 2007-2013, followed by the National Action Plan 2010-2013 adopted by the government. These were followed by the National GE Strategy and Action Plan for 2014-201943. The Action Plan assigns responsibility, deadlines and financial resources for every task but does not include indicators to support and measure the implementation of objectives. Even though gender mainstreaming and positive actions are perceived as the core principles of the policy documents, gender mainstreaming methods are stipulated to a limited level and in many cases relate to the European Structural Funds (ESF) rather than national policy-making processes (EIGE, n.d.-d). In a recent comparative article of gender equality in Israel, Slovakia, and Portugal (Diogo et al., 2021) state of the art of gender equality framework in Slovakia is summarized as follows: Slovakia does not have its own gender equality regulations regarding economic and political contexts, and only regulations of the EC are applied. However, equality between men and women is stated in the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, and prohibition of discrimination based on gender as well as the obligation of equal remuneration for men and women for the same work are parts of the Slovak Labour Code (Diogo et al., 2021, p.19). The only exception mentioned by Diogo et al. (2021) is the Law on Equal Treatment in Certain Areas and Protection against Discrimination. 2.3 Gender equality in research and innovation How is gender equality integrated in the national research policy? In three of the five countries: Austria, Ireland and Sweden, gender equality is clearly foregrounded in the key general research policy documents and in the University legislation, whereas in our mapping of research policy documents of Slovak Republic and Poland gender issues were being addressed in a limited scope and mainly related to motherhood and parenthood. The timeline of addressing gender equality also varies between the 42 http://www.snslp.sk/en/ 43 https://www.gender.gov.sk/en/files/2015/06/Strategy_EN.pdf 37 countries. In Austria and Sweden, gender equality in universities and research has been on the agenda for several decades (see, e.g., Fogelberg et al., 1999), whereas Ireland has more recently, during the last ten years, intensified remarkably its gender equality activities in this respect. In Poland, only relatively few universities have developed gender equality action plans (European Commission, 2021d), but some recent information suggests that the work on Gender Action Plans has been initiated in many universities (Siemieńska, 2021, personal communication). 2.3.1 Austria The Federal Law for Equal Treatment in Federal Bodies describes affirmative action in areas in which women are underrepresented. However, this law only applies for public universities. Austria has 22 public universities which are the largest group of HEIs in terms of student numbers in the country, 21 universities of applied sciences, 16 accredited private universities and 14 university colleges of teacher education.44 Non-university research organisations are covered by the general Equal Treatment Act. In the Equal Treatment Act gender equality is prescribed, but no affirmative action. Additionally, Austrian University Act contains several laws pertaining to gender equality in public universities. In the Austrian University Act, gender equality is described as a guiding principle (§2) and a task for universities (§3). Therefore, Austrian universities are encouraged to establish measures to increase the number of women in leadership positions, as well as targeted support to female junior academics. The University act gives universities a duty to implement a Plan for the Advancement of Women as part of their statutes (§19), to create administrative units for coordinating activities towards gender equality, women’s advancement, and gender research (§19) and to establish a Working Group for Equal Treatment (§42) (EIGE, n.d.-a; Wroblewski et al., 2018). Several different national organisations/Ministries are key actors in the field of gender equality in Austria related to research and HE (EIGE, n.d.-a). The unit Gender and Diversity Management in the Ministry of Education, Science and Research is responsible for coordinating the legal gender equality prescriptions and several stimulatory initiatives.45 Another Ministry, the Ministry of Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology is organising a major, national initiative called FEMtech, to support women in research and technology, and promote equal opportunities in industrial and non-university-research, at universities of applied sciences and in focus areas of research and technology. The activities within FEMtech are designed to raise awareness and enhance the visibility of women in research and technology, and include, for example keeping a database of female experts and arranging networking meetings.46 The Research Funding Organization, Austrian Science Fund (FWF) (i.e., one of the five GRANteD core RFOs), runs gender mainstreaming activities, supports 44 https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/en/Topics/Higher-education---universities/Higher-education-system.html 45 https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/HS-Uni/Gleichstellung-und-Diversität.html 46 https://www.femtech.at 38 the career development of female academics, coaches female researchers, and promotes gender in research.47 Finally, also the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) is a key actor as it implements gender mainstreaming in all work areas (EIGE, n.d.-a).48 The Austrian government agenda 2013-2018 included two goals related specifically to gender and academia: promoting women’s advancement and work-life balance in higher education (sub-chapter ‘science’); and increasing the number of women in leadership positions in academia and research (subchapter ‘women’). The Austrian Research, Technology, and Innovation RTI-Strategy 2030 (Österreichische Bundesregierung 2020) defines several actions to promote gender equality in research: 1) gender budgeting in all research funding activities, 2) career development for women in basic and applied RTI young researcher programmes and their field of work and 3) actions to improve the reconciliation of work and family life. Since the 1990s, Austrian public universities are required to implement a Plan for the Advancement of Women (“Frauenförderungsplan” in German) as part of their statutes49. Since 2015, the University Act further requires the public universities to have an Equality Plan. In the Plans for the Advancement of Women, most universities elaborate how the university implements the legal gender equality duties and mainstreams gender equality in the decision-making procedures. Each university is also required by law to have an Equal Treatment Commission to monitor discrimination, and administrative units coordinating gender equality and women’s advancement initiatives, and gender in research. Projects that exceed legal prescriptions are more often outlined in the gender equality plans of universities; such projects might be projects regarding gender budgeting or mentoring. These plans are developed and regularly updated by the universities’ Equal Treatment Commissions (EIGE, n.d.-a). In this kind of context, Austrian universities and non-university research organisations conduct a broad variety of gender equality initiatives. The focus lies on topics such as: awareness of gender issues, gender budgeting, individual support measures (grants and/or coaching) for female academics, initiatives to improve networking between female academics, initiatives to facilitate the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities, and prevention of sexual harassment (EIGE, n.d.-a). Stimulatory gender equality initiatives are implemented by the two main Austrian RFOs, one of which is discussed in more detail in this report. The Austrian Science Fund (FWF) organises gender mainstreaming activities along three dimensions (EIGE, n.d.-a): measures to support the career development of female academics; gender awareness, women in decision-making, and gender aspect in Flagship research programmes (Special Research Programmes (SFBs) and Doctoral Programmes (DKs)). The Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) strives for attaining gender balance in their staff 47 https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/about-the-fwf/gender-issues 48 https://www.ffg.at/en/FFG/The-FFG 49 https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/dokumente_und_recht/frauenfoerderung/Seite.3440003.html 39 at all levels), promotes gender awareness trainings for employees and ensures that gender-sensitive criteria are used in the evaluation of project proposals (EIGE, n.d.-a). 2.3.2 Ireland In Ireland, the Innovation 2020 programme identifies that Ireland has the opportunity to build its international reputation for gender equality through improved participation of women in research and innovation activities (Ireland ERA Roadmap, 2016). At the time of finalizing this report (i.e., January 2022), the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (2021) is establishing a new National Research and Innovation Strategy for 2021-2027. In the so called “consultation paper” on this strategy that so far was the only available text, ‘gender’ is only mentioned once while ‘equality’ and ‘women’ are not mentioned. Gender is mentioned together with research integrity and open science as areas in which Ireland is described to have made “good progress” in terms of policy direction and development of good practices. It is also stated that the next strategy, following the Innovation 2020, needs to ensure that this progress is strengthened and fully integrated into research practices “rather than being seen as ‘add-ons’ or depending on champions to progress the issues”. These areas are also described as pivotal to ensure research excellence. More details are, however, not included in this consultation paper (Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, 2021). The Athena Swan Charter was originally developed by the Equality Challenge Unit in the UK as an accreditation scheme to support change towards gender equality in higher education. It is an initiative to support HEIs and departments in their sustainable gender equality work and build capacity for evidence-based equality work.50 The charter was adopted by Irish higher education and launched in early 2015. The Athena Swan Charter in Ireland awards academic institutions and departments for cultural and systemic changes to address gender inequality, particularly in STEM and medicine. 51 Engagement with the charter is a key pillar of Ireland’s national strategy for gender equality, with progress linked to institutional eligibility for funding from Ireland’s major research agencies (HEA, 2016). Crucial for launching the Athena Swan Charter in Ireland was the Athena SWAN Ireland National Steering Committee which was formed in 2013 and it instigated and accelerated the launch. One of the key stakeholders in this committee was the funding agency SFI (Drew, 2022). The extension of the charter to Ireland from the UK was made possible through funding from the Higher Education Authority (HEA), which covers applications to the charter from 26 higher education institutions (cf. also O’Connor & Irvine, 2020). The Irish HEA thus funds the Athena Swan charter in Ireland and dedicates resources and training to support the HEIs to develop their Gender Equality 50 https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan-charter#whatis 51 https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/equality-charters/international-charters/athena-swan-ireland 40 Plans, which are key documents for achieving the Athena Swan Awards (European Commission, 2021a). In 2016, three of the largest Irish funding agencies (SFI, IRC and HRB) announced that they will require HEIs to have Athena Swan gender equality accreditation to be eligible for research funding by the end of 2019 (SFI, 2016b). In taking that step, the funding agencies adopted a key recommendation from the expert group’s National Review of Gender Equality in Higher Education Institutions (HEA, 2016). The funding agencies also announced that they would step up the requirement and by the end of 2023 the HEIs would need to have required a silver level accreditation to be eligible for competitive research funding (SFI, 2016b). With the commitment to the Athena Swan Charter, thus comes a strive for Athena Swan certification (HEA, 2018). All of Ireland’s universities and institutes of technology and several colleges participate in Athena Swan Ireland. By the end of 2018 all Irish universities had attained a bronze certification (Fritch et al., 2019). There are currently (April 2021) 88 award holders in Ireland (87 Bronze and 1 Silver). 19 institutions (universities, institutes of technology and colleges) hold awards, as well as 69 departments. (Advance-HE, 2021).5253 As part of their work to achieve Athena Swan Status, several of the Irish HEIs have implemented measures such as quotas, cascade quotas or cascade monitoring tools to promote and recruit women and men based on the proportion of each gender in the pool of candidates, i.e., at the grade immediately below (European Commission, 2021a). 2.3.3 Sweden In Sweden, gender mainstreaming approach is applied generally as a policy principle across all sectors, also in research policy, since the mid-1990s. Sweden has, from a European perspective, a long history of national gender equality initiatives in society and in the sector since the 1970s, including national policy reports on gender equality in research (e.g. SOU 1983:4; Swedish Council for Gender Equality in Higher education 2011); earmarked professorships for underrepresented gender in the 1990s (see, e.g., Jordansson, 1999); and funding for centres of excellence in gender research (SRC, 2011). The most recent initiatives include the gender mainstreaming duty to public research funding organisations 2013-2018, which was a part of the government’s gender mainstreaming duty (the GMGA-programme; Gender Mainstreaming in Government Agencies), for 60 public authorities. 54 Starting from 2016 universities and higher education institutions were given a gender mainstreaming duty by the 52 https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-09/Athena%20SWAN%20Irelandlist%20of%20awardees_August%202021.pdf 53 Drew (2022 p. 26), however, states that: “There are currently 71 Bronze award holders in the Irish HEI sector (19 institutions and 52 School/Departmental AS awards) […]”. This information seems to be collected from March 2021: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/news-and-views/significant-step-forward-gender-equality-fiveinstitutions-ireland-awarded-athena 54 https://www.jamstalldhetsmyndigheten.se/en/gender-mainstreaming/government-agencies-highereducation-institutions/government-agencies-in-the-gmga-programme-2 47 the study of, education in, and engagement with STEM. SFI provides awards to support scientists and engineers working in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics that underpin biotechnology, information and communications technology and sustainable energy and energyefficient technologies. A more recent and significant amendment to the SFI Act in 2013 widened SFI’s remit further to include both oriented basic research and applied research. The extension of SFI’s remit to include applied research will enable the outcome of oriented basic research funded by SFI to be taken closer to market, which in turn increases the potential of research to yield commercial opportunities and jobs as well as other societal benefits.70 The SFI Board appointed by the Minister consists of 12 members (including the Director General) and has had three chairpersons since 2003 – two men and one woman. Under the board there are four different committees: Grant Approval Committee, Audit and Risk Committee, Management Development and Remuneration Committee, and Board Nominations Advisory Committee. The committees are established by the Board and the members of the committees are appointed by the Board. SFI has had five Directors Generals since it was founded in 2001, all men. 2.5.3 Swedish Research Council (SRC) The Swedish Research Council (SRC) was established in 2000 by Act 2000:662, to support highest quality research in all fields. It was merging previous disciplinary Research Councils into one organisation. It is Sweden’s largest governmental research funding body and funds research in all fields of science, mostly basic research. A large part of the funding provided by the Swedish Research Council consists of researcher-initiated research project funding, and in addition the SRC funds research career and mobility support. Furthermore, it provides funding for research infrastructures, research environments, graduate schools, various forms of collaboration, and for Swedish membership in several international organisations and major research facilities. The SRC is also conducting analysis of research policy and advising the Government in research policy issues.71 The Swedish Research Council is a government agency within the Ministry of Education. As a government agency or authority, it receives instructions from the Government. The instructions are a statutory instrument for the agency. The Ordinance 2009:975 with instructions to the SRC (amended several times since 2009) define its tasks, governance, and organisation. Gender equality promotion is explicitly mentioned in the ordinance as tasks of the SRC, in paragraph 2, moment 12: „integrate a gender equality perspective in the agency’s activities and promote gender equality in distribution of research funding“, and moment 13: „Contribute to that a sex and gender perspective will be included in the research funded by the agency, when applicable“ (Swedish Higher Education Ordinance, 2009:975). 70 https://www.sfi.ie/about-us/about-sfi/history/, https://www.sfi.ie/about-us/about-sfi/what-we-do/ 71 https://www.vr.se/english/about-us.html 48 The Research Council is headed by a Board and a Director-General, who is the head of the agency. The Board of the Research Council has overall responsibility for operations as a whole and makes decisions on general and strategic research issues according to the directives and guidelines adopted by the Parliament and Government. Six of the members are elected by an assembly of electors, which, in turn, are appointed by the higher education institutions in Sweden. The Chairperson and the remaining two members of the Board are appointed by the Government.72 The Swedish Research Council has six individuals serving in the role of Secretary General. In 2021, there were three women and three men occupying this role. The General Secretaries are part of the Swedish Research Council’s management team and are responsible for initiating, promoting, and following up issues in their specific area. The Secretaries General are active researchers and, as a rule, are employed by the Swedish Research Council on a part-time basis for a maximum period of six years. Each Secretary General is affiliated with one or more of the SRC Scientific Councils, Councils or Committees, with responsibility for managing the cases dealt with there.73 Under the Board, there are the scientific councils for humanities and social sciences; medicine and health; and natural and engineering sciences; the council for research infrastructures, as well as the committees for educational sciences, artistic research, and development research. Finally, there are committees for clinical therapy research and the national coordination of clinical studies.74 Most of the members of scientific councils, councils and committees are selected by the research community. As in the case of the election of the members of the Board, these are elected by electors. Some of the members are appointed by the Board of the Swedish Research Council, while several additional members are appointed by the Government.75 The Board for 2022-2024 consists of eight members, 4 men and 4 women, including the chair (female), appointed by the Government.76 The Director-General is responsible to the Board for ensuring that operations are conducted in accordance with the directives and guidelines decided by the Board. The Swedish Research Council has about 250 employees and is divided into six departments – the departments for research funding, 72 https://www.vr.se/english/about-us/organisation.html 73 https://www.vr.se/english/about-us/organisation/secretaries-general.html 74 https://www.vr.se/english/about-us/organisation/scientific-councils-councils-and-committees.html 75 https://www.vr.se/english/about-us/organisation/board/how-members-of-the-board-and-scientific-councilsare-appointed.html 76 https://www.vr.se/english/just-now/news/news-archive/2021-12-15-new-members-of-the-swedishresearch-councils-board-and-scientific-councils-2022-2024.html 49 research policy, research infrastructure, communication, administration, and the department of Sunet and associated services.77 In 2020, the Swedish Research Council paid SEK 6.7 billion in funding, mostly to basic research in all areas of science and research infrastructures. A large part of the research funding (3,8 billion SEK) went to projects that were proposed by the researchers themselves (researcher-initiated research). The Swedish Research Council prepared in total 5 451 applications during 2020. Of these, 942 applications were granted (SRC, 2021b).78 The quality of applications is assessed by peer review. In 2020, a total of 870 researchers served as members of review panels, with nearly half (48 per cent) of the members of the review panels being from higher education institutions outside of Sweden (SRC, 2021b.).79 2.5.4 Polish National Science Centre (NCN) The National Science Centre/National Centre for Science (NCN) was established in 2010, and started its activities in 2011 (NCN, 2020a). The agency is based in Krakow, rather than Warsaw, which has been interpreted as a conscious decision to signal that the agency is separate, objective, and free from political influence (Siemieńska et al., 2016a). NCN is governed by the Act of 30 April 2010 on the National Science Centre (NCN, 2020a) and is supervised by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (MNiSW), which also manages most of the public HEIs in Poland. MNiSW also delegates the distribution of the state budget for scientific research to two funding organisations: NCN and the National Centre for Research and Development (NCBiR). While NCBiR funds more applied research and innovative and strategic R&D projects of business enterprises, NCN funds basic research in Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, Life Sciences and Physical Sciences and Engineering (Siemieńska et al., 2016a). For this NCN receives a budget of over €280 millions a year (NCN, 2019a), One of the priorities of the NCN is to support and develop the scientific careers of predoctoral and doctoral researchers (NCN, 2020a; Siemieńska et al., 2016a). NCN has since 2012 developed 11 different types of funding instruments which target researchers at different stages in their career (Siemieńska et al., 2016a). All grants are awarded on the bases of competition. The core funding instrument from NCN is the OPUS, which is a funding instrument open to all researchers. The MAESTRO is the most prestigious funding instrument, targeting the excellent group of scholars (Siemieńska et al., 2016a). The funding instrument selected for study in GRANteD is the SONATA, which addresses emerging junior researchers who received their PhD 2-7 years before submitting the application. SONATA will be described in more detail below. Another funding 77 https://www.vr.se/english/about-us/organisation.html 78 https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/swedish-research-in-figures/overall-decision-statistics/statistics2020.html 79https://www.vr.se/download/18.6574a0a1775150ec11430/1613046838014/Peer%20review%20handbook% 20IPD-NT%202021.pdf 50 instrument from the NCN is Sonatina which addresses researchers until 2 years after PhD completion. NCN also has especially designed funding instruments for junior researchers without a PhD degree (Siemieńska et al., 2016a). NCN also coordinates international programs and funding schemes, among them in cooperation with EU, for example ERA-NET, and with other countries and research funding agencies, for example NORFACE (Siemieńska et al., 2016a). The office of the NCN is managed by a director, who oversees the completion of the tasks and the financial management, as well as represents NCN to the outside world. The Director also acts as an independent legal representative on behalf of the NCN (NCN, 2020a). The Director is selected in a competition by the Council of the NCN and appointed by the Minister of Science and Higher Education (NCN, 2019a). The NCN Scientific Council is the major strategical body and the major decision-making body at NCN. The Scientific Council is responsible for designing the rules and regulations. The Council is composed of twenty-four top researchers in Poland and each major discipline is represented. The Council defines the priority areas of basic research in accordance with the state’s development strategy, lays down the terms and conditions for calls for research proposals, allocates funding and announces calls for doctoral scholarships and postdoctoral fellowships. It is also the responsibility of the Council to appoint the members of expert teams that evaluate research proposals (NCN, 2020a). In 2019 the Scientific Council was constituted by 11 women and 13 men. The current composition of the Scientific Council is 15 men and 9 women.80 The administrative core of the NCN is the NCN Office, consisting of several different divisions and more than ten teams. The members of the office are responsible for providing information for applicants and ongoing support for current calls and organizing expert team meetings. The office also handles the process of signing grant agreements, oversees their implementation, and initiates international funding cooperations (NCN, 2020a). 