PRAGES PRActising Gender Equality in Science Guidelines presentation Manchester, November 9 2009 Marina Cacace - ASDO.

PRAGESPRActising Gender Equality in Science

Guidelines presentation

Manchester, November 9 2009

Marina Cacace - ASDO

2

Institutional framework

• Co-ordinating Action: Practising Gender Equality in Science/PRAGES

• A survey of positive actions schemes in the area of research decision-making

• Work programme: “Capacities”– part: “Science in Society”

• Activity:” Gender and Research”– Area: “Strengthening the role of women in scientific

research”

• Co-financed by the Italian General Inspectorate for Financial Relations with the EU/Ministry for Economy and Finance

3

Partners• Department for Equal

Opportunities (co-ordinator)/ ITALY

• ASDO/ITALY

• TETALAP - Hungarian Science and Technology Foundation/ HUNGARY

• University of Milan - Centre for Study and Research “Women and Gender Difference”/ITALY

• Manchester University - Centre for Equality and Diversity at Work/UK

• The European University Institute/ITALY

• University of Milan Bicocca - Sociology and Social Research Department/ITALY

• Aarhus University - The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policies/ DENMARK

• The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge/UK

• University of Southern Queensland (AUSTRALIA)

• Simmons College School of Management - Center for Gender Organization/USA

4

Countries represented

EU

• Denmark• Hungary• Italy• United Kingdom

NON EU

• Australia• Canada*• United States

* Country represented in the ASDO équipe

5

A knowledge management perspective

• After a decade of efforts from EC, to try and take stock of the situation:– meta-analysis on gender and science research– benchmarking of positive action schemes

(PRAGES)

• Request: to go and see what is being promoted in support of gender equality in S&T. Targeted countries: USA, Canada, Australia

• Analysing the programmes not to produce “new knowledge” to be generalised about them, but to co-ordinate existing one, supporting the dissemination of effective social technologies

6

Some more features…

• General approach:– micro and not macro-policies– diversity of schemes and promoters– qualitative methodology

(analysed programmes do not constitute a representative sample!)

• Expected outputs:– database of programmes ► intensive approach– guidelines ► extensive approach

7

Benchmarking as a KM approach

• Origin: management studies (1970s)• Definitions:

– process of identification, understanding and adaptation of practices of other organisations, to improve one’s own performance (Cook S., 1995)

– permanent process of learning and continuous quality improvement (Benchmarking Centre, 1997)

• Procedure: identification of benchmarks, structural and procedural enablers, assessment of transferability potential

• Key task: Choosing the relevant process/impact

8

What and how to benchmark?

• In our case programmes are the most diverse: need to identify a common ground (WHAT)

• In our case it is impossible to provide a traditional impact assessment of so many programmes, at different stages of implementation, in the project’s time-frame. Moreover, some impacts are particularly difficult to quantify (common use of indirect or proxy indicators): need to agree on an operational concept of impact, to the aim of this project (HOW)

9

WHAT: three impact areas

• Reducing the diversity of programmes to three main impact areas to benchmark:

– Friendliness of the environment to women in S&T settings

– Awareness of the gender dimension in S&T in the making

– Support to women’s leadership in the new social context for S&T

10

HOW: operational concept of impact

• On the basis of a standardised qualitative assessment, an impact has been recorded on one of the three areas when a plausible connection has emerged between an orientation towards change and consistent implemented actions in that area

• The notion is hybrid: it takes into account both cognitive orientation and concrete action, and identifies, more precisely, “conditions for impact”

11

Good practices?

• Convention to include programmes in the database:– explicit aim of producing an impact on one of the three

areas identified– prima facie existence of consistent measures

• Convention to attribute programmes an impact on one of the areas:– actual consistency of measures– good quality of programme

• As impacts, “good” practices are hybrid social phenomena, including both cognitive and operational elements. As impacts, they are “probabilistic good practices”

12

Project design

1 Networking

(Milan – Statale)

PROMOTERS

(1,112 )

2Collection of information on the programmes

(Milan – Bicocca)

QUESTIONNAIRES

(125 )

1° PROGRAMMES DATABASE (109)

3 Benchmarking

(ASDO/Aarhus)

2° PROGRAMMES DATABASE (109)

4 Co-ordinating information

(ASDO)

GUIDELINES

(71 PROGRAMMES)