2.5.5 Slovak Research and Development Agency (SRDA) The Slovak Research and Development Agency (SRDA) was established in 2005. The Agency is a statebudget institution linked to the State Budget of the Slovak Republic under the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sports. The Agency has been established as the state non-profit-making organisation, with an objective to financially support science, research, and development. It is the only national grant agency in Slovakia to support research and development by granting funding from the State Budget to implement the projects in research and development in particular science and technology fields, within the Agency‘s programmes, and within bilateral or multilateral contracts on 80 https://ncn.gov.pl/en/o-ncn/rada-ncn 51 scientific and technological cooperation and projects within the Slovak participation in international programmes of research and development and community programme projects, as well as initiatives of European Union in research and development, including preparation costs.81 The main objectives of the SRDA are (SRDA, n.d.): a) support basic research of superior quality, applied research and development in all science disciplines and technology including support of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research based on top quality, b) provide development and implementation of new forms of research support in the Slovak Republic considering increase of interaction between basic and applied research and development, and moreover considering an increase of society awareness about importance of research and development, c) provide development and implementation of new programs and forms of support in area of international cooperation in research and development, and also support participation of research and development organisations in the Slovak Republic in area of the European programs and research and development initiatives, d) support research and development from corresponding funds of the European Union, e) provide propagation of research and development results within the Slovak Republic and support deepening of understanding between research and society, f) provide statements and analyses within area of competence to central bodies of the state administrative, the National Council of the Slovak Republic and to advisory bodies of the government of the Slovak Republic, g) cooperate with the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic regarding preparation and implementation of state scientific, research and development policy. h) The SRDA funding instruments include General Calls, Programmes, Bilateral Calls and multilateral collaboration. The Agency has the following bodies: Agency Director, Agency Presidium, and Agency Council. The Agency Director covers activity of the Agency, its Presidium and Council. The Presidium primarily makes decision on the conception and main activities of the Agency and on its programs.82 The Agency Council reviews, selects, and approves particularly projects for financial support and subsequently controls solution of supported projects.83 The Agency Director is authorized to issue organisational rules of the Agency that define details on organisational structure of the Agency, competences of organisational departments and their mutual relationships (SRDA, n.d.).84 81 https://www.apvv.sk/?lang=en 82 https://www.apvv.sk/buxus/generate_page.php?page_id=296 83 https://www.apvv.sk/agentura/organizacna-struktura/rady-agentury.html 84 https://www.apvv.sk/buxus/docs/agentura/ine-dokumenty/statute-srda.pdf 52 3 GENDER EQUALITY POLICY ANALYSIS OF CORE RFOS 3.1 Gender Equality Policy analysis framework For the Gender Equality Policy analysis, a framework was developed in WP5 to capture relevant conceptual, organisational, strategic, and operational aspects impacting the design and adoption of the gender equality policy in the core RFOs. These include the national framework discussed in chapter 2, the RFO gender equality policy timeline, framing and overall goals of the gender equality policy, issues addressed by the gender equality policy, organisational responsibility and accountability for implementing the policy, gender equality measures in place, and other aspects which according to research literature may have relevance for gender equality, such as transparency, recruitment of panellists and reviewers, handling conflict of interest and complaint opportunities. Table 3.1 shows the grid used to map the topics addressed by the five core RFOs gender equality policies. The table demonstrates whether the topic is addressed by the RFO. A more detailed discussion and commentary on the topics will follow in the sections on each of the core RFOs.85 Table 3.1. Topics addressed in the core RFOs’ gender equality policy Topic addressed FWF SFI SRC NCN SRDA Gender mainstreaming    Awareness raising    Equal representation in decision-making boards    Equal representation in panels, among reviewers    Gender balance in research teams   Broadening the applicant pool    Prevention of discrimination ()   Motherhood, parenthood, parenting      Evaluation criteria     Non-biased peer review process     Equal success rates   Gender dimension in research content    Regular monitoring     Accountability for implementation    Reporting and follow-up   Communication & PR    Role in gender equality promotion broadly in sector    Intersectionality   LGBTIQ+  Other     Table 3.1 demonstrates that three of the core RFOs apply a gender mainstreaming approach in their policy as their intervention logic, address most of the topics the mapping included in their policy, with some variation, and some other topics not mentioned in the grid, whereas NCN addresses only a few and SRDA only one topic, related to evaluation criteria. Motherhood and parenthood is, in some respect, 85 We thank Anne-Charlott Callerstig for valuable feedback in developing the grid. 53 addressed by all five. Table 3.2 presents the grid used to map the gender equality measures implemented in the five core RFOs, and an overall view on the measures by RFO.86 Table 3.2. Gender equality measures in the GRANteD core RFOs Measure FWF SFI SRC NCN SRDA General GE/diversity strategy    Detailed GE plan/diversity plan    Gender equality unit or equivalent     Gender quotas in panels, among reviewers Gender targets in panels and among reviewers    Active search to recruit female panellists and reviewers    Academic age instead of biological age for eligibility     () Parental leave considered for eligibility      Priority to underrepresented gender in case of equal evaluation scores   Gender equality guidelines for panels and reviewers    Obligatory GE training for staff and reviewers   Voluntary GE training for staff and reviewers Obligatory gender bias training for staff and reviewers    Voluntary gender bias training for staff and reviewers  Gender equality observers in panel meetings  Evaluation studies of gender equality policies    Gender statistics collected (general)      Gender statistics on panellists and reviewers collected    Gender statistics on success rates by discipline, academic age, funding instrument collected     Time series and follow-up on gender statistics     Gender statistics made publicly available (on RFO web or Annual Reports etc.)     Diversity of gender role models used in RFO Communication  Complaint procedures in place    Networking and benchmarking with other RFOs on gender equality policies    Other measures   Four of the five RFOs have a designated organisational gender equality unit or coordinating group, although the one of NCN a very recent one. Three core RFOs: FWF, SFI and SRC implement a multitude of measures and have an overarching gender equality strategy guiding the policy and measures, whereas the NCN and SRDA do apply only a few such measures, without any overarching gender equality strategy. A common feature is that none of the core RFOs implement gender quotas for decision-making bodies or panels, but gender balance is aimed for rather through targets. All five RFOs collect gender statistics of some kind, but the extent and scope vary, also whether and how this data is made available and published. A more detailed discussion on the measures by RFO will follow in the sections below, focusing on each RFO. 86 We thank Anne-Charlott Callerstig for valuable feedback in developing the grid. 54 3.2 FWF 3.2.1 Timeline Already a decade ago, the FWF was included among the proactive RFOs in the EC expert group assessment of gender equality in research funding in Europe (EC 2009). The first time the FWF made resources available (one academic researcher/analyst, one administrative post; 50% each) to grapple in more intense way topics around gender mainstreaming was by 2005, when the organisation set up the Staff Unit for Gender Issues. Initial objectives were defined, and the FWF gender data were analysed. National and European networking activities regarding gender mainstreaming in the field of research policy were established shortly afterwards. On the national level, a multi-organisation working group, genderAG, was formed, including several funding agencies and research organisations (ACR, CDG, FFG, FWF and JR). The genderAG promotes exchanges and discussions on measures to enhance career opportunities and to promote equal opportunities for women. On the European level the networking activities of the FWF focuses on the German-Austrian-Swiss region (D-A-CH region), where the FWF could establish strong ties to German research funding organisation DFG and to the Swiss research funding organisation SNF, both actively engaged with gender equality issues. Since 2007 gender has been integrated as a separate item on the agenda of the D-A-CH meetings (FWF, n.d.-a).87 Internally, gender mainstreaming was introduced in three of eight principles of the FWF’s corporate policy in 2008. Additionally, efforts of the genderAG to raise awareness internally and externally resulted in a gender awareness training seminar in which all employees of the FWF and its decisionmaking bodies discussed current gender issues in internal and external processes. 2010 a set of standards for equal treatment were adopted based on the corporate policy and additional priorities agreed on. These standards influence the FWF’s external work (e.g., research funding & its associated processes) as well as its internal work (e.g., recruiting, remuneration, further training and education, work-life balance, workplace design and areas such as organisational culture). One result of the implementation of these standards was the implementation of the target of 30% women in FWF-funded projects and that gender analyses were made compulsory in the FWF’s Flagship Programmes (FWF, n.d.-a).88 87 https://www.fwf.ac.at/de/news-presse/news/nachricht/nid/20150310-2111 55 The progressing of gender equality work within FWF is evidenced by that in 2010 the FWF implemented a self-reflection process. This process was based on empirical studies analysing the organisation's decision-making processes. Additionally, a bibliometric analysis of FWF funded projects was carried out. External experts were also involved in the reflection process (FWF, n.d-a). The outcome conclusion of this process was that women are not subject to a disadvantage in the peer review process in principle, but that they do have/obtain a somewhat lower success rate, due to multiple factors (e.g., age) and therefore it takes them longer to establish themselves firmly at Austrian research institutions (Fisher & Reckling, 2010). Finally, since 2013, the FWF has attained a fairly balanced ratio between women and men in its decision-making bodies and in some of them women now are in majority. In 2020 the share of women appointed to the Supervisory Board was 80% and to the Executive Board 60%. The Assembly of Delegates had a share of 38% women and the FWF Board 39,1% (FWF, 2020b). 3.2.2 Framing of gender equality The FWF indicates Gender Mainstreaming, Equal Opportunities and Transparency and Fairness as three out of eight major values of the organisation. The equal treatment of women and men in research is a top priority at the FWF. The FWF defines gender equality as cross-sectional task by supporting equal opportunities for all researchers “within the national research community by means of fair, transparent processes and the balanced participation of women and men in its decision-making bodies” (FWF, 2018). Furthermore, the FWF Strategy for Gender equality and Diversity of Researchers (2018) states, that balanced participation does not only concern decision-making bodies, but overall functions of the FWF, its decision-making processes (with appropriate checks and balances in order to avoid unconscious bias) and in its programmes, whether as applicants or principal investigators (FWF 2018). However, the FWF supports not only participation of women in the research teams, but also research that includes gender dimension in its research approach (FWF, 2018). The national and European legal background of the FWF activities regarding gender equality and diversity is based in the following legislations/directives: The legal basis of the FWF activities is the Research and Technology Funding Act (FTFG), which defines, in §2b, one of its duties as being the promotion of scientific and scholarly research projects by any appropriate means for one or several natural or legal persons. Furthermore, the FWF follows the recommendations of the Austrian Research, Technology and Innovation (RTI) Strategy (Österreichische Bundesregierung 2020). It defines several actions in order to promote gender equality in research: 1) gender budgeting in all research funding activities, 2) career development for women in basic and applied RTI young researcher programmes and their field of work and 3) actions to improve the reconciliation of work and family life. Furthermore, the recommendations of the former Federal Ministry of Education, Science and 88 Flagship Programmes refer to Special Research Programmes (SFBs) and Doctoral Programmes (DKs). 56 Research (BMBWF), as the supervisory authority of the FWF, pervades the actions and activities of the FWF regarding gender equality and diversity. They also reflect the three-pronged approach to gender equality in accordance with the gender equality aims of the ERA (European Research Area): 1) Balanced gender ratio in all areas and hierarchical levels; 2) Reduction of structural barriers; 3) Firm establishment of the gender dimension in research and research-oriented teaching (FWF 2018). In addition, FWF strongly supports the outcome of EU reports, which have identified the need to incorporate gender equality policy objectives and their implementation into the organisational strategy. (European Commission, 2021; European Commission, 2016) As mentioned earlier, the FWF established a Staff Unit for Gender Issues in 2005, which since then undertakes tasks in the field of equal opportunities in research funding. This unit helps the FWF to pursue its objectives and to establish/implement framework conditions needed for its GE policies and measures (FWF, n.d.-b). Furthermore, the implementation of gender equality is anchored high up in the organisation, being one of the primary management responsibilities of the FWF Executive Board (FWF, 2018). In the FWF’s corporate policy, gender mainstreaming is stated as one of the main values of the organisation (FWF, n.d.-f): “The equal treatment of women and men in research is a top priority at the FWF, and our organisation pursues this objective through specific programs and gender mainstreaming in all fields.” 3.2.3 Goals and aims of the gender equality policy The goals and aims of the GE policy of the FWF follow, in an overriding sense, the process of gendered innovations described by Schiebinger and Schrauder (2011). It integrates gender analyses into all phases of basic and applied research, thus aiming to ensure excellence and quality in the results. Since the establishment of the FWF Staff Unit of Gender Issues, the FWF therefore pursues the following objectives (FWF, n.d.-a): • Ensuring the quality of data captured and identifying links in existing data; • Increasing the visibility of women in science and research; • Enhancing and expanding career opportunities for women in science and research; • Increasing the number of women among principal investigators and in the FWF’s decisionmaking bodies. Therefore, the aims of the FWF gender equality policy are inspired by the three-folded approach on policymakers, institutions and researchers have already chosen in the past (FWF, n.d.-b): Fixing the numbers – increasing the number of women in the fields of science, research, medicine and technology; Fixing the institutions – improving institutions by dismantling obstacles and changing structures; and fixing the knowledge – completing knowledge by integrating gender analyses into basic and applied research. 63 unsupportive of female candidates at all levels of seniority. One of the sharpest declines in the percentages of women represented on the traditional academic research career track occurs between the graduate and tenure-track/permanent position career points (the so-called ‘leaky pipeline’) (from Ph.D. to tenure-track/permanent position). The objectives of the strategy are broad, addressing whole funding cycle/pipeline: from schools and students to widening the pool of applicants, awardees, peer reviewers, process (unbiased), leaders, and research content. It is worth noting here how excellence is linked to gender equality and gender in research content. 3.3.3 Goals and aims of the gender equality policy The aim of the policy is to achieve the following objectives: a) To achieve the revised target of 30% female award holders by 2020. b) To increase the uptake of STEM subjects by female students at second and third level. c) To increase the proportion of women leading major STEM research initiatives in Ireland. d) To increase the proportion of women in the Science Foundation Ireland peer-review process. e) To ensure that the SFI peer-review process remains unbiased. f) To increase excellence in research and impact by requiring Science Foundation Ireland applicants to demonstrate that they have given full consideration to any potential gender dimension in their proposed research. g) To increase excellence in research and impact, by continuing to fund meritorious researchers regardless of their gender, while widening the pool of potential applicants. The strategy consists of three Strands: Strand 1 on gender equality across SFI education and public engagement, Strand 2 on representation of women within SFI funded research and in review panels, and Strand 3 on gender dimension in research. Strand 1 focuses on gender equality across SFI education and public engagement initiatives, with the aim of increasing the participation and interest of girls in STEM-related activities. The details provided for this first Strand in the strategy, regarding measures to attract girls to STEM, are not taken up here in this policy analysis in more detail since these are not relevant for the main topic for GRANteD, although it should be acknowledged that these measures can/may in the long run broaden the applicant pool. More of interest to GRANteD are Strand 2 and 3 of the strategy: Strand 2 targets female representation within the SFI funded portfolio and SFI review panels. 