13

Respondents by country - 1

Australia 23

United States 18

Canada 11

Germany 8

Italy 7

Spain 7

United Kingdom 7

Denmark 4

France 4

Austria 3

European programmes 3

14

Respondents by country - 2

Finland 2

Norway 2

Slovenia 2

Belgium 1

Czech Republic 1

Estonia 1

Greece 1

Malta 1

The Netherlands 1

Sweden 1

Switzerland 1

15

Respondents by geographical area

EUROPE

NORTH AMERICA

AUSTRALIA

16

Respondents by institutional sector

S&T-URI

S&T-Oth

Oth.S

Types of actions implemented - 1

Type n. %

Networking 81 75.7

Support to career-development 68 63.6

Dissemination of information material 64 59.8

Mentoring 61 57

Training courses 49 45.8

Empowerment schemes 37 34.6

Mainstreaming actions 33 30.8

Gender-sensitive assessment 22 20.6

Monitoring hiring, promotions, tasks 22 20.6


Type n. %

Reserved awards for women 22 20.6

Policy revision about promotions 19 17.8

Policy revision about hiring 18 16.8

Support during leaves 18 16.8

Gender-sensitive attribution of tasks 15 14

Targeted funding practices 14 13.1

Schemes for women returners 14 13.1

Care services 12 11.2

Targets for balance in decision-making 12 11.2


Type n. %

Support to mobility/spouse relocation 10 9.3

Reserved chairs for women 9 8.4

Revision of curricula and textbooks 9 8.4

Targets for balance in research groups 9 8.4

Institution of quotas 5 4.7

Single-sex degrees and courses 4 3.7

Other

TOTAL 627

Average of 5 actions per programme

20

Quality and transferability

• “Conditions for impact” of the programmes on one of the three areas– actual implementation of consistent measures– sufficient quality of programme

(relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability)

• Transferability potential– assessment of structural enablers (economic,

technical and human resources, general context elements, etc.)

– assessment of procedural enablers (methods for good practice implementation)

21

Impact and quality

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P L M G E

Impact

Quality

22

Golden and silver benchmarks

• Criteria to award golden benchmarks (42):– Excellent quality (IQ 8.1 and superior)– Excellent or good impact in at least 1 area (IIMP 6.1

and superior)

• Criteria to award silver benchmarks (29):– Excellent or good impact in 1 area (IIMP 6.1 and

superior)– (all accepted programmes at least medium in quality)

• Golden benchmarks may have 1, 2 or 3 silver benchmarks (a total of 110 silver benchmarks)

23

Silver benchmarks by impact area

24

Transferability descriptors

A. Information disclosure

B. Replication occurred

C. Enablers: structural factors

D. Enablers: process factors

E. Obstacles

F. Tips from the promoters

25

Online database (web page) - 1

26


27


28


29


30


31


32


33


34


35


36


37

The guidelines

• Practical aim: not a scientific report, but addressing scientists

• Not discussing theory, but using theory to frame practice and help understand its significance

• A lot of ideas in short examples, but linkage to tools allowing to go more in depth (database and specific links)

• Not to be read from cover to cover: organised by problems to address

38

Structure of the guidelines

• Introduction• Part A. Women and science: Problems and issues at

stake• Part B. A friendly environment for women• Part C. Gender-aware science• Part D. Women’s leadership of science in a changing

society• Part E. Programmes that work • Bibliography• Appendix one: Summary charts of the three

strategies• Appendix two: Summary charts of the tools, the

action patterns and the methodological orientations

39

More contents

REVIEW PROCESS– 3 members of the international Board of

Advisors– 20 international experts– 71 respondents

TO BE INSERTED– Executive summary– How to use the guidelines– Methodological note (Appendix three)– Linguistic edits– Specific amendments

40

Strategy 1: Fighting the “chilly climate”

• Friendliness of the environment to women in S&T settings

• Awareness of the gender dimension in S&T in the making

• Support to women’s leadership in the new social context for S&T

• Actions promoting change in organisational culture and formal/informal behaviours

• Actions promoting work-life balance

• Actions supporting early-stage career-development

41

Strategy 2: Fighting gender-blind science




• Actions challenging gender stereotypes

• Actions fighting horizontal segregation

• Actions aimed at gendering S&T contents and methods

42

Strategy 3: Fighting women under-representation




• Actions promoting women’s leadership in the practice of research

• Actions promoting women’s leadership in the management of research

• Actions promoting women’s leadership in scientific communication

• Actions promoting women’s leadership in innovation processes and science-society relationships

43

• Part A. Women and science: Problems and issues at stake

• Impact assessment Part B: A friendly environment for women

• Impact assessment Part C: Gender- aware science

• Impact assessment Part D: Women’s leadership of science in a changing society

• Trasferability + quality assessmentt Part E: Programmes that work

From the database to the guidelines

44

Part A – Women and science

Chapter OneFrom figures to risks

• Looking at the numbers• Three areas of risks

Chapter twoFrom risks to strategies

1. Finding solutions2. Three strategies

45

Structure of parts B, C and D

• Each part is devoted to one of the three strategies– Each strategy comprises a variable

number of objectives• Each objective is broken down in

recommendations– For each recommendation concrete lines of

actions are reported» Lines of actions are illustrated by

examples from the database

46

Part B – STRATEGY: A friendly environment for women

• Objective 1: Changing culture and behaviours

• Objective 2: Promoting work-life balance

• Objective 3: Supporting early-stage career-development

47

Obj. 3: Early-stage career-development

• Rec. 9 – Sustaining early-career researchers through policy and regulation

• Rec. 10 – Providing personal assistance and training for early-career researchers