64 Strand 3 aims to ensure that gender perspectives are integrated into the research content of SFIfunded research programmes. Both strands are further developed and described below. Strand 2 on women’s representation in SFI funded projects and SFI review panels includes broad targets. It includes actions targeting institutions, research teams, researchers as parents and caregivers, gender statistics and monitoring, gender as potential ranking criterium, grant management, unconscious bias training of reviewers. Twelve different actions are presented to achieve this aim, and they are grouped into two areas: First, actions to increase the number of women within the Science Foundation Ireland funded portfolio (action i-ix) and second, to increase proportion of women among reviewers. (i) SFI will provide incentives for the research bodies to submit applications from female researchers to various programmes. An example of such an incentive is the SFI SIRG programme, where the institutional cap (maximum number allowed for each institution to submit applications) was recently increased from 6 to 12 applications where at least 50% of the applicants were women. Introducing such measures across SFI’s programme range would be based on the expectation that the eligible research bodies are working towards the winning of an Athena SWAN Silver Award, where applicable. (ii) Within three years, require HEIs to have attained an Athena SWAN Bronze Institutional Award to be eligible for funding. Within seven years, Science Foundation Ireland will require HEIs to have attained an Athena SWAN Silver Institutional Award to be eligible for funding.94 (iii) Implement progressive measures, such as the Athena SWAN Programme, to achieve gender balance within the SFI Research Centres. (iv) Develop targeted gender initiatives, informed by annual genderdisaggregated statistics and the monitoring and analysis of the genderbalance of applicants and awardees. (v) Improve the SFI call documents and programmes, in areas such as eligible costs, time flexibility and eligibility criteria, which would facilitate and/or encourage caregivers to undertake or remain in a STEM research career. (vi) Set and monitor targets for gender balance in research teams within relevant SFI Programmes, with the aim of ensuring that research teams and PIs are comprised of at least 40% women and at least 40% men. (vii) Design and implement specific grant management policies to deal with the needs of female researchers during periods of maternity/adoptive leave. (viii) Consider including gender as a ranking criterion at review stage, in line with practices already established by the European Commission (H2020) and other international funders. (ix) Provide effective unconscious bias training to all reviewers. All SFI Staff and the SFI Board have already received face-to-face unconscious bias raining. 94 Within seven years from 2016, i.e., by 2023 [clarification added by the authors of this report]. 65 Second, actions to increase the number of female reviewers within the SFI under Strand 2 of the SFI Gender Strategy means that SFI will: (i.) Achieve 40% representation of panellists of each gender (in both sitting and remote panels, and among postal reviewers) by 2020. (ii.) Upgrade SFIs online grant management database SESAME to facilitate increased diversity within review panels. (iii.) Upgrade SFI IT tools to facilitate the remote participation of panel reviewers who cannot travel, for either family commitments or other impediments such as age or disability. Strand 3 concerns integrating gender in research and Innovation. The SFI refers to the European research policy, and that both in ERA and Horizon 2020 it has been pointed out that gender perspectives are not a sufficiently integral part of research and innovation, and state how this applies in Ireland as well. Actions under Strand 3 are: (i) SFI will request applicants to demonstrate that they have given full consideration to any potential gender aspects in their proposed research programme. Guidance for reviewers and applicants will be developed. (ii) SFI will consider making ‘gender in research’ training for SFI Ireland funded researchers an eligible programme cost. The responsibilities for gender equality in SFI are placed in the section for Research Policy, which coordinates a diverse selection of policy related areas, including SFI Gender Strategy. The Head of Research Policy at SFI manages policy and governance related areas for SFI’s Gender Strategy, Research Integrity etc. The Scientific Programme manager is leading strategic policy development in research policy, equality, diversity, and inclusion for SFI, with expertise in gender in research and innovation funding, equality, diversity, and inclusion, mainstreaming and gender budgeting (cf. Fritch et al., 2019).95 3.3.4 Topics addressed by the gender equality policy The three broad strategy areas structure the topics addressed by the gender equality policy. The topics addressed cover a wide range, addressing awareness raising, broadening the applicant pool, equal representation in panels and among reviewers, gender balance in research teams, non-biased peer review, evaluation criteria, equal success rates, motherhood, grant management considering parental leave, gender dimension in research content, regular monitoring, accountability and reporting, communication and PR, and the role of the SFI in wider scientific community. Intersectionality and LGBTQI+ issues are also addressed in some documents or actions to some extent. 3.3.5 Gender equality measures in place SFI has a broad range of gender equality measures in place across the funding cycle. These include the overall strategy: SFI has implemented a Strategy for Gender Equality and Diversity of Researchers (2016-2020). This is currently being updated. The SFI Gender Equality Strategy 2019-2020 includes a detailed gender equality plan. It is expected that the new SFI strategy 2025 that is underway (see 66 above) will also include a gender equality/diversity plan. Addressing diversity imbalances among the reviewers used by SFI and in SFI staff members is part of the new SFI Strategy 2025. Active search for female reviewers is taking place according to SFI.96 Strand 2 of the SFI Gender Strategy 2016-2020 deals with actions to increase the number of female reviewers and achieve 40% of each gender. The actions include upgrading IT tools to facilitate remote participation of panel reviewers who cannot travel for family commitments or other impediments such as age or disability. Staff has received face-to-face training on unconscious bias, as noted in a report from Science Europe: [I]n 2016, all SFI staff, including the Executive Committee and the Board of Management, received sector-specific, data-driven unconscious bias training by an external provider. Feedback and learnings from the session have been fed into process improvements within the organisation, such as expanded briefing to peer reviewers and a reconsideration of the information provided to review panels (Science Europe, 2017b, p. 19). SFI has developed an extensive and comprehensive Reviewer Code of Conduct to maintain and ensure high-quality peer review.97 Reviewers engaged by SFI are required to abide by the code of conduct, which consists of a total of 19 paragraphs (SFI, n.d.-d). Paragraph number 19 includes references to gender: Reviewers must agree to act justly in conducting a review for SFI. A review must be conducted with integrity, impartiality, and confidentiality and without bias on the basis of gender, race, colour, age, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, political or religious affiliation or marital status. Reviewers are requested to review and consider the guidance provided to aid reviewers in the understanding of unconscious bias in the video available on the SFI website.98 An intersectional approach is applied in the paragraph above. Furthermore, SFI took part in an Irish network which joined an international team to organise first ever International Day of LGBTQ+People in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) on 5th July, 2019.99 Academic age instead of biological age is applied in assessing eligibility. All Frontiers for the Future funding programme applicants are requested to detail any periods of leave from research in their CV - this is considered by reviewers when assessing the track record of applicants. When it comes to considering parental leave, since 2014, SFI has had a maternity allowance available. In 2019, SFI adopted a new policy also including adoption: SFI Maternity/Adoptive Policy, which aims to help in addressing the gender imbalance among SFI award holders and SFI-funded team members. The policy is thus primarily available for women on maternal leave rather than men on paternity leave (SFI, 2019f). 95 As reported in GRANteD/SFI kick-off meeting. 96 As reported in GRANteD/SFI kick-off meeting. 97 https://www.sfi.ie/funding/sfi-policies-and-guidance/review/ 68 Evaluation studies of the policy have been conducted at different points in time – before the SFI Gender Policy 2016-2020 and to develop the latest SFI Gender Policy 2025 (SFI, 2018). General gender statistics have been collected since 2011. Gender statistics of the panellists are collected to follow up the goal to achieve 40% representation of panellists of each gender (in both sitting and remote panels, and among postal reviewers). Since 2018, SFI collects statistics on success rates by funding instrument and gender, and also on the amount of funding granted to women and men. Time series have been collected to follow up goals and targets. Since 2018, the results from the analysis of the SFI Review Process are available online on the SFI webpage, in the so-called Gender Dashboard.100 The publication of the data and the creation of the dashboard is in support of the SFI’s commitment to the transparency of its review process. SFI engages with other stakeholders in gender equality activities in several different contexts and networks, both nationally and internationally and in projects under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 (e.g., in FORGEN). Benchmarking with other Irish RFOs is also made through evaluations by Higher Education Agency. In accordance with the Employment Act 1998-2015, SFI uses non-discriminatory language in Foundation documents and publications (SFI, 2019). There is also in place a process of checking and approval of the reviews submitted by the virtual panel/remote reviewers. The responsible SFI Scientific Programme Managers check the reviews for formalities regarding scoring etcetera but are also making sure that there is no insulting or defamatory language included (SFI, 2019j). 99 https://www.sfi.ie/research-news/news/international-lgbtq-stem/ 100 https://www.sfi.ie/funding/sfi-policies-and-guidance/gender/dashboard/ 69 3.3.6 Other potentially relevant measures and policies 3.3.6.1 Transparency The SFI is transparent on its decision-making processes and procedures, and these are described on its website. SFI also organizes a Webinar via Zoom for applicants, for example for the applicants of the Frontiers for the Future Programme (see below) to provide information and answer questions. The Webinar is recorded and made available on the FFP website shortly after.101 Information on the review process and evaluation procedures are publicly accessible on the website and to applicants. 102 Furthermore, evaluation criteria are public and available for all candidates on the SFI website and in the specific call documents, for the FFP and other funding instruments.103 Information on the decisionmaking and evaluation process is also available for applicants, for example for the FFP (see e.g., SFI, 2019j). The review process is not double-blind in that evaluators are not identified to the applicants, but the applicants are identified by the evaluators. Evaluation results are disclosed and shared with the applicants, both scores and written evaluation. For some funding instruments, such as the FFP, the applicants also have the possibility to respond to the reviewers’ comments at a certain stage in the process. The possibility to make an appeal on the funding decision further contributes to transparency of the funding process (see section 3.3.6.4.). 3.3.6.2 Recruitment of panellists The selection of reviewers (i.e., panellists/members of the virtual panels) is made at the discretion of SFI, involving primarily the programme managers. International panel members are selected with appropriate experience and expertise relevant to the proposals under review and the criteria under which they will be assessed (SFI, 2019j). More information on selection of reviewers is difficult to find in the SFI documents analysed in the GRANteD case study. More information regarding the recruitment of panellists and reviewers will be obtained in the interviews with SFI that GRANteD perform within the Work Package 6. However, one interesting aspect in the process of recruiting reviewers is that SFI enables the applicants to exclude reviewers from reviewing. For example, the applicant of the FFP grant is allowed to add the names of up to three individuals that may be excluded from reviewing the proposal. This is explained to be due to the competitive and confidential nature of the research programme. The information on whether the applicant has used this possibility to exclude reviewers is not made available to reviewers (SFI, 2019j). 3.1.1.1 Conflict of interest The SFI Conflicts of Interests Policy for Staff Members sets out principles for minimizing and managing potential conflicts of interests for individuals involved in decision-making regarding funding (SFI, n.d.- d). The policy is rather extensive and detailed, outlined in a document on six pages and covering areas such as outside activities and income, relationships, and potentially biasing affiliations. 101 https://www.sfi.ie/funding/funding-calls/frontiers-for-the-future/ 102 https://www.sfi.ie/funding/sfi-policies-and-guidance/review/ 103 https://www.sfi.ie/funding/funding-calls/frontiers-for-the-future/ 70 SFI has also measures in place to deal with Conflict of Interest for reviewers and panel members: An essential part of ensuring research integrity is managing conflicts of interest that may bias the review of an application. SFI scientific staff are charged with identifying appropriate reviewers and managing reviewer conflicts of interest. Reviewers must agree to certify to a declaration of absence of conflict of interest before conducting a review. If a reviewer is in some way connected with a proposal, or has any other allegiance which impairs or threatens to impair their impartiality with respect to a proposal, they must declare such facts to the responsible SFI staff member(s) as soon as they become aware of this. If a reviewer is unsure as to whether or not a conflict of interest exists, they should consult with the appropriate SFI staff member(s). If a potential conflict of interest arises during the course of a review process, a reviewer must alert the relevant SFI scientific staff member to this and the situation will be managed appropriately.104 3.1.1.2 Appeals process SFI has established an appeals process as a complement to the formal process integrated into some of its programmes (e.g., FFP, see below), whereby applicants are invited to provide a scientific response. In programmes where this response stage does not form part of the SFI review process, an appeal may be accepted where specific factual inaccuracies can be clearly identified. Otherwise, appeals must be limited to clearly identifiable issues of procedure.105106 Award of SFI funding is discretionary and the appeal process is not an adversarial one. A formal hearing, therefore, is not provided. Factors such as programme budgets and priorities are taken into account when making a decision on an appeal. The appeal process has three stages: 1) An applicant whose proposal has been declined is encouraged to request more information and explanation from the cognizant SFI Programme Manager or scientific director. 2) Review of the appeal by an SFI director not involved in the original review. 3) Further review by the Director General at the request of the host research body. The decision made by the Director General is final.107 104 https://www.sfi.ie/funding/sfi-policies-and-guidance/review/ 105 https://www.sfi.ie/funding/sfi-policies-and-guidance/review/ 106 Appeals based on applications that have been deemed administratively ineligible, including, but not restricted to, late applications, applications exceeding page limits or missing documentation, will not be considered unless it can be explicitly demonstrated that this resulted from an oversight by SFI. Appeals based on funding levels, or award conditions on applications that have been approved for funding, will not be considered. 71 3.1.2 Summary SFI has a comprehensive and ambitious gender equality policy, based on a gender mainstreaming approach, including a clear strategy and a broad palette of measures tapping the full funding cycle. SFI is mainly funding STEM research fields which continue to be male dominated, in Ireland as well as globally. As mentioned above, one of the challenges for SFI is the uneven distribution of applications from female and male applicants, related to the uneven distribution of women and men within the STEM fields. This male domination and women’s underrepresentation is informing and framing strongly the SFI gender equality policy and actions. The commitment to DORA and the implementation of a narrative CV in Frontiers for the Future programme puts the SFI in the forefront globally regarding the development of more multifaceted evaluation of scientific quality and excellence. The evaluation of implementation of narrative CVs should be highly anticipated by other RFOs. SFI is applying a re-ranking approach in some instruments, such as the Frontiers for the Future Programme: “When ranking applications, in the event of applications receiving the same final score, SFI will give priority in the review process to applications from female candidates” (SFI, 2019a).108 It is also worth noting and emphasizing that despite the number of male applicants to the SFI programmes is significantly higher than the number of female applicants (approximately within the range of 75%/25%) the gender gap has been nearly closed regarding women’s and men’s success rates. Ireland and SFI are pioneering in recent implementation of gender equality related eligibility measures which will impact the whole sector. The eligibility demand from SFI on research performing organisations to have an Athena SWAN Bronze Award is putting pressure on the Irish RPOs to develop a reality where primarily women take parental leave. Nevertheless, it must be considered that it can also contribute to cementing and reproducing traditional gendered roles. Statutory parental leave and statutory paternity leave is however mentioned in the call document for the Frontiers for the Future Programme 2019 and it is there recognized as criteria to be eligible to be reviewed as an “Emerging Investigator” (SFI, 2019a). On its website, SFI is presenting the different funding instruments in detail, primarily directing the information towards applicants. The only funding instruments where the SFI Gender Strategy is included as one of the headlines is the Frontiers for the Future. It would seem relevant to also mention this for the other funding instruments (encouraging women to apply, for example, referring to the Gender Dashboard, informing about the Maternity/Adoptive Policy). 107 https://www.sfi.ie/funding/sfi-policies-and-guidance/review/ 108 For more information on the Frontiers for the Future Programme, see chapter 5. 72 The internal gender equality work within the SFI, directed towards staff, is not very visible on the SFI website. The transparency regarding this could be increased. The responsibilities and the organisation and structure of the gender equality work withing SFI is not presented in any detail on the SFI website or in the documents. Gender Equality Strategies and Plans should include information on accountabilities and who (individual person or groups and committees) is responsible for implementation, monitoring, and follow-up. 3.2 SRC 3.2.1 Timeline The Swedish Research Council was established in 2001 as a state authority, merging several previous national disciplinary Research Councils. One of the predecessors, the Medical Research Council (MRC), was in international limelight around gender inequality in the end of 1990s. The peer review system used by the MRC was challenged by researchers due to lack of transparency of peer review and of bias against female applicants (Wennerås & Wold, 1997). This led to the resignation of the Council (Jordansson, 2017). In the European Commission expert group mapping of gender challenges in public funding organisations a decade ago (European Commission, 2009) the Swedish Research Council was characterized as among the most proactive European RFOs, with several good practices highlighted. The SRC has since continuously developed further its gender equality activities. Gender research was explicitly mentioned in the funding framework of the SRC from the very beginning: the SRC had a specific funding programme for gender research, and a Gender Research Committee was set up for this purpose. In the first year, 2001, a total of 9,6 Mill SEK (ca 930 000 €) was awarded to gender research projects (SRC Annual Report, 2001), and gender research did have specific funding category in the SRC budget up to 2012, including funding for three Centres of Excellence in Gender Studies (SRC, 2010).109 However, it took a few years from the founding of the SRC before more broad and comprehensive activities related to gender equality in research funding were initiated within the organisation. Drivers in this work came from both outside and inside: on the one hand, governmental directives to SRC for gender equality, and on the other, from some staff members and some leaders at the top of the organisation who actively supported gender equality work. The work on gender equality developed further and SRC operationalized more clearly its gender equality goals in 2006. According to the Swedish Research Council’s Instructions Ordinance from the Government (2009:975) 1§14, the SRC must promote equality between women and men within its sphere of activity. In accordance with the requirements established by its government directive, the goals achieved must be presented in the Annual Report of the SRC. Each Annual Report, which are all publicly available on the SRC website (only in Swedish), includes a section on gender equality activities as well as gender statistics concerning the different funding instruments, and a commentary of these110. Since 2013 SRC has been included among the 60 public authorities to which the government has given a gender mainstreaming duty.111 73 3.2.2 Framing of gender equality In its gender equality strategy (SRC 2014), the Swedish Research Council defines gender equality in research, first, as a quality issue: ”we want to support the best researchers – irrespective of gender”. Connected to research quality, the strategy includes a key statement of equal research capacity among women and men: “The Swedish Research Council assumes that research capacity exists to the same extent in both sexes“. The framework also includes references to benefits for research of gender equality as well as the justice argument: “Moreover, the Swedish Research Council assumes that research is benefited when both genders participate and apply their expertise and experience“. Furthermore, the importance of equal opportunities for conducting research and for equal career development is referred: “Women and men should have equal opportunities to conduct research and develop professional careers as researchers.“ Gender mainstreaming is applied as the principal framework. The organisation has two gender equality plans: one regarding research funding, and another on SRC as a governmental agency. This policy analysis focuses on the gender equality plan concerning the role of the SRC as a funding agency. 3.1.1 Goals and aims of the strategy In the current SRC GE Strategy (2014), the SRC defines the objectives of its gender equality policy more concretely, concerning the composition of the panels, application rates, success rates, gender mainstreaming principle, and communication. According to the Strategy: The SRC should: • achieve and maintain an equal gender distribution in its evaluation panels, • ensure that the percentages of female and male applicants for grants from the Swedish Research Council correspond to the percentages of women and men among the potential research grant applicants, • ensure that women and men have the same success rates and receive the same average grant amount, taking into account the nature of the research and the type of grant, • include a gender equality perspective in each analysis and evaluation, where possible, • integrate a gender equality perspective in the council’s external communication. The strategy also further specifies more concretely these five objectives. The SRC strategy demonstrates awareness of the importance of continuity and vigilance in gender equality promotion, as a lesson learned from long-term engagement with gender equality actions: 109 See SRC Annual Reports. 110 https://www.vr.se/om-vetenskapsradet/organisation/arsredovisningar.html 111 https://www.jamstalldhetsmyndigheten.se/en/gender-mainstreaming/government-agencies-highereducation-institutions/government-agencies-in-the-gmga-programme-2 80 The importance of a non-biased evaluation process is stated in the Code of Ethics for Experts of the NCN, where a non-biased review process is described and gender is explicitly mentioned, together with age, nationality, or other aspects of applicants’ private life (NCN, 2020c): When drafting their Reviews, the Experts should comply with the following guidelines: […] make no references to the age, nationality, gender or any other aspects of the private life of the Principal Investigator in charge of the Proposal, the Principal Investigator or the Investigators (NCN, 2020c, p. 5). 3.1.3 Topics addressed by the gender equality policy The topics addressed by NCN gender equality activities are restricted to non-biased peer review, eligibility issues, and regular monitoring of success rates by gender and publishing gender data. Regular monitoring of gender disaggregated statistics over applicants and success rates of women and men is communicated in the NCN Annual Reports. Equal representation in decision-making bodies is not mentioned in terms of gender equality in the documents studied for this report, but the key body in the funding process, the Scientific Council of NCN is gender balanced (within 60/40). In the GRANteD kick-off meeting in September 2021, equal representation among reviewers was mentioned as an aim by the NCN. 3.1.4 Gender equality measures in place As mentioned above, the NCN does not have a gender equality strategy or detailed gender equality plan. Neither quotas nor targets for minimum representation of women or men are set in decisionmaking or reviewing panels. Academic age instead of biological age is applied for eligibility, and parental leave is considered. NCN acknowledges research career breaks in all funding calls and for all applications, regarding time from PhD degree (for details, see above, 3.6.2) (NCN, 2021a). Gender equality or unconscious bias training is not offered for staff or reviewers. Non-biased peer review is, however, mentioned in guidelines for experts (for more details, see above, 3.6.2) (NCN, 2020c).120 Gender statistics of success rates, including time series, are collected, and made publicly available in Annual Reports (see e.g., NCN, 2019). 118 Information obtained in the GRANteD/NCN kick-off Meeting on September 28th, 2021. 119 https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/uchwaly-rady/2021/uchwala79_2021-zal1_ang.pdf 120 https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/zarzadzenia-dyrektora/zarzadzenieDyr-104_2020_ang.pdf. 121 https://www.ncn.gov.pl/en/ogloszenia/konkursy/SONATA17 81 3.1.1 Other potentially relevant measures and policies 3.1.1.1 Transparency All documents concerning not only the call but also those describing the review and evaluation process are available on the website of NCN.121 As an example of transparency within one funding call, the applicants to the SONATA programme have access to all evaluation material from both stage 1 and stage 2, as well as the final consensus report. In this report the two experts assigned to do the evaluation of the proposal provide information on the autonomous decision and give feedback to the applicant on why the proposal was or was not recommended to be funded (NCN, 2020b). The evaluation process is single blind, the applicants are identifiable to the reviewers, but it is not possible for the applicants to identify the reviewers. The applicant will be able to read the reviews but will not know the identity of the reviewer. The NCN expert teams will not know the identity of the external reviewers either (NCN, 2020b). 3.1.1.2 Recruitment of panellists and reviewers NCN does not have a pool of reviewers. The NCN Scientific Council chooses the reviewers for the panel meetings and these reviewers are assigned for only one call: “The Council members shall name the candidates to the Expert Teams and candidates for chairmen of the Expert Teams. An Expert Team evaluating proposals in a call for a research activity shall have no chairman”.122 The expert teams are formally appointed by the NCN Director.123 There is no information whether gender balance among reviewers is aimed for or whether it is regularly monitored. The experts can be experts for three calls in a row but after that they need to take a break from the role as expert reviewer.124 The external reviewers (for the second stage of reviewing) are suggested by the panel members. These reviewers can be everything from late post docs to advanced researchers. The process of recruiting the experts is described by NCN in the following manner: Pursuant to the recommendations of the Council members the scientific coordinators shall contact the candidates to the Expert Teams. If a candidate refuses to work in an Expert Team, the Council members shall suggest a new candidate until such time as the Expert Team is complete.125 In Stage II of the evaluation, international external experts are used, who are chosen following the recommendations of the members of the expert teams.126 122 https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/uchwaly-rady/2021/uchwala23_2021-zal1_ang.pdf 123 https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/zarzadzenia-dyrektora/zarzadzenieDyr-55_2021_ang.pdf 124 https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/uchwaly-rady/2021/uchwala23_2021-zal1_ang.pdf 125 https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/uchwaly-rady/2021/uchwala23_2021-zal1_ang.pdf 126 https://www.ncn.gov.pl/en/finansowanie-nauki/dla-ekspertow 82 In 2019, 1648 expert team members were appointed who reviewed a total number of 10771 proposals at the first stage of evaluation. Members of the expert team appointed in year 2019 included 243 researchers affiliated abroad, comprising 15% of all experts appointed. 8112 external experts participated in the second stage of evaluation, delivering 9886 of reviews. 96% of them were foreign experts who delivered 9464 evaluations (NCN, 2020a). These 1648 reviewers took part in a total of 91 expert teams (NCN, 2019). For SONATA, 35 panel teams took part in the review process (NCN, 2019). The majority of the external reviewers were from the USA (1177), the United Kingdom (858), Germany (704), Italy (606), France (487) and Spain (447).127 3.1.1.3 Conflict of Interest NCN includes among their documents for reviewers and experts a document “Code of Ethics for Experts of the National Science Centre” (NCN, 2020c). The document primarily concerns Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest with the Applicant, Principal Investigator, or Investigators and if their impartiality in anyway is in jeopardy. NCN also includes among the documents for the applicants a 20 pages long document called “The Code of the National Science Centre on Research Integrity and Applying for Research Funding”. The document is an Annex, no 1 to Resolution No 39/2016 of the NCN Council of 11 May, 2016 (NCN, 2016). The document outlines guidelines on research integrity and research misconduct. It includes references to supervisors and mentors, conflicts of interest, collaborative research etcetera. It does contain two references to bias, in the context of research and the researcher: When planning research, researcher must scrutinize whether the fact of proving or disproving the hypotheses presented in the research will contribute to the development of a specific area or allow to develop new research methods. It is also essential to consider whether the research plan allows for finding an answer to the question posed and, most importantly, whether it is free from a biased approach. (NCN, 2016, p. 6) Responsible conduct of research includes disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest. This allows financial or other interests to be assessed on an informed basis in order to evaluate possible bias of professional judgment. (NCN, 2016, p. 12) However, the guidelines do not refer to gender equality or gender bias. 127 https://ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/obrazki/reviewers_NCN_2019_map.png 128 https://www.ncn.gov.pl/en/finansowanie-nauki/informacje-dla-wnioskodawcow/instrukcja-odwolania 129 https://www.ncn.gov.pl/en/finansowanie-nauki/informacje-dla-wnioskodawcow/instrukcja-odwolania 83 3.1.1.1 Possibility to appeal There are possibilities for appeal for not funded applications (within, e.g., the SONATA programme). The guidelines for appealing against the NCN Director’s decisions are available on the NCN website.128 The grounds for the appeal should be a breach of the call procedure or other formal infringements. One ground for such appeal can be gender bias. The appeal must be submitted within 14 days of the date the decision was served. The Committee of Appeals of the NCN Council shall decide on the appeal within three months of the date on which it was submitted.129 In 2019 NCN Appeal Committee considered 176 appeals. In 34 cases additional inquiries were required and in 22 cases the Director’s decision was annulled and the proposals were submitted for reevaluation. As a result of the appeals process 23 projects were granted additional funding. (NCN, 2019, p. 36). The proposals qualified for financing (a total of 113 proposals) by the Appeal Committee of the NCN Council in calls concluded between 2017-2021 are posted separately on the NCN website.130 3.1.2 Summary The NCN has become relatively recently engaged with gender equality actions. Initially, displaying a promising commitment to collect disaggregated gender statistics and disseminate them in a transparent manner. They also have a couple of gender equality measures already in place. From a gender equality and gender bias perspective the strengths of the NCN include the even application rate and success rate for many of the NCN funding instruments (including the SONATA which will be discussed in more detail in section 4 of this report). It is also noteworthy that the NCN Scientific Council is gender balanced and has been so for a couple of years. Gender balance in the expert teams is also a topic discussed in NCN, but there is no explicit or formal policy on this yet. Whenever possible gender balance is strived for.131 Furthermore, the Coordinators have been given an important role and responsibility to ensure a nonbiased review process. The policy analysis performed for this deliverable has not included a systematic investigation of visual content, such as photos and pictures included in the data. But also in this aspect, it is possible to apply a gender lens or approach. Previous studies have highlighted a tendency to overrepresent men in illustrations of scientists and protagonists of knowledge, information, and science (cf. e.g., González et al., 2017). However, it is noteworthy that on the NCN website, women researchers and women Principal Investigators are given prominent positions in public documents published, and same applies to the NCN marketing material and communications between NCN and the public. One example of this are the NCN Annual Reports where photos of women and men are evenly distributed throughout the publication. This gender balance approach, to ensure a gender equal distribution of women and men in illustrations, communications, and marketing material, is also demonstrated in relation to communications to NCN experts and reviewers (for example in the video: “Guidelines for NCN experts”, NCN 2020b)132. The engagement with gender equality is in an early stage, and there is room for improvements for NCN. One of the main weaknesses identified in this policy analysis is the lack of overall gender equality strategy and a more detailed Gender Equality Plan, with clear aims and operationalization. Despite the 84 even application rate and success rate for many of the NCN funding instruments there are also some examples of more uneven application rate and success rate, most notable for the more prestigious NCN funding instruments (primarily MAESTRO, but also OPUS). There is also an uneven distribution of the NCN awards to women and men that should be addressed. 130 https://www.ncn.gov.pl/konkursy/wyniki/odwolania 131 Information shared by NCN with GRANteD during kick-off meeting on September 28th, 2021. 132 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoBxwLsalK8 85 3.2 SRDA 3.2.1 Timeline, framework, goals and aims of GE policy The SRDA belongs to the European research funding organisations which, thus far, have not addressed gender equality in its overall strategy and actions. There is no gender equality strategy or explicit policy, no guidelines on gender balance or code of conduct in decision-making bodies or among reviewers. In the kick-off meeting with the GRANteD team the SRDA representatives explained that gender issues have not been considered as a problem within the organisation thus far. The framework for actions related to gender equality is thus fragmented and focusing on eligibility and evaluation of applicants considering parenthood and age and collecting basic data on applicants and awards by gender (as described in more detail below). 3.2.2 Topics addressed by the gender equality policy and gender equality measures in place As the only gender-related or gender-marked topic, the guidelines for the reviewers indicate that for assessing merits in two criteria: professional qualifications of the PI (0-20 points), and professional qualifications of the research team (0-10 points), “the reviews and the Council shall consider the age and length of the professional career of the Principal Investigator and team members, as well as maternity/paternity and parental leave.“ The maximum points an application can be given is 100 points (SRDA Guidelines for the reviewers). The SRDA collects statistics on the sex of the applicants and success rates. However, the success rates by gender are not made public; in the annual reports the SRDA publishes on its websites none of the statistics is by gender, but by Slovak regions, by character of research (basic, applied, development), by field of science (natural, technical, medical, agricultural, social sciences and humanities. 3.2.3 Summary The SRDA has not developed a gender equality strategy thus far and does not include gender equality goals in their more general policy documents. Currently gender equality is addressed in only two focus areas, parenthood and age related to assessing professional qualifications, and collecting gender statistics. The SRDA staff in the kick-off meeting with the GRANteD team indicated that the organisation is interested in proposals for future actions, and in engaging in international collaboration in the area, provided by, among others, by participation in GRANteD and its stakeholder activities. 86 4 OVERALL GENDER BIAS RISK ANALYSIS IN CORE RFOS 4.1 Bias and impartiality Gender bias is a complex and contested concept. In research and in policy debate it is used both in a narrow and a broader meaning. A narrow meaning of gender bias refers to bias in the evaluation of quality, and here especially the concept of implicit or unconscious bias has caught a lot of attention in recent years in society, academia and in research funding as well as policy development (see e.g., US National Academies of Science, 2006; Easterly & Ricard, 2011; European Commission, 2017; LERU, 2018; GenPORT n.a.; Gvozdanović & Maes, 2018; Jackson et al., 2014; Pritlove et al., 2019; Régner et al., 2019; Storage et al., 2020). A broader approach to gender bias is informed by a very large research literature on gendered organisations, including research organisations, which has analysed multiple and complex aspects of gender relations in organisations (see Bendl et al., 2015; Collinson & Hearn, 1996; Ely et al., 2003; Gröschl, 2011; Jeanes et al., 2011; Kumra et al., 2004; Özgilbin, 2009; and the international scientific journals Gender, Work, and Organization, 1994–; Gender and Management (formerly Women and Management, 1981–; and Equality Diversity and Inclusion (formerly Equal Opportunities International, 1981 –). Moreover, understandings of the very concept of gender have become more complex and contested in research and knowledge production over recent decades (Hearn & Husu, 2011; Schiebinger & Schraudner, 2011; Gibney & Schiebinger, 2020). In the GRANteD literature review, in the early stage of the project, Cruz-Castro & Sanz-Menéndez (2019) shed light on the narrower understanding of individual cognitive bias, specifically in the field of gender disparities in grant allocation. They elaborate further on the definition and understanding of bias in peer review, that: “reviewer’s bias is understood as the violation of impartiality in the evaluation of a submission or application” (Cruz-Castro & Sanz-Menéndez, 2019, p. 9). Much previous research has highlighted the influence of this type of bias on the peer review process in academia and in RFOs. Studies have demonstrated how men and women are judged differently and how women’s merits may be undervalued and men’s merits inflated (Rossiter, 1993; Steinpreis et al., 1999; Moss-Raccusin et al., 2012; Handley et al., 2015; Jappelli et al. 2015; Leslie et al., 2015; MacNeil et al., 2015). Cruz-Castro & Sanz-Menéndez (2019) emphasise the importance of trying to take bias “out of the exclusive level of individuals (researchers, evaluators) and to incorporate the organisational level into the analysis” (Cruz-Castro & Sanz-Menéndez, 2019, p. 11). This is also the broader, organisational perspective that is adopted in this report and that the analysis continue to build on to explore gender equality policies in funding organisations and in their contexts, and how these policies impact their funding processes and the potential risks for gender bias. 87 4.2 Gender bias – a broader organisational perspective This report frames bias and gender bias from a contextual and organisational perspective, rather than focusing on an individual perspective. Furthermore, our perspective acknowledges gender bias in knowledge production, which has been increasingly addressed both in research and policy, including funding organisations, in Europe and beyond (see, e.g., Håkansson & Sand, 2021; Gendered Innovations, n.d.). The focus in this report is thus only indirectly on individual cognitive bias, but instead beyond the individual level. The report explores the broader organisational context, structures and processes which may either allow or ignore risk of bias, or prevent, question, suppress, and diminish the effects of individual, cognitive bias. The analysis does not directly explore the cognitive and evaluative, individual bias, but the potential risks that the contexts of RFOs; their legislative or governmental remit, their policies, their decision-making, and their administrative processes, facilitate or allow for these biases to influence the funding process. Gender imbalance in decision-making positions, among reviewers and applicants can be a result of gender bias in recognizing and defining competence, leadership capacity and expertise; gender imbalances in success rates can be due to gender bias in applicant support or narrow definition of eligibility. Gender imbalances are thus not always due to gender bias, but gender bias can in many ways lead to gender imbalances, for example by self-selection bias. Self-selection can impact who decides to apply for funding, which in turn can be influenced by several factors, among them who is encouraged to apply, how the call is written and who is addressed in it, directly (via eligibility criteria) and indirectly (through e.g., gendered language) (cf. Cruz-Castro & Sanz-Menéndez, 2019; Neufeld & Hornbostel, 2012). More specifically, this report focuses on how gender bias and the biasing impact of gender beliefs, and especially gender bias in assessment of quality and capacity (as a micro-level phenomenon) can be counteracted by formal national and organizational policies, and how the risk for gender bias can be mitigated and minimized in organisations (RFOs) (as a meso-level phenomenon). The perspective on bias, and on potential gender bias risk adopted in this report, is, however, broader and includes additional dimensions. This broader understanding of gender bias includes considerations of the larger societal context, organisational setups and policies which contribute to gendered outcomes in terms of positions, awards, and knowledge. In this broader understanding, contexts and structures in which quality, expertise and knowledge is evaluated can be gender biased, as well as policies and practices related to how evaluations are organised, and how resources are allocated. Silence and lack of action on gender can also indicate gender bias or may lead to biased outcomes. A recent example of such a broad understanding of bias in the field of policy development is exemplified by the ERAC Standing Working Group on Gender in Research and Innovation policy brief with the title: “Tackling gender bias in research evaluation: Recommendations for action for EU Member States” (ERAC, 2019, p.2), in which it is stated: 88 Several Member States and European RFOs as well as the European Commission have taken important strides to eliminate gender bias in their procedures and policies, and serve as positive examples for action. ERA National Action Plans and Strategies (NAPS) rarely address the topic. Based on an exchange at its second meeting, the Standing Working Group on Gender in Research and Innovation presents recommendations for national authorities and RFOs on gender bias, to move forward on ERA Priority 4 Gender equality and gender mainstreaming. The report provides examples of this broader understanding of gender bias in research, focusing on procedures, policies, and processes. One such example of gender bias in organisational processes and procedures concerns how not addressing gender and applying gender-blind, or purportedly genderneutral, rules disadvantage parents and primary caregivers in various ways across the funding process: Evaluation and eligibility criteria often disregard parenthood as a potentiality in researcher’s lives. RFOs may not address differences in research performance due to family-related breaks. Eligibility rules for junior researchers may set age limits that precent parents that have taken breaks from participating. For example, having an age limit of 35 without provisions for family-related breaks will tend to bar women from participating. RFOs also may not have rules for the transfer of the PI status after returning from maternity/parental leave (ERAC, 2019, p. 4). Another example of this broader understanding of gender bias is related to resource allocation and to so-called excellence funding, as pointed out already in the EU Gender Challenge Report in 2009 (EC, 2009), and the very notion of excellence (see, e.g., EC, 2004; Rees, 2011). Increasingly, the RFOs promote funding for so-called ‘excellence-programmes’ or ‘excellence-marked positions’. Although these are usually presented in gender-neutral terms, notions of excellence are gendered and these programmes in general benefit men. A large body of international studies has provided additional support for the existing gender bias in the notion of excellence and the organisational procedures, processes, and policies behind excellence programmes and excellence funding, for example, in Sweden (Sandström et al., 2010), and Ireland and the UK (O’Connor & Barnard, 2021). 4.3 Gender bias risk analysis framework Applying a broader, organisational approach to gender bias means that potential risks of gender bias similarly must be identified with this broader approach in mind. Gender bias understood from an organisational perspective means that risk areas for gender biased decisions, actions and evaluations are not limited to only a few phases of the research funding cycle, such as when individual reviewers conduct a review of research quality. Instead, gender bias risks are potentially inherent to the process and present challenges for each phase, necessitating caution, awareness, and strategies throughout the process. One such strategy is to use a gender bias risk analysis tool which facilitate identifying potential risks. 89 Tools for risk assessment usually take the form of checklists, with the items on the lists divided up into areas, identified through careful and systematic reviews of empirical evidence and examples. Each area is then further developed by distinguishing a set of criteria for assessing potential bias risks and for identifying possible strategies for minimising bias in each area. This is the method that was used to develop the GRANteD assessment tool for identifying potential gender bias risks in the research funding cycle. Risk assessments often include a dimension of evaluating the weight of the different variables included in the risk analysis. This dimension is not included in the GRANteD assessment tool for identifying potential gender bias risk in the research funding cycle (see below Table 4.1). The reason for this is the heuristic approach used to develop the tool, aiming to present a practical method for identifying risks by the RFOs themselves. The assessment of the risks in each RFO is however discussed in terms of considerable and substantial risk or relatively high risk, in the subsequent discussions of each RFO (see below 4.5-4.10). The potential, or emerging, gender bias risk factors in research funding can be identified both in the general set-up and characteristics of the management and organisation of the RFO in question, as well as in call-specific characteristics and regulations. Potential gender bias risk areas include a broad range of structural features, practices and activities in which research funding is applied for and distributed: from overall strategy, structure of the funding process, eligibility, evaluation criteria, transparency, language, communication, and imagery, to accountability and monitoring. Gender bias risk factors are thus not exclusively about whether gender equality policies are in place or whether and how effectively they are being implemented. Despite these being key dimensions to investigate here, a broader lens must be applied to consider also other relevant discursive, institutional, structural, and contextual factors, such as transparency. The quality of gender equality policies needs also to be reflected upon (Krizsan & Lombardo, 2013). How gender equality is framed and understood is also a dimension which can affect gender bias risk (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000; Husu & Hearn, 2011; Peterson & Jordansson, 2021). A recent global survey of 30 RFOs revealed how in the funding organisations, a multitude of understandings of gender existed, and how the RFOs were faced with challenges with defining gender equality and distinguishing gender equality from the gender dimension in research (Håkansson & Sand, 2021). The broader gender bias risk areas in research funding were foregrounded already in the 2009 Gender Challenge Report, and detailed recommendations to RFOs and the sector were presented (EC, 2009). The GENDER-NET Plus recent report on gender equality in research funding in 11 European countries, Israel and Canada noted how many of the 2009 report recommendations are still quite relevant, despite increased gender equality actions of RFOs in Europe (Hermansson et al., 2021, p. 73). In the following we present key gender bias risk areas included in the gender bias risk analysis framework developed in GRANteD. A total of seven such areas were identified: Strategy; Structure; Communication and Language; Criteria (evaluation, eligibility); Transparency: Accountability; and Monitoring. Each area is constituted by several different factors. These areas are separated for analytical clarity but are in practice heavily interconnected. 96 equality or unconscious bias training for reviewers, monitoring the gender balance and accountability, and critically reviewing the evaluation process by gender observers in panels. 97 5 GENDER BIAS RISK ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC CALLS IN THE CORE RFOS 5.1 Gender bias risk analysis of funding instruments In this section, we introduce the specific calls which have been selected for more detailed analysis in GRANteD and assess them using the framework for gender bias risk analysis developed in GRANteD. The selection of the instruments and funding calls was done in bilateral communication within WP2 and in Task 2.3 (Selecting RFOs for case studies). The selection reflected on the one hand, selection criteria defined in the GRANteD project, the time frame of the GRANteD project, and, on the other hand, the research interest from RFO side. The RFOs, for example, expressed interest in including, and having assessed, new funding instruments, or new elements within a funding process, which had recently been developed and implemented. Two such new funding approaches were included for two of the core RFOs: FWF (Austria) and SFI (Ireland). Like the selection of core RFOs, the selection of instruments and calls was guided by the aspiration to include a broad variation in terms of characteristics of funding schemes. The following dimensions were particularly considered as important to include: i) different gender equality policies or elements of policies in place, ii) different decision-making mechanisms, and iii) different instrument and grant types. It was also decided to aim to include primarily instruments which fund basic research (due to a focus on early career grants in GRANteD). Analyses of potential gender bias risks at the level of specific funding instruments and calls need to review the full funding cycle: from definition of the goals of the call, call text, terms of eligibility, training available for applicants, transparency of the funding process to the applicants, recruitment and composition of the evaluation/reviewer panels, definition of funding criteria, guidelines and training for the evaluators/reviewers, including Conflict of Interest regulations, and monitoring of the process and accountability upwards in the organisation or beyond. The GRANteD project considers that there are potentially risks for gender bias in each phase or stage of this funding cycle, and thus adopts a process perspective on gender bias risks in research funding. A gender equality strategy and plan, which aims to alleviate and eliminate these risks therefore needs to address all these stages and phases. Most of these stages in the funding cycle are also influenced by more general strategies and organisational policies and rules, alongside resources and the organisational budget and the budget for the specific instrument. Based on these considerations and the framework developed in GRANteD, it is possible to illustrate in a figure how gender equality is, or can be, related to different phases in the funding cycle of a funding instrument and call (see Figure 5.1 below). The figure illustrates the relationship with both the gender equality strategy and plan, and the more general strategies and policies, and the feedback loops included. 98 Figure 5.1. Funding cycle, and gender equality policy and measures 5.2 The funding instruments of core RFOs: overview of key aspects The funding instruments GRANteD has chosen for more detailed empirical analysis are mainly targeted on the early career, postdoctoral phase of a research career, and most of them are awarding funding for individual researchers only. These instruments award funding for basic research in all scientific fields except one of them, which is specifically focusing on STEM. Two of the instruments are explicitly gender-marked, the Austrian FWF ESPRIT Early Stage Programme, and the Irish SFI Frontiers For the Future Grants, aiming to increase the proportion of female awardees and promote women’s scientific career. All include some gender equality related regulations or measures related to the funding instrument. Two instruments, the Polish NCN SONATA and the Slovakian SRDA General Grants provide funding also for research groups. Table 5.1. presents key information on the funding instruments we are focusing on. We discuss and analyse the funding instruments based on RFO documents and information available on the RFO websites and annual reports. How the regulations and gender equality measures are implemented in practice, and what challenges are included in the implementation will be analysed by the Work Package 6, with interviews with both RFO staff responsible for organising and monitoring the funding process, and panellists and reviewers who assess the applications for these funding instruments. 99 Table 5.1. Funding instruments in the five core RFOs analysed by GRANteD: key aspects FWF SFI SRC NCN SRDA Funding ESPRIT – Early Frontiers for International SONATA General Call ProgramStage the Future Postdoc me Programme Programme - Grants Target Group Highly qualified postdocs at the beginning of their academic career Highly qualified independent investigator Newly qualified PhDs from a Swedish HEI for working abroad Emerging researchers in postdoc stage Universities, public institutions & private sector entities Fields All fields STEM All fields Innovative All fields, also Funded basic research Applied in life science, STEM, and Social Sciences and Humanities Eligibility Doctoral degree max five years prior application Doctoral degree min. three, max five years prior application International scholarly publications Doctoral degree no more than 2 years prior to application Doctoral degree between 2-7 years prior to application International scholarly publications Groups can apply but PI must be early career researcher Exclusively national applicants International Rules about Scholarly deductible time Publications due to career breaks specified Mentor assisting PI in professional & personal career development Funding period 36 months (no extension) 24, 36, or 48 months 18-36 months 12, 24, 36 months 48 months Amount of funding PI salary €200,000 - €480,000 (direct costs) 1 050 000 SEK per year (ca €101 775) No cap for funding Cap €250.000 (whole project time) Evaluation and DecisionMaking Two-stage process. First peerreview. Final decision made by FWF Decision Board, based on results of peerreview Two-stage process. First a remote peer-review. Second, final decision made by Oversight Panels based on results of peer-review by the Remote Reviewers Evaluation in review panel. Panel rates and ranks applications. Final decision made by General Director Two-stage peer review process performed by expert teams Three-stage process. First, distance review. Second, SRDA Council makes consensus review on quality and provides ranking. Final decision made by Agency Director 100 GE and diversity measures specific for instrument Specific focus to support women researchers, both women and men can apply Aiming equal representation of women and men among awardees Child allowance Career breaks considered Coaching and training women applicants Mentoring (for women and men) Disability consideration Emphasis on promotion of women, both women and men can apply Female candidates encouraged to apply Gender dimension in research content addressed Applications receiving the same final score, priority to applications from female candidates General GE guidelines apply Gender equality used as a borderline condition: when ranking applications of equal quality, applicants from the underrepresented gender shall be prioritised Same as in all NCN funding Career breaks for women/ mother s to be considered Unbiased reviewing underlined Age and length of the professional career of the responsible researcher & team members, including maternity/ paternity or parental leave to be considered while evaluating quality, skills & competence In the following sections, we discuss in more detail the five funding instruments. Each section on the five instruments is concluded with a short summary of the assessment of potential gender bias risk and countermeasures mitigating these risks. 5.3 FWF: ESPRITEarly Stage Programme 5.3.1 General description The ESPRIT funding instrument addresses highly qualified postdocs of all disciplines at the beginning of their career development, and the aim is to help them to foster their research profile by supporting an independent research project. A specific element in this funding instrument is that the principal investigator will be supported by a mentor. The programme aims to promote excellent, innovative research and retain, attract, and win back outstanding researchers, with a special focus on supporting women researchers. The aim is that by promoting career and skills development and enhancing career prospects, the Austrian research institutes should be further strengthened (FWF, 2021). The call was opened on April 27th, 2021, with a maximum budget of twenty million EUR per year. Applicants can apply for a grant on a rolling basis. It is expected that around 300 applicants per year will apply for funding (FWF, 2021). 101 Table 5.2. Basic information on the FWF ESPRIT Programme133 Target Group Highly qualified postdocs from all disciplines at the beginning of their academic career Requirements Doctoral degree awarded no more than five years prior to the time of application International scientific/scholarly publications Mentor who will assist the principal investigator in his/her professional and personal career development Amount of funding Principal investigator’s salary Project-specific costs of €15,000 per year (lump sum) or up to a maximum of €25,000 per year (application must include a justification for the higher amount of funding) Duration 36 months (no extension) Application language English Call opened April 27th 2021 Application deadline No deadlines, on a rolling basis Processing time Estimated time of 4 months on average 5.3.2 Decision-making and review process A two-stage process of decision-making is applied: first, a peer review, after which the final decisionmaking takes place by FWF Decision Board, based on results of the peer review. In advance to the first stage, each application received by the FWF is assigned to a scientific and an administrative project officer at the FWF Office. They formally check it, ensure that it is complete and meets all requirements. The application is then, depending on its scientific area, assigned to a particular reporter and alternate of the FWF Board. It is ensured that the reporter and alternate are impartial regarding the application they receive. If the application relates to different scientific areas, one or more additional reporters/alternates provide assistance. The reporters check once again if the application meets all formal requirements (FWF, 2020a). 133 https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-programmes/esprit-programme 102 For all applications meeting the formal requirements, reporters and their alternates recommend suitable peer reviewers. When choosing the peer reviewers, it must be ensured, that no Conflict of Interest arises (neither positive nor negative). To avoid any bias or prejudice, these reviewers are all leading international experts in their scientific fields and have not been located in Austria for the last five years. No more than 15% of the reviewers can be from Germany or Switzerland. The reviewers must have at least the same qualifications as the applicants. Reviewers should not be nominated more than twice a year. Additionally, the selection of the reviewers should reflect diversity in terms of gender, age, regions and (where applicable) areas of expertise, with a suitable mix of younger and older reviewers (FWF, 2020a). Each application is reviewed by two reviewers. The review comprises a written statement by each reviewer, where specific questions related to the application are addressed, and an overall formal assessment for each specific question, using a five-point scale. Each review consists of two sections. The first section is made available to the applicant (including the rating), the second section is only for the use of the FWF. Here reviewers provide additional remarks to the FWF (FWF, 2020a). The scientific project officer and the reporters assigned to the application then check the peer reviews for bias and formalities before the review is handed over to the FWF Board. At the Board meeting, the reporter responsible for the application presents it to the Board and takes into account comments of the alternate. Members of the Board, who are in conflict of interest with the applicant leave the room during the discussion. Based on the written reviews, the ratings they have assigned and the Board discussions, all applications are grouped and ranked into three categories (FWF, 2020a): Approval: category A; Further discussion is needed: category B; Rejection: category C. Category B again is divided into B+ / B / B-, The cut-off is usually set at B+. Once the decision is made, the FWF Secretary communicates the decisions to the applicants (including the anonymous reviews). In case of rejections, to ensure a maximum of transparency and comparability in decisions, a standardised reason of rejection is communicated to the applicants (FWF, 2020a). The decision-making process is described on the FWF website, with an illustration including all key phases of the process. 5.3.3 Gender equality measures in place With the ESPRIT Programme, the FWF places particular emphasis on promotion of women, even though the programme is open for women and men. The programme sets additional measures to improve the visibility of successful women researchers. Those measures are the following (FWF, 2021d): • Equal representation of women and men among awardees: The FWF plans to award at least half of the projects to female investigators. The approval rate of projects by female 103 investigators therefore should not be less than the approval rate of male investigators. Additional female investigators should be given priority, especially in disciplines in which women are underrepresented at the FWF as principal investigators. • Child allowance: Female investigators, who are employed full time after the birth of a child, can apply for child allowance. This amounts up to €9,600 per child per year (= gross salary including all employer and employee taxes; paid out 12 times a year) up until the child’s third birthday. • Consideration of career breaks: The FWF takes justified career breaks in consideration, when assessing the principal investigator’s eligibility to apply (e.g., parental leave, caring for a family member, long-term illness, and military or civil service). • Inclusion of disabled and chronically ill people: The FWF takes any exceptions from typical career paths due to disability and/or chronic illness into consideration in determining whether the principal investigator meets the application requirements. • Coaching and training: Female investigators can attend special coaching sessions and trainings for women during the ESPRIT programme. • Mentoring: Each principal investigator (both women and men), is supported in their career development by a mentor. 5.3.4 Gender bias risk assessment The ESPRIT programme is informed by the comprehensive approach to gender equality in FWF, discussed above in this report, in sections 3.2, 4.5, 5.3.3, suggesting a relatively low overall risk for gender bias in FWF funding. The ESPRIT programme, furthermore, includes several elements which aim to mitigate gender imbalance among the early career researchers funded by this funding instrument, across the funding cycle. These include addressing the application phase and eligibility by broadened eligibility rules, aim for funding equally women and men from the programme, work-life balance support to female researchers during the funded project, and professional career support through mentoring and coaching. Given that the funding instrument aims specially to support early career women researchers, it is highly relevant that the equality measures that are in place seek to mitigate various gender bias risks in this crucial and vulnerable career phase. Obviously unconscious gender bias in evaluation of merits can occur also concerning this funding instrument. 5.4 SFI: SFI Frontiers for Future Programme 5.4.1 General description The Irish government’s strategy Innovation 2020, launched in 2015, already included a target to be delivered by the strategy, which foreshadowed the funding programme focused on in this policy analysis: “a new Programme of Funding for Frontier Research will be introduced, providing resilience and responsiveness to meet new challenges or opportunities as they emerge” (Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, 2021). The SFI funding instrument Frontiers for The Future Programme (FFP) is described as “a key component of the SFI Strategy”, enabling SFI “to deliver on the specific target to support 140 individual led research 104 grants per year” (SFI, 2021a). The programme was clearly placed within the national research strategy. To be eligible for funding through the SFI Frontiers for the Future Programme, all proposals must be aligned to one of the 14 Refreshed Priority Areas for 2018-2023134 or to any other research area within SFIs legal remit (i.e., oriented basic or applied research) where there is convincing evidence that there will be significant potential for economic and/or societal impact in Ireland.135 The FFP provides funding through two streams: Frontiers for the Future Project, and Frontiers for the Future Award. It was developed as two programs merged into one (with same eligibility criteria). The Frontiers for the Future Project programme provides funding for high-risk, high-reward research that facilitates highly innovative and novel approaches to research. The Frontiers for the Future Award provides larger scale funding for innovative, collaborative, and excellent research programmes that have the potential to deliver economic and societal impact (SFI, 2019a). The focus in the GRANteD project is on the project Grants and not the Awards, and it is the Frontiers for the Future Project Grants Programme that is described in more detail below. Table 5.3 below summarises key information on the funding instrument. Table 5.3. Basic information on the FRONTIERS FOR THE FUTURE programme136 Target Group Highly qualified independent investigator in the areas of science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM), who holds a PhD for at least three years. The applicants can also choose to be reviewed as an “Emerging Investigator” (see below for criteria for this). Basic Requirements Doctoral degree awarded no more than five years prior to the time of application International scientific/scholarly publications Amount of funding €200,000 - €480,000 (direct costs) Duration 24, 36 or 48 months Application language English Call opened 6th February 2019 Application deadline Deadline for pre-proposal submission: 28th March 2019. Deadline for full proposal submission: 29th August 2019. Processing time Estimated time of 4 months on average 134 https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/Publications/Publication-files/Research-Priority-Areas-2018-to-2023.pdf 135 https://www.sfi.ie/about-us/about-sfi/what-we-do/ 136 https://www.sfi.ie/funding/funding-calls/frontiers-for-the-future/ 105 5.4.2 Decision-making and review process There are written guidelines for both applicants and reviewers available, which describe the decisionmaking process and the review process (SFI, 2019a; SFI, 2019h; SFI, 2019i). A schematic process diagram is also provided on the SFI webpage, illustrating the funding process and the different phases, from the submission to the final decision, including the review process, to further inform about the different stages in the process.137 In addition to this, the review guidelines are also communicated in a video that the reviewers watch, and in the 2021 call the review process is also described in detail in a webinar for the applicants.138 The application and review process for the FFP was slightly amended between the call 2019 and the call 2020. For the call in 2019 a pre-proposal system was used which meant that the applicant sent in a shorter, three-page research programme in March 2019. Based on this pre-proposal the applicants were invited to submit a full proposal or the pre-proposal was rejected. The deadline for the full proposal was August 2019 (SFI, 2019h). As this system is no longer used by SFI the details of the preproposal system will not be elaborated in detail here. The main part of the review process and the decision-making of the FFP is still characterised by a twostage process. The first stage involves a remote peer-review by Remote Reviewers. The second stage involves a final decision-making process by the Oversight Panels/Sitting Panels, based on the results of the peer-review by the Remote Reviewers. The very initial stage, however, in advance to the first stage of the review process, takes place immediately after the submission deadline, when each application received by the SFI is formally checked against the eligibility criteria (SFI, 2019h). This initial eligibility check takes 2-3 weeks.139 After the eligibility check, the first stage of the main review process starts as each proposal is assigned to three external Remote Reviewers. Each application is thus reviewed independently by three Remote Reviewers. The review itself comprises of a written statement by each Remote Reviewer, where specific questions related to the application are addressed. The reviewers score the applications according to in total 9 different scores which are described more in detail below. An overall formal assessment for each specific question is produced using a five-point scale (from low to outstanding). The different question/scores are weighted. In short, the weighting of the review scores involves less emphasis on the Impact criterion for SFI Frontiers for the Future Programme Projects compared to Awards. In addition, the focus in the assessment of the applications is on the research program and quality of proposal, not the track record of the researchers (SFI, 2019a). 137 https://www.sfi.ie/funding/funding-calls/frontiers-for-the-future/Frontiers-for-the-Future-Programme2021-Review-Process.pdf 138 The video for the reviewers is only available to watch for registered reviewers via cloud-service which require passwords and log-in information. The webinar for the Frontiers for the Future Programme 2021 was available for download to the public on the SFI webpage (under the heading Webinar): https://www.sfi.ie/funding/funding-calls/frontiers-for-the-future/ 112 5.4.4 Gender bias risk assessment The SFI Frontiers for the Future Programme is informed by the comprehensive approach to gender equality in SFI, discussed above in sections 3.4, 4.7, and 5.5.3, suggesting a relatively low overall risk for gender bias in SFI funding. The Frontiers for the Future programme, furthermore, includes several elements which, throughout the different phases of the funding cycle, support a gender fair outcome of the application and review process. During the early phases of the funding cycle of the programme the gender equality strategy and plan influences the definition of the call aim and the identification of the target group, resulting in the encouragement of women to apply. During the later phases in the funding cycle, involving reviews and decision-making, women applicants are given priority in case of applications receiving the same final score. The gender equality strategy and plan of SFI also impacts the funding cycle for the programme with for example guidelines on recognition of eligible leaves. SFI’s general strategy also influences the different phases in the funding cycle for the programme and could have impact on mitigating the risks for gender bias. For example, the assessment criteria and setup stage where the implementation of the narrative CV in accordance with the DORA convention, and the possibilities for the applicants to give feedback on the statements of the reviewers could possibly mitigate the potential risk for unconscious gender bias in evaluation of merits by reviewers and panels. Finally, also the gender dimension in the research project is acknowledged and the RPOs of the applicants are required to have gender equality plans (through the Athena Swan commitment) to be eligible. Considering both the rigorous gender equality measures and the other SFI measures impacting all the phases in the funding cycle the potential gender bias risk in the SFI Frontiers for the Future Programme is assessed as low. 5.5. SRC: International Postdoc 5.5.1. General description156 The SRC International Postdoc grant is a career support grant with calls twice a year. The grants are awarded in all subject areas for newly qualified PhDs from Swedish HEIs, to work abroad for a period of 18 to 36 months. Grants from the Swedish Research Council shall be administered by a Swedish HEI or another Swedish public organisation, and the grantee must be employed by the administrating organisation at the start of and throughout the grant period and any additional availability period (but not necessarily when applying). The administrating organisation will decide on the employment format, salary and employment terms and conditions. The grantees are expected to remain employed full-time throughout the grant period. An applicant whose doctoral degree was awarded more than 2 years ago is not eligible, but an exception applies if there are grounds for deductible time after the doctoral degree award that have affected the applicant’s ability to gain merit as a researcher. The Swedish Research Council’s recognised grounds are parental leave, positions of trust in trade union organisations and student organisations, mandatory service in the total defence forces, long-term illness (own reported illness or 155 https://www.sfi.ie/funding/funding-calls/frontiers-for-the-future/ 113 care of child/close family member), general medical internship (maximum 24 months) or further training/specialist medical internship for clinically active professionals (maximum 24 months). If the applicant wishes to claim deductible time, s/he must specify the recognised grounds and time involved in the application. A condition of this grant is that the grantee spends at least two thirds of the grant period abroad. The grantee may, however, divide this time up into several shorter periods. Table 5.4. below summarises key information of the call. The results of the call are published on the SRC website as well as gender statistics of the applications and success rates.157 SRC received all together 169 applications, 81 from female and 88 from male applicants; in total 41 were awarded, the total amount of funding awarded was nearly SEK 125 million. Women and men were applying for this call in nearly equal proportions, but women’s success rate was lower: 21% (N=17), men’s 27% (N=24). The approval rates varied between 24% and 26% between main disciplinary areas. Of grant amounts women received SEK 50,4 million in total, men SEK 74,55 million. These figures are available on the SRC website.158 Table 5.4. Basic information on the SRC International Postdoc Grant159 Target Group Grant type: Career support The purpose of the grant is to give newly qualified researchers with a doctoral degree from a Swedish higher education institution (HEI) the opportunity to expand their networks and their competences by working abroad under secure employment conditions. Subject areas; Humanities and Social Sciences, Medicine and Health, Natural and Engineering Sciences, Educational Sciences Requirements Individual researcher who completed a doctoral degree no more than 2 years ago. Rules about deductible time are specified. No participating researchers may be invited to join the application. Amount of funding 1 050 000 SEK per year (c.€101 775) Duration 18-36 months Application language English Call opened August 19, 2020 Application deadline September 22, 2020 Processing time Estimated time of 4 months on average 156 This presentation is based on the extensive information on the SRC website on the grant form: https://www.vr.se/english/applyingforfunding/calls/internationalpostdocgrant 157 https://www.vr.se/english/applying-for-funding/decisions/2020-09-08-international-postdoc-grant.html 114 5.5.2. Decision-making and review process The decision-making on the international postdoc grants is explained on the SRC website to the applicants in a transparent way, including the composition of the review panels, by name and institutional affiliation. The applications are evaluated by a review panel where the members are Swedish and international researchers. At least three members review and grade each application individually. The entire review panel then meets at a review panel meeting to discuss and prioritise the applications, and finally to make a proposal for a decision to the Director General. A certain proportion of the applications with the lowest grades based on the members’ individual reviews are screened out (“shifted”) in the beginning of the review panel meeting. These applications will not be the subject of discussion, allowing room for more detailed discussion and prioritisation of the applications rated by the three reviewers to be of higher quality and having a reasonable chance of being funded. The applications screened out will, after the decision has been made, receive a final statement including grades the applications received. The other applications receive a more detailed final statement that reflects the review panel’s discussion and overall assessment of the scientific quality of the application. The evaluation of the scientific quality of the applications is made based on four basic criteria (scientific quality of the proposed research; novelty and originality; merits of the applicant; feasibility). The purpose of using several components is to achieve a multi-faceted evaluation. The criteria are assessed on a seven-grade scale, except for feasibility, which is assessed on a three-grade grade scale. This is a mobility grant, and thus in addition to the basic criteria, the applications are also assessed using an additional criterion, Internationalisation, and research environment, which is assessed on a threegrade scale. The SRC guidelines on the weight of the criteria indicate that the scientific quality of the project is given the greatest importance when assessing the project, thereafter novelty and originality, and thereafter the merits of the applicant. Internationalisation is given greater importance than feasibility when assessing the project. For each criterion, SRC has given guiding questions to support the panel members’ evaluation of the application. These are also available for the applicants, which means they may use them as guidance when preparing their application. 158 https://www.vr.se/english/applying-for-funding/decisions/2020-09-08-international-postdoc-grant.html 159https://www.vr.se/english/applyingforfunding/calls/internationalpostdocgrant 115 For the assessment of the quality of the project’s research question and methodology, including its potential for future research, the guiding questions are as follows: How high is the scientific quality in relation to the research frontier in the area? Is the project’s question and methodology well described, and well founded? How important is the potential result for the research area and for future research? Are potential problems and alternative strategies identified and presented? For the assessment of how well new theories, concepts, methods, and questions are implemented and developed, the guiding questions are: Does the project have the potential to significantly advance the frontiers of the research field? Does the project include new ways of approaching scientific questions? To what extent are existing theories and methods used in an innovative and creative way? To what extent does the project investigate new research areas or new questions? For the assessment of the applicant’s merits and competence in relation to the proposed project, the guiding questions are: How strong are the applicant’s merits and competence in relation to career age, research area and previous research environment? To what degree does the applicant’s previous experience and scientific competence strengthen the project? For the assessment of the feasibility of the proposed project, the guiding questions are: Are adequate resources available for the project’s research question, including supervision and relevant equipment? Is the project’s design and choice of method adequate for the project’s implementation and expected result? Is the time plan and planning realistic and suitable in relation to the scope of the project? Are any ethical questions relating to the implementation of the project addressed in an adequate way? For the assessment of the opportunities for the applicant to develop their research network and their competence as a researcher, the guiding questions are: To what extent does the foreign host institution seem relevant for the research the application concerns? How suitable is the foreign research environment for the applicant’s ability to develop new competences, their research network and their independence as a researcher? How suitable is the Swedish research environment for the applicant’s ability to develop their career as a researcher? To what extent does the stay abroad and the project contribute to Swedish research? The above subsidiary criteria are weighed together into an overall grade, which reflects the review panel’s joint evaluation of the application’s scientific quality. 116 5.5.3. Gender equality measures in place In the Call texts, there is no reference to gender equality measures applied specifically in this call, but only to the general gender equality strategy of the SRC which was discussed above in chapter 3 (see section 3.4). However, in the handbook for the reviewers (SRC, 2019) which is 43 pages long, gender equality is mentioned not only in general terms referring to the strategy. The Handbook also explains how gender equality principles are to be applied in this specific call. The reviewers are told in the Handbook that The Swedish Research Council shall promote gender equality within its area of activities. For this reason, the Research Council’s board has decided on a gender equality strategy (see Appendix 3). One of the operational goals for the gender equality strategy is to “ensure that women and men have the same success rates and receive the same average grant amount, taking into account the nature of the research and the type of grant”. Against this background, before adopting its proposal for allocation of grants, review panels shall take into account the gender equality goal and work out the success rate in its proposal, as well as considering and if necessary commenting on the outcome. For the grant type International Postdoc, gender equality is used as a borderline condition, and when ranking applications of equal quality, applicants from the under-represented gender shall be prioritised. (bold emphasis by authors of this report). Further, when the process of shifting (filtering out the applications scored with low initial reviewer scores from more detailed discussion) is explained, the guidelines state The chair shall also identify any application that, despite having a low ranking, should still be discussed at the meeting, for example applications where the ranking or grading by the three reviewers differ considerably. The sifting shall be carried out with the gender distribution of the applications in mind, in order to ensure the process is not applied differentially for women and for men. (bold emphasis by authors of this report). Furthermore, under the heading Special Conditions, it is explained how the prioritising of underrepresented gender is done at the panel level, and not by individual reviewers in their review of the application preceding the panel meeting: For the grant type International Postdoc, it has been established that gender equality shall be a special condition for prioritising applications of equivalent scientific quality. This means that in conjunction with the overall prioritisation, the review panel shall take into account the success rate of women and men, and as necessary prioritise applications from applicants of the under-represented gender when applications are deemed to be of equivalent quality. Special conditions shall not be applied by individual reviewers in their work ahead of the review panel meeting. (bold emphasis by authors of this report). The gender statistics time series of the International Postdoc included in the SRC Annual Reports show 117 an annual variation of men’s and women’s success rates, with some years men having higher success rate than women, some years vice versa, and rarely an equal success rate concerning one year. This could be interpreted as if the equal success rate aim is not in practice concerning individual calls or not even annual rates, but instead intended to be set for an average over a longer time span. 5.5.4. Gender bias risk assessment The SRC comprehensive gender equality policy addresses many aspects of potential risks of gender bias in the funding process, indicating a low overall risk for gender bias in SRC funding, as discussed earlier in chapter 4. As is the case for all RFOs, the potential risk for unconscious gender bias in evaluation of scientific quality and merits by reviewers and panels is always present in peer review. In this funding instrument there are many countermeasures in place, in addition to the overall gender equality policies of the RFO: the borderline condition to prioritise underrepresented gender (thus far women) in case of the quality of the applicants is deemed to be equivalent, and the guidelines on that the “shifting” – screening out the applications with weakest initial ratings – should not be applied differently to women and men. The success rates of women and men do vary annually in this funding instrument, and the implementation of how this borderline condition is taking place in practice in the panels will be studied in WP 6 through interviews with panellists and chairs of panels. Since this is a mobility grant, the possibility that the Grant period abroad can be divided into several sections instead of demanding a long, unified period abroad is a seemingly gender-neutral regulation, but may have positive gender impacts, given the unequal care responsibilities of women and men. However, no additional funding in this mobility grant is allocated to grantees with families to cover childcare costs in a foreign country, which may not have such a comprehensive and affordable day care system as Sweden. 5.6. NCN: SONATA 5.6.1. General description The SONATA funding instrument is a grant specifically designed to support emerging researchers in the postdoc stage, who are starting their career in research and acquired their PhD between 2-7 years before submitting the application. No senior researcher can be the Principal Investigator. If the application is sent from a team of researchers, this team cannot consist of more than one researcher holding a Habilitation degree or the title of professor. In addition, the senior researchers must be from another institution than the host institution of the Principal Investigator. All of this is to ensure that the junior researchers are independent (NCN, 2021a). The instrument has existed since 2011 (SONATA 1) and there is a call for applications once a year. The call studied in GRANteD in 2021-2022 was number 17, thus SONATA 17.160 Nationality of the applicants is not important, but the applicant needs to be employed at a Polish host institution at the time of starting the grant. The grant covers research activities, publications, and overheads. The success rate for all the SONATA calls between 2011-2020 was 18% which is lower than the success rate for the main funding instrument (open to all researchers) OPUS, which was 22-23% (NCN, 2021c). The success rate has also been decreasing as more people apply, projects get larger and at the same 118 time the NCN budget has not increased. For SONATA 13, the call that opened in 2017, success rate was 24% (NCN, 2018). For OPUS it was 20%. The success rate for SONATA 14, the call that opened in 2018, was 19% which was the same as for the success rate for the main funding instrument (open to all researchers) OPUS (NCN, 2019) (for more on the success rates, see below).161 The success rate for SONATA 14 (the call made in 2018) was 19% with 858 proposals submitted and 160 proposals recommended for funding. In 2019, proposals submitted by women made up 47% of all applications. 51% of the proposals awarded funding in 2019 had a male Principal Investigator and 49% had a woman Principal Investigator. The success rate that year for women was 21% and for men 24%. For the instrument included in the GRANteD study, SONATA, women accounted for 41% of the winners and men for 59%. That means that women had a lower success rate in SONATA than on average in all NCN calls. Albeit the 41%/59% is still within the scope of what it usually deemed a gender balanced outcome (40/60) this should be monitored over several years to see if there is a clear trend that women have lower success rate and if their success rate is increasing.162 Table 5.5. Basic information on the SONATA programme, 2021 (SONATA 17)163 Target Group PhD 2-7 years before submitting the application Basic Requirements Doctoral degree awarded no more than five years prior to the time of application International scientific/scholarly publications Amount of funding No cap on the funding of the individual research projects. The total call budget: 200 000 000 PLN (€44 000 000) Duration 12, 24, or 36 months Application language English Call opened 15th September 2021 Application deadline Deadline for proposal submission: 15th December 2021. Processing time The call shall be concluded within 6 months of the proposal submission date (NCN, 2021a). Eligibility check: December – January 2022 First evaluation stage (individual expert evaluations + first panel): January – early March 2022 Second evaluation stage (external reviewers’ evaluation + second panel): April – May 2022 Decisions (issued by the Director of the NCN): May – June 2022 (15 June 2022 at the latest) 160 http://www.ncn.gov.pl/en/ogloszenia/konkursy/SONATA17 119 5.6.2. Decision-making and review process The first phase of the review process is performed by the NCN Coordinators (NCN, 2020a). NCN uses so called Coordinators to organise the efforts of the expert teams and conduct calls for research proposals, make sure that the peer review process is correct, impartial, and fair. The Coordinators have at least a doctoral degree and are selected by open competition. The Coordinators manage three distinct teams: Art, Humanities and Social Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Engineering and Life Sciences (NCN, 2020a). After the eligibility check the review procedure continues as a two-stage peer review process performed by dedicated expert teams. Stage 1 – Qualification Check: During the Stage 1, the proposals are assessed individually by two experts working independently. Each expert receives 15 proposals to evaluate for the individual review and each proposal is evaluated by two reviewers. The proposals are in this stage evaluated in terms of content.164 The individual evaluations serve as a point of departure for debate during the first panel session. During the first panel meeting all proposals are discussed. The decision to reject or approve the proposal is taken collectively by the expert team. Subsequently, the experts/panel members prepare a shortlist of projects that are admitted to the stage two of the peer review process (NCN, 2020a). Stage 2 – Specialist Evaluation: The proposals on this shortlist are then sent to external reviewers. The proposals are evaluated by at least two experts. Again, just as during Stage 1, they are working independently of each other. These external reviewers are often foreign experts. The reviews from the external reviewers are later discussed by the expert team/panels during a second panel session. This second panel meeting is often shorter than the first meeting as there are fewer proposals to discuss. During this second meeting it is decided which proposals are funded. The external experts are nominated by NCN Coordinators, based on the recommendations of expert team members. The NCN Experts, involved in the evaluation of all proposals submitted to NCN, among them SONATA, are specialists in their respective fields. The NCN Experts can be divided into three categories: 161 The latest Annual Report from NCN available on the NCN webpage is NCN annual report 2019. https://ncn.gov.pl/en/centrum-prasowe 162 https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/centrum-prasowe/NCN_raport_2019_ang.pdf 163 http://www.ncn.gov.pl/en/ogloszenia/konkursy/SONATA17 164 https://www.ncn.gov.pl/en/finansowanie-nauki/dla-ekspertow 120 1. Expert team members: a group of experts selected by the NCN Council among prominent researchers and appointed by the NCN Director to evaluate proposals in a discipline or groups of disciplines. They evaluate proposals at the first stage of evaluation, discuss on the joint evaluation of each proposal at the meetings and jointly decide on the future of the proposals, including the list of proposals recommended for funding following the second stage of evaluation. 2. External experts: experts performing individual evaluation at the second stage of evaluation in most of the NCN calls. 3. Members of fixed teams: experts evaluating the reports on the implementation of grants awarded by the NCN (NCN, 2020a). The review process is structured into 25 thematic subject panels within three groups – life science, STEM, and Social Sciences and Humanities. NCN staff is not involved in the evaluation process more than as Coordinators of the panel meetings (see above for more information on the Coordinator role). Instead, it is the ranking in the list produced by the panel which determines whether a proposal is funded or not. NCN does not change the ranking of this list. In particular cases, however, the Coordinator, can, following consultation with the opinions of the expert panels, change the order of research proposals on the ranking list (NCN, n.d.). The results of the call are, however, announced by way of a decision of the NCN Director (NCN, 2021a).165 The process diagram describing the evaluation and decision-making of the funding instrument is available on the NCN website.166 The evaluation of proposals is guided by a list of eight criteria provided by NCN (2021a)167: 1) the compliance with the criteria of basic research laid down in Article 2 (1) of the NCN Act; 2) the quality and innovative nature of research or tasks to be performed; 3) the impact of the research project on the advancement of the scientific discipline; 4) the assessment of the feasibility of the research; 5) the scientific achievements of the principal investigator, including publications in renowned academic press/journals; 6) the evaluation of other projects carried out by the principal investigator and funded by the NCN or from other sources; 7) the relevance of the costs to be incurred with regard to the subject and scope of the research; and 8) the preparation of the proposal and compliance with other requirements set forth in the call announcement. The expert reviewers evaluate both the quality of the research and the applicant’s achievements (NCN, 2019a). 60% of the evaluation consists of the Project Assessment. 40% of the evaluation considers 121 Qualifications and Scientific Achievements of the Principal Investigator.168 The Project Assessment is evaluated along three criteria: Scientific quality of the research project (30%), Potential impact of the research project (15%) and Feasibility of the research project (15%). The first criterion is scored from 0 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent). The second and third criteria are scored from 0 (Low) to 1 (Moderate) and 2 (High) (NCN, 2021b). The Qualifications and Scientific Achievements of the Principal Investigator is evaluated along over the past 10 years, “taking into account the stage of scientific career, career breaks, and the diverse range of research outputs evaluated from an international perspective” (NCN, 2021b, p. 36). The scoring for this criterium ranges from 0 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent). In addition to this, NCN also follows the DORA convention.169 This is briefly mentioned in the video “Guidelines for NCN experts”.170 The implication of this is that the research record, rather than only bibliometrics, should be in focus for the evaluation. The implications of this for gender equality and a non-biased review process is, however, not elaborated on in the video referred to above, or in the call documents or in written guidelines for experts. 5.6.3. Gender equality measures in place The gender equality measures in place for SONATA are the same as the more general measures in NCN. The existing measures can be distinguished into two types/groups, which also reflect two types of framings of gender equality. The first of these types/frames concerns acknowledging career breaks for women/mothers. The second frame concerns a non-biased evaluation process. 5.6.4. Gender bias risk assessment Applying the GRANteD framework for assessing potential gender bias risks in funding instruments highlights that there are several considerable risks for gender bias in the SONATA instrument, during several of the phases in the funding cycle. The lack of formal gender equality strategy addressing the funding process in NCN creates a risk for gender bias across the funding cycle of this and other NCN funding instruments. There are, however, also elements that are alleviating the most acute and high risks. The Coordinators have an important role, acting as a type of observers during the critical review panel meetings. In addition, there is a certain level of transparency in the review process, career breaks for mothers are considered for eligibility, and generously so, and a commitment to a non-biased review process exists, which is also illustrated by NCN signing the DORA convention. The statistics on success rates for women and men in the SONATA programme, provided by NCN, do not illustrate apparent gender imbalance in the funding outcomes. The outcomes of the funding process are still within the scope of what is usually deemed a gender balanced outcome (40/60).171 However, as outlined previously in this report, gender bias can still occur in the decision-making processes and in other phases of the funding cycle, despite equal success rates for women and men. Combined, the potential risks present in the different phases of the funding cycle for the SONATA programme present the instrument with a considerable risk for gender bias. 128 Equality and Gender Mainstreaming in Research as one of its priority areas (ERA Priority 4). This priority area involves addressing gender imbalances in research institutions and decision-making bodies and integrating the gender dimension into R&D policies, programmes, and projects. The ERA activities on gender equality have produced and provide a wealth of knowledge, data, and practical tools for funding organisations to engage more proactively with gender bias and inequalities. The collaboration between European funding agencies, such as the GENDER-NET Plus ERA-NET project or the German-speaking D-A-C-H collaboration, provide important peer support for RFOs to develop further their measures and improve their funding processes. With the initiative by the European Commission, to require gender equality plans in RPOs as a precondition to apply for grants from the European Commission within the Horizon Europe programme, the Commission has opened a window of opportunity for increased gender equality activities and measures in the member states. These stricter regulations regarding the establishment of gender equality action plans in HEIs has the potential to create the sense of urgency that is needed to drive change towards increased activities towards gender equality. This development is currently observed in many EU Member States in which previously only few HEIs have been engaged in gender equality actions. These countries include Poland, where according to She Figures 2021 only 36.7% of HEIs were engaged with gender equality actions in 2020. Many Polish HEIs are currently initiating work on gender action plans for the first time (Siemieńska, 2021, personal communication). The influence of the European Commission thus constitutes a supranational macro-level on which change towards increased gender equality is being leveraged (cf. Alonso, 2016; O’Connor & Irvine, 2020). On a national macro-level, NCN and other stakeholders in Poland, and RFOs in other member states, now have the chance to profit from and take advantage of this pressure to further emphasise the need for increased gender equality. For the RFOs this should be addressed by measures including assuring non-biased and fair research funding processes. The considerations elaborated on in sections 6.1 and 6.2 above can be illustrated in a figure over how gender equality policies in RFOs are, or can be, related to different phases in the funding cycle (see Figure 6.1 below). Similar to figure 5.1, this figure also illustrates the relationship with the contextual factors in the national funding regime and gender equality regimes. Both figures aim to emphasise the multifaceted and multidimensional character of gender equality policies in this area, to suggest and promote complexity and a holistic approach to gender equality policies in RFOs, where the development of these policies concerns every stage and phase of the research funding cycle. This approach thus guards against oversimplification of approaches to development of gender equality policy (cf. Kalpazidou Schmidt & Cacace, 2017). The figure is also a model that can be useful for comparative studies of gender equality policies in RFOs in different countries, which operate under different research funding landscapes. 173 https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear 174 https://www.genderportal.eu/ 175 https://gender-net-plus.eu/ 176 https://act-on-gender.eu/ 129 Figure 6.1. Gender equality policy cycle in Research Funding Organisations 6.3 Gender Equality Policies of the RFOs As indicated in the introduction of this report, an increased interest, and actions of research funding organisations around gender equality can be observed in Europe and globally, but also a considerable variation in the approach, intensity, structures, and measures adopted, as also evidenced by the policy analysis of this report. The research funding organisations in our analysis have very different contextual and organisational conditions and support from the national policy level, which we have attempted to highlight in this report as a background of their policy developments. Gender mainstreaming as an approach, and addressing the whole funding cycle, is adopted by three of our core RFOs: FWF, SRC and SFI, as an overarching intervention strategy, which is also supported by the national policy approaches. All of them have developed a long and broad gender equality agenda (Cockburn, 1989), also including more recently the gender dimension in knowledge production. The approach of the two RFOs in which gender equality actions are only emerging, NCN and SRDA, is characterised by a short gender equality agenda, including only fragmented actions. NCN and SDRA have put a strong emphasis on equal opportunities in their guidelines for reviewers to take into consideration parental-leave and career breaks (cf. Håkansson & Sand, 2021). However, the implicit emphasis on maternity leave threatens to lock women and men in traditional roles, and re-produce gender stereotypes and gender segregation. In the policy analysis of the five core RFOs, a common feature is that gender is mainly understood as a binary concept, concerning women and men, and furthermore, motherhood and parenthood is frequently foregrounded when gender is addressed. Men and masculinities are rarely addressed as 130 gendered issues. Intersectional approaches to gender equality and gender bias are largely absent in the policy documents, or only rather shortly mentioned without much elaboration, as in some SFI and FWF documents. Including intersectional approaches into gender equality activities is clearly a challenge for funding organisations but would further strengthen the policies (see, e.g., Woods et al., 2021). Gender inequality in science and academia is a persistent problem, with no silver bullets or easy solutions. That is why an organisational learning approach towards gender equality is necessary. The RFOs analysed in this report which apply a gender mainstreaming approach are constantly developing, reviewing, and improving their gender equality policies and processes, and demonstrate an awareness of the importance of a reflective and critical approach, which enables organisational learning (see, e.g., Frisch, 2019; SRC, 2012, 2015, 2017), far from a “ticking boxes” approach. Public research funding organisations are important stakeholders in the scientific community. How and to what extent the core RFOs are engaged in gender equality promotion in the wider research and higher education sector varies, including broad gender equality advocacy towards HEIs and advisory role towards the Government, as in the case of Swedish Research Council, or promotion of women and girls in the STEM field from schools, universities, and leadership positions, as in the case of Science Foundation Ireland. The FWF and SRC gender equality policies are further strengthened by their active engagement in national or regional collaboration of funding agencies around gender equality policies. 6.4 Gender bias risk In this section we summarise the gender bias risk analysis. Gender bias in this report has been understood broadly and from an organisational perspective, to concern not only the evaluation of funding applications, but the whole funding cycle and organisational set-up of research funding in the RFOs. Seven potential risk areas have been highlighted: Strategy; Structure; Language and Communication; Evaluation; Transparency; Accountability, and Monitoring. These overlap in several ways. A major gender bias risk is silence about gender and gender equality within the funding organisation and its strategies and structures: no gender equality strategy, no goals, no operational plan, no structures in place, no accountability within the organisation or beyond defined, no data gathering and publishing and no monitoring by gender (cf., e.g., Lee et al., 2010). A considerable risk for gender bias is also a short intervention agenda and fragmented approach to gender equality, as in understanding gender equality only or mainly in terms of obstacles motherhood may create in academic careers. In this vein, this kind of primarily apparent risk can be identified for two of the RFOs included in this report, SRDA and NCN, which both thus far lack formalised gender equality policies. The measures and activities that have been identified in this gender equality policy analysis are instead parts of other type of documents and general policies and are mainly focusing on motherhood and parenthood. The core RFOs analysed in this report have introduced different measures to counteract risks for gender and other biases in research funding, by increasing transparency throughout the process, by 131 training applicants, raising awareness of gender equality and unconscious bias by obligatory or voluntary training of staff and reviewers, by clarifying and structuring the evaluation and decisionmaking process with detailed guidelines and review handbooks, by broadening eligibility taking into account parenthood and academic age, by clarifying and specifying evaluation criteria, introducing narrative CVs addressing competence, relevance and merits in a more comprehensive way beyond metrics, with Conflict of Interest policies in place, including response and complaint procedures in the funding process, and by collecting and monitoring gender statistics of the funding cycle. 6.5 Continuing work in GRANteD The gender equality policy analysis and gender bias risk analysis performed in GRANteD Work Package 5 (WP5) provides background for building recommendations for future policy development. The work in the five case studies, constituted by the five GRANteD core RFOs, will continue and advance our understanding of the research funding processes in them and our knowledge of the differences between them. The work on these processes in the five GRANteD core RFOs will be deepened by GRANteD Work Package 6, in which implementation of gender equality policies and grant allocation processes from a gender perspective will be studied by interviews with staff and panellists in all core RFOs, as well as observations of panels when possible. Each participating RFO will also be provided direct feedback and dialogue about the research results by the GRANteD team. Within the GRANteD project, a conceptual model has been developed for testing gender bias in funding allocation in several funding calls with quantitative data.177 Drawing from the work in WP5 presented in this report, we suggest that policy related elements should be included to test this model. Including and testing the following variables related to the contextual research funding landscape, research funding organisation, funding instrument and panel, will add yet one more important dimension to the model. Context level variables: • Integration of gender equality in national research policy landscape (yes/no) • Gender equality foregrounded in key general research policy documents (yes/no) • Research intensity of the country (high/low) Organisational level variables: • RFO has adopted Gender Equality Strategy and/or Gender Equality Plan (yes/no) • RFO collects and publishes gender statistics (yes/no) Funding instrument level variables: • Women encouraged to apply (yes/no) • Specific measures in place to support women researchers (yes/no) • Narrative CV in use (yes/no) • Affirmative action/preference of female/underrepresented sex/gender in case of equal ratings (yes/no) Panel level variables: • Gender balance in the panel composition (40-60) (yes/no) 132 • Sex/gender of the chairperson (woman/man) • Obligatory gender bias/unconscious bias training for panellists (yes/no) Gender equality policy development is an essential part of the discussions in the GRANteD Stakeholder Meetings which are organised by GRANteD and include members from GRANteD and the core RFOs as well as from other interested RFOs. The results produced within GRANteD are regularly discussed in these meetings in a co-productive approach, to generate both new practical and theoretical knowledge on gender bias in research funding processes. The results from this report will constitute a starting point for continuing discussions on policies and policy development, the impact of contextual factors, and on potential gender bias risk assessments. The more general recommendations for research funding organisations will be further developed as the final part of the project, in Work Package 9 (WP9): Consolidating results and developing recommendations. 177 For more information on the conceptual model see section 1.3. 133 7 REFERENCES Advance-HE (2021). Athena Swan Ireland. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/equalitycharters/international-charters/athena-swan-ireland Alonso, A. (2017). Who learns what from whom? Implementing gender mainstreaming in multilevel settings. European Journal of Women's Studies, 24(2), 174-188. Andersson, E., Johansson, M., Lidestav, G., & Lindberg, M. (2018). Constituting gender and gender equality through policy. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An international journal, 37(8), 763-779. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing Policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Melbourne: Pearson Education. Beck, R., & Halloin, V. (2017). Gender and research funding success: Case of the Belgian FRSFNRS. Research Evaluation, 26(2), 115-123. Bendl, R., I. Bleijenbergh, E. Henttonen and A.J. Mills (Eds.) (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caprile, M., Addis, E., Castaño, C., Klinge, I., Larios, M., Meulders, D., ... & Vázquez-Cupeiro, S. (2012). Meta-analysis of Gender and Science Research. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Cockburn, C. (1989). Equal Opportunities: The short and long agenda. Industrial Relations Journal, 20(3): 213-225. Collinson, D.L. and J. Hearn (Eds.) (1996). Men as Managers, Managers as Men. Critical Perspectives on Men, Masculinities and Managements. London: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. London: SAGE. Cruz Castro, L., & Sanz Menéndez, L. (2019). Grant Allocation Disparities from a Gender Perspective: Literature Review. Synthesis Report. GRANteD Project D.1.1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20350%2FdigitalCSIC%2F10548. Permanent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/200024. Dahmen-Adkins, J., & Peterson, H. (2021). Micro change agents for gender equality: Transforming European research performing organizations. Frontiers in Sociology, 6: 741886. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389%2Ffsoc.2021.741886. Dahmen-Adkins, J., & Peterson, H. (2019). The how, what and when of project monitoring: Facilitating successful implementation of gender equality plans in European research institutions. In Sangiuliano, M. & Cortesi, A. (Eds.). Institutional Change for Gender Equality in Research. Lessons Learned from the Field. (pp. 251-266). Scienza e società 4. De Cheveigné, S., Husu, L. & Suter, C. (2010). Gender and excellence in research funding: European perspectives. In Forschungsförderung aus wissenschaftlichen Laufbahnen: Zugang, Erfolg, Bedeutung und Wirkung aus Geschlechterperspektive (pp. 181-201). Verlag Rüegger Zürich. Diogo, S., Jordão, C., Carvalho, T., Himi, H., Ashkenazi, M., Mešková, V. & Breda, Z. (2021). A comparative approach on the relevance of national gender equality legal frameworks in Israel, Portugal, and Slovakia to Improve Equality at the Institutional Level. Journal of International Women's Studies, 22(5), 84-102. Available at: 134 https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol22/iss5/6 Drew, E. (2022). Navigating unchartered waters: Anchoring Athena SWAN into Irish HEIs. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(1), 23-35. Drew, E., & Canavan, S. (2020). The Gender-sensitive University: A Contradiction in Terms? London: Taylor & Francis. Dunn, W. N. (2015). Public Policy Analysis. London: Routledge. Easterly, D. M., & Ricard, C. S. (2011). Conscious efforts to end unconscious bias: Why women leave academic research. Journal of Research Administration, 42(1), 61-73. Ely, R.J., Foldy, E.G., Scully, A.M. & The Center for Gender in Organizations, Simmons School of Management (eds.) (2003). Reader in Gender, Work and Organization, Oxford: Blackwell. European Commission (2004). Gender and Excellence in the Making. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission (2009). The Gender Challenge in Research Funding. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission (2016). Promoting gender equality in research institutions and the integration of the gender dimension in research contents. Final Report Summary - GENDER-NET (Promoting gender equality in research institutions and the integration of the gender dimension in research contents). https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/618124/reporting/de European Commission (2017). Implicit gender biases during evaluations. How to raise awareness and change attitudes. Workshop report, 30-31 May, Brussels. European Commission (2019). European Research Area Progress Report 2018. Country Profile Poland. Brussels. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/research_and_innovation/era/era2018_country_profile_pl.pdf European Commission (2020). A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions. Brussels: European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0152&from=EN European Commission (2021a). She Figures. Gender in Research and Innovation. Statistics and Indicators. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission (2021b). She Figures. Policy Briefs. Independent Expert Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission (2021c). Gender equality in research and innovation. Achieving gender equality in research, how it relates to the European Research Area, networks and news. https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/strategy-20202024/democracy-and-citizens-rights/gender-equality-research-and-innovation_en European Commission (2021d). Horizon Europe, gender equality. A strengthened commitment to Horizon Europe. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/- /publication/51704c8d-ca5f-11eb-84ce-01aa75ed71a1 European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC) (2019). Tackling gender bias in 135 research evaluation: Recommendations for action for EU Member States - Policy brief. Note from ERAC Standing Working Group on Gender in Research and Innovation to ERAC delegations. ERAC 1204/19. European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). (2019a). Gender Mainstreaming. Austria. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/countries/austria European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). (2019b). Gender Mainstreaming. Ireland. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/countries/ireland European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (2021). Gender Equality Index 2021 – report. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2021/compare-countries European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). (n.d.-a). Gender Equality in Academia and Research. Austria - Promoting Gender Equality in Research. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear/legislative-policybackgrounds/austria European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). (n.d.-b). Gender Equality in Academia and Research. Ireland - Promoting Gender Equality in Research. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear/legislative-policybackgrounds/ireland European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). (n.d.-c). Gender Equality in Academia and Research. Poland – Promoting Gender Equality in Research. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear/legislative-policybackgrounds/poland European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). (n.d.-d). Gender Equality in Academia and Research. Slovakia – Promoting Gender Equality in Research. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear/legislative-policybackgrounds/slovakia European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). (n.d.-e). Gender Equality in Academia and Research. Sweden – Promoting Gender Equality in Research. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear/legislative-policybackgrounds/sweden European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (2017). Gender Equality Policies in Slovakia, Study for the FEMM Committee https://www.globalwps.org/data/SVK/files/Gender%20Equality%20Policies%20in%20Slov akia%20Study%202017.pdf. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92. Fischer, C. & Reckling, F. (2010). Factors Influencing Approval Probability in FWF Decision-Making Procedures. FWF Stand-Alone Projects Programme, 1999 to 2008. FWF-Diskussionspapier. https://www.fwf.ac.at/fileadmin/files/Dokumente/Ueber_den_FWF/Publikationen/FWFSelbstevaluation/FWF-ApprovalProbability_P-99-08_15-12-2010.pdf Fogelberg, P., Hearn, J., Husu, L., & Mankkinen, T. (Eds.) (1999). Hard Work in the Academy: Research and Interventions on Gender Inequalities in Higher Education. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. 136 Fritch, R., McIntosh, A., Stokes, N., & Boland, M. (2019). Practitioners’ perspectives: A funder’s experience of addressing gender balance in its portfolio of awards. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 44(2), 192-203. Förordning om den officiella statistiken 2001:100 (Ordinance on official statistics) https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svenskforfattningssamling/forordning-2001100-om-den-officiella_sfs-2001-100 Gendered Innovations (n.d.) https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/. GenPORT (n.d.) 11 recommended resources for anti-gender bias training. https://www.genderportal.eu/blog/11-recommended-resources-anti-gender-bias-training Gibney, E., & Schiebinger, L. (2020). How sex and gender analysis improves science. Nature, 588(7837), 209-209. González, D., Mateu, A., Pons, E., & Domínguez, M. (2017). Women scientists as decor: the image of scientists in Spanish press pictures. Science Communication, 39(4), 535-547. Griffin, G., Benschop, Y. and Husu, L. (Eds.) (2021). Feminist Encounters with Research and Innovation. Special issue. Feminist Encounters, 5(2). Gröschl, S. (Ed.) (2011). Diversity in the Workplace: Multi-disciplinary and International Perspectives. Aldershot: Gower. Gvozdanović, J., & Maes, K. (2018). Implicit bias in academia: A challenge to the meritocratic principle and to women’s careers–And what to do about it. League of European Research Universities (LERU) Advice Paper No, 23. Handley I. M., Brown E. R., Moss-Racusin C. A., & Smith J. L. (2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (43), 13201-13206. Hankivsky, O., Springer, K. W., & Hunting, G. (2018). Beyond sex and gender difference in funding and reporting of health research. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 3(1), 1-14. Hearn, J, & Husu, L. (2011). Understanding gender: Some implications for science and technology. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36, 103-113. Hermansson, K., Jacobsson, C., & Österberg, R. (2021) Gender Equality in Research Funding. A Study of 11 European countries, Israel and Canada. Gender Net Deliverable 6.3. Higher Education Agency (HEA) (2016). Report of the expert group. HEA National Review of Gender Equality in Irish Higher Education Institutions. June 2016. Higher Education Authority: Dublin. https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/06/HEA-National-Review-ofGender-Equality-in-Irish-Higher-Education-Institutions.pdf Higher Education Agency (HEA) (2018). Accelerating Gender Equality in Irish Higher Education Institutions – Gender Action Plan 2018-2020. https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2018/11/Gender-Equality-Taskforce-Action-Plan-20182020.pdf Higher Education Agency (HEA) (n.d.-a). Senior Academic Leadership initiative. https://hea.ie/funding-calls/senior-academic-leadership-initiative/ Husu, L., & de Cheveigné, S. (2010). Gender and gatekeeping of excellence in research funding: European perspectives. In Riegraf, B., Aulenbacher, B., Kirsch-Auwärter, E., & Müller, U. (Eds.) GenderChange in Academia (pp. 43-59). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 137 Husu, L., & Callerstig, A. C. (2018). Riksbankens Jubileumsfonds beredningsprocesser ur ett jämställdhetsperspektiv. Stockholm: Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. Håkansson, S. Y. & Sand, J. (2021). The Gender Dimension in Research and Innovation: Results from a global survey on research funding organisations. Gothenburg: Swedish Secretariat for Gender Research, University of Gothenburg. Jackson, S. M., Hillard, A. L., & Schneider, T. R. (2014). Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education, 17(3), 419-438. Jacobsson, K. (2016). Analysing documents through fieldwork. In Silverman, D. (Ed.) Qualitative Research, (pp. 155-170.). London: Sage. Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In Fischer, F., Miller, G.J., & Sidney M. S. (Eds.) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, politics, and methods, (pp. 43-62). Public Administration and Public Policy 125. Jappelli T., Nappi C. A. & Torrini R. (2017). Gender effects in research evaluation. Research Policy 46(5): 911–924. Jeanes, E., Knights, D. and Martin, P. Y. (Eds.) (2011) Handbook of Gender, Work and Organization. Chichester: John Wiley. Joffe, H., & Yardley, L. (2004). Content and thematic analysis. In Marks, D. F. & Yardley, L. (Eds.) Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology, (pp. 56-68). London: Sage. Jordansson, B. (1999). The Politics of Gender Equality: The Encounter between Political Intentions and the Academy in the ‘Tham Professorships’. Swedish Secretariat for Gender Research, 1999:1. Jordansson, B. (2017). Gender Equality in the Swedish Educational Sector: A Case Study on Swedish Academia. In Nanda Biswas, N., Allard, K., Pousette, A., & Härenstam, A. (Eds) Understanding Attractive Work in a Globalized World (pp. 225-240). Springer, Singapore. Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., & Cacace, M. (2017). Addressing gender inequality in science: the multifaceted challenge of assessing impact. Research Evaluation, 26(2), 102-114. Kingdon, J. W. (1993). How do issues get on public policy agendas. Sociology and the Public Agenda, 8(1), 40-53. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content Analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage. Krizsan, A., & Lombardo, E. (2013). The quality of gender equality policies: A discursive approach. European Journal of Women's Studies, 20(1), 77-92. Kumra, S., Simpson, R. & Burke, R.J. (eds.) (2004). The Handbook of Gender in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. League of European Research Universities (LERU) (2018). Implicit bias in academia – a challenge to the meritocratic principle and to women’s careers and what to do about it. Available at: https://www.leru.org/publications/implicit-bias-in-academia-a-challenge-to-themeritocratic-principle-and-to-womens-careers-and-what-to-do-about-it. Lee, L., Faulkner, W., & Alemany, C. (2010). Turning good policies into good practice: Why is it so difficult?. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 2(1), 90-99. Leslie, S.-J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219): 262–265. DOI: 10.1126/science.1261375. DOI: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/262 Lipinsky, A. (2014). Gender Equality Policies in Public Research. Luxembourg: Publications Office 144 Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2019b). SFI FFP 2019 Pre-Proposal Handbook. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2019c). SFI FFP 2019 Full-Proposal Handbook. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2019d). SFI FFP 2019 Applicant/Co-Applicant CV template (Full Proposal only). Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2019e). SFI FFP 2019 Questions and Answers Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2019f). SFI Maternity/Adoptive Policy. Effective from 1st October 2019. https://www.sfi.ie/funding/sfi-policies-and-guidance/gender/SFIMaternity_Adoptive-Policy-V2.3-Sept-2019.pdf Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2019g). Guidance for Applicants on Ethical and Scientific Issues. http://www.sfi.ie/funding/sfi-policies-and-guidance/ethical-and-scientific-issues/1Guidance_for_Applicants_on_Ethical_and_Scientific_Issues.pdf Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2019h). SFI FFP 2019 Guidelines for Stage 1 Pre-Proposal Virtual Panel Reviewers. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2019i). SFI FFP 2019 Guidelines for Stage 2 Full Proposal Virtual Panel Reviewers. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2019j). SFI FFP 2019 Stage 3 Sitting Panel – Terms of Reference (Projects). Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2020a). SFI FFP 2019 Remote Participation Instructions. Science Foundation Irleand (SFI) (2020b). Summary Kick Off SFI – GRANteD. November 16th 2020. Unpublished minutes. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2020/2021). Applicant/Co-Applicant CV template (Full Proposal only) Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2021a). Annual Plan 2021. https://www.sfi.ie/researchnews/publications/SFI-Annual-Plan-2021.pdf Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2021b). Delivering Today. Preparing for Tomorrow. SFI Strategy 2025. https://www.sfi.ie/strategy/SFI-Strategy-2025-Shaping-Our-Future.pdf Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (2021c). SFI Call FFP 2021 Document. https://www.sfi.ie/funding/funding-calls/frontiers-for-the-future/SFI-Frontiers-for-theFuture-Programme-2021-Call-Document.pdf Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (n.d.-a). SFI Policies and guidance; gender: https://www.sfi.ie/funding/sfi-policies-and-guidance/gender/ Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (n.d.-b). Conflict of Interests Policy for Staff Members. https://www.sfi.ie/resources/COI_Policy_SFI_Staff_Members.pdf Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (n.d.-c). SFI Reviewer Code of Conduct. https://www.sfi.ie/funding/sfi-policies-and-guidance/review/SFI__Reviewer_Code_of_Conduct.pdf Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) (n.d.-d). SFI Policies and Guidance. https://www.sfi.ie/funding/sfi-policies-and-guidance/gender/dashboard/ 145 8.1.3 National Science Centre (NCN) Journal of Laws [Dz. U.] No. 96/2010, Item 615. ACT of 30 April 2010 on the Principles of Financing Science. https://en.uw.edu.pl/wpcontent/uploads/2014/06/act_on_the_principles_of_financing_science.pdf Ministry of Economy (2013). Strategia innowacyjności i efektywności gospodarki „Dynamiczna Polska 2020”. [Strategy for an Innovative and Effective Economy “Dynamic Poland 2020”] Warszawa. [only in Polish] https://kigeit.org.pl/FTP/PRCIP/Literatura/006_1_Strategia_Innowacyjnosci_i_Efektywnos ci_Gospodarki_2020.pdf NCN (n.d.) The Coordinators’ Duties. https://www.ncn.gov.pl/en/o-ncn/koordynatorzy-dyscyplin NCN (2016). The Code of the National Science Centre on Research Integrity and Applying for Research Funding. Annex, no 1 to Resolution No 39/2016 of the NCN Council of 11 May, 2016. https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/Code-of-the-National-ScienceCentre-on-Research-Integrity.pdf NCN (2018). Annual Report. https://ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/centrumprasowe/NCN_raport_2018_ang.pdf NCN (2019). Annual Report. https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/centrumprasowe/NCN_raport_2019_ang.pdf NCN (2020a). Information Brochure. https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/centrumprasowe/NCN_broszura_2020_ang.pdf NCN (2020b). Guidelines for NCN experts. [Video.] YouTube. November 30th 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoBxwLsalK8 NCN (2020c). Code of Ethics for Experts of the National Science Centre. https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/zarzadzenia-dyrektora/zarzadzenieDyr104_2020_ang.pdf NCN (2021a). Terms of the SONATA call for research projects launched by the National Science Centre. Annex to NCN Council Resolution NO 52/2021 of 10 June 2021 amending the terms of the SONATA call. https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/uchwalyrady/2021/uchwala52_2021-zal1_ang.pdf NCN (2021b). Regulations on Awarding Funding for Research Tasks Funded by the National Science Centre as Regards Research Projects. https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/uchwaly-rady/2021/uchwala79_2021zal1_ang.pdf#page=34 NCN (2021c). 10 years of the NCN. https://www2.ncn.gov.pl/10lat/publication_ncn_10years.pdf 8.1.4 Slovak Research and Development Agency (SRDA) National Strategy for Gender Equality in the Slovak Republic 2014-2019. English translation available at https://www.gender.gov.sk/en/files/2015/06/Strategy_EN.pdf. SRDA (n.d.). Statute of the Slovak Research and Development Agency. https://www.apvv.sk/buxus/docs/agentura/ine-dokumenty/statute-srda.pdf SRDA (2020) SRDA webbsite, https://www.apvv.sk/?lang=en 146 SRDA (2020). CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE GENERAL CALL. Unofficial English translation of the original document. SRDA (2020). General Call 2020. ANNEX 1 – TECHNICAL AND FORMAL CONDITIONS. Unofficial English translation of the original document. SRDA (2020). General Call 2020. ANNEX 2 – ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE AND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA. Unofficial English translation of the original document. SRDA (2021). General Call VV 2020. 16.12.2021. https://www.apvv.sk/grantoveschemy/vseobecne-vyzvy/vv-2020.html SRDA (2021). Introducing SRDA / General Call. Presentation at the kick-off meeting March 4th 2021. 8.1.5 Swedish Research Council (SRC) Swedish Research Council (SRC) (2011). Evaluations of Centres of Gender Excellence. Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie 2011:5. https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/ourreports/2011-04-11-evaluation-of-centres-of-gender-excellence.html Swedish Research Council (2014) Strategy for Gender Equality in the Swedish Research Council. Available at https://www.vr.se/english/applying-for-funding/how-applications-areassessed/gender-equality.html, in Swedish (update 2016, https://www.vr.se/sokafinansiering/bedomning-av-ansokningar/jamstalldhet.html). Swedish Research Council (SRC) (2015). A Gender-Neutral Process? A qualitative study of the evaluation of research grant applications 2014. Vetenskapsrådets rapporter 2015. Ahlqvist, V., Andersson, J., Söderqvist, L. & Tumpane, J. Stockholm: Swedish Research Council. https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/our-reports/2015-04-03-a-genderneutral-process.html Swedish Research Council (SRC) (2017). A Gender-Neutral Process – Swedish Research Council: Peer Review Handbooks https://www.vr.se/english/applying-for-funding/howapplications-are-assessed/peer-review-handbooks.html Swedish Research Council (2019a) The Swedish Research Council Conflict of Interest Policy. Available at https://www.vr.se/english/applying-for-funding/how-applications-areassessed/how-we-avoid-conflicts-of-interest.html Swedish Research Council (2019b) The Swedish Research Council Guidelines for managing conflict of interest. Available at https://www.vr.se/english/applying-for-funding/howapplications-are-assessed/how-we-avoid-conflicts-of-interest.html Swedish Research Council (SRC) (2020). A gender-equal process. A qualitative investigation of the assessment of research grant applications 2019. Vetenskapsrådet 2020. Söderqvist, L., Ahlqvist, V., Andersson, J., Bergström, M., Johansson, H. S., Svantesson, M. & Österberg, R. Stockholm: Swedish Research Council. https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/ourreports/2020-05-07-a-gender-equal-process.html Swedish Research Council (SRC) (2021a). How gender-equal is higher education? Women’s and men’s preconditions for conducting research. Stockholm: Swedish Research Council. 147 https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/our-reports/2021-12-21-how-gender-equal-ishigher-education-womens-and-mens-preconditions-for-conducting-research.html Swedish Research Council (SRC) (2021b) Peer review handbook. International Postdoc (IPD) 2021. Natural and Engineering Sciences. https://www.vr.se/download/18.6574a0a1775150ec11430/1613046838014/Peer%20revi ew%20handbook%20IPD-NT%202021.pdf Swedish Research Council (SRC) (2012). Jämställdhetsobservationer i fyra beredningsgrupper 2011. [only available in Swedish] Vetenskapsrådets lilla rapportserie 3:2012. Andersson, J., Hahn Berg, C. & Kolm, C. Stockholm: Swedish Research Council. https://www.vr.se/analys/rapporter/vara-rapporter/2012-04-02jamstalldhetsobservationer-i-fyra-beredningsgrupper-2011.html Swedish Research Council: SRC Annual Reports 2001-2019 (in Swedish), https://www.vr.se/omvetenskapsradet/organisation/arsredovisningar.html Swedish Research Council (n.d.): Conducting Ethical Research. https://www.vr.se/english/applying-for-funding/requirements-terms-andconditions/conducting-ethical-research.html Swedish Research Council (n.d.): Considering Sex and Gender Perspectives in your Research. https://www.vr.se/english/applying-for-funding/requirements-terms-andconditions/considering-sex-and-gender-perspectives--in-your-research.html Swedish Research Council (n.d.) Review panels. https://www.vr.se/english/applying-forfunding/how-applications-are-assessed/review-panels.html Swedish Research Council website: https://www.vr.se/english.html