• Rec. 11 – Increasing candidate pool diversity for hiring and promotions

• Rec. 12 – Providing additional resources for women’s professional development

48

Obj. 3: Early-stage career-development

• Recommendation 12: Providing additional resources for women’s professional development

• Line of action: Establish dedicated funds

• Five examples:– New Mexico State University/USA– Kansas State University/USA– VINMER/Sweden– UW-Madison, WISELI programme/USA– CSIRO/Australia

49

CSIRO grants for women returners

• Some universities established programmes specifically aimed at preventing the attrition of women who have already started a scientific career because of lack of support for life course events. The strategy adopted by CSIRO (Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) is providing grants to women returners. It consists of the delivery of grants of up to AUS $ 35,000 each to support researchers to re-establish themselves and re-connect with research underway in their field. Several awards are offered each year.http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pmvp.pdf

50

Part C – STRATEGY: Gender-aware science

• Objective 1: Overcoming stereotypes of women and science

• Objective 2: Affecting scientific contents and methods

51

Obj. 2: Affecting scientific contents and methods

• Rec. 15 – Dismantling the myth of gender-neutral science

• Rec. 16 – Incorporating gender in S&T education

• Rec. 17 – Gendering research design

• Rec. 18 – Acknowledging women’s vision and expectations

52

Obj. 2: Affecting scientific contents and methods

• Recommendation 17: Gendering research design

• Line of action: Devise practical or institutional tools to insert gender in research design

• Four examples:– Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (Gemany)– Austrian Research Promotion Agency– European Commission

53

Check-list for product design

• The above-mentioned German public research agency Fraunhofer Gesellschaft has developed a questionnaire addressing engineers working in the field of technological development. The questionnaire is structured in the form of a check-list finalised at verifying if gender aspects were included in product design, thus adopting a tool engineers are familiar with. Examples are also provided about the negative impact on product development and success of not integrating gender. http://www.genderchancen.de/EN/

54

Part D – STRATEGY: Women’s leadership

• Objective 1: Supporting women in attaining key positions in the practice of research

• Objective 2: Supporting women in attaining key positions in the management of research

• Objective 3: Strengthening women’s visibility and their role in communication

• Objective 4: Increasing women’s influence in innovation and science-society relationships

55

Obj. 4: Women’s leadership of innovation processes and science-society relationship

• Rec. 31 – Strengthening women’s orientation and skills connected with innovation and the social management of technology

• Rec. 32 – Providing women with resources and opportunities to approach top positions in innovation

56

Obj. 4: Women’s leadership of innovation processes and science-society relationship

• Recommendation 31: Strengthening women’s orientation and skills connected with innovation and the social management of technology

• Line of action: Promote new research environments linking innovation and diversity

• Two examples:– Austrian Research Promotion Agency– Trentino School of management (Italy)

57

Laura Bassi Centres of Expertise

• The publicly-funded “w-fForte – Laura Bassi Centres of Expertise” programme, promoted by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency, established new innovation-oriented research centres. The core strategy is that of pursuing innovation through diversity, emphasising trans-disciplinarity, advanced forms of knowledge transfer, public-private partnership, cultural and gender diversity of the work environment and project-oriented management. All the research centres (six in all) are led by women and their research teams have a gender balanced composition. The programme is conceived as a “learning initiative”, to be subjected to transparent evaluation procedures, the results of which should provide important information on how to better link innovation and gender equality.http://www.w-fforte.at/index.php?id=220&L=1

58

Part E: Programmes that work

• Map of tools (31)

• Action patterns (30, distributed in the 4 quality dimensions considered)

• Methodological orientations (7)

59

Tools1. Awards and recognition2. Best practice collection3. Books and reports4. Charters5. Childcare services6. Coaching7. Committees8. Consultations9. Databases10. Direct contact11. Dissemination and guidance

packages12. Expressive and artistic tools13. Grants, loans and subsidies14. Information desks15. Institutional arrangements

16. Lobbying17. Media campaigns18. Meetings19. Mentoring20. Monitoring and evaluation tools21. Networks and networking22. On-demand services23. Organisational arrangements24. Planning25. Public communication tools26. Regulations27. Research tools28. Social events29. Training courses, lessons and

seminars30. Web based discussion spaces31. Websites

60

Action patterns/relevance

1. Knowledge/Generating knowledge about the problem2. Participation/Using participatory approaches in programme

planning3. Diversity/Framing gender issues in the broader context of

diversity issues4. Lessons learned/Capitalising local past experiences and the

experiences of others5. Social capital/Using and enlarging the social capital of the

programme6. Organisation leaders/Bringing organisation’s leaders on one

own side7. Organisational culture and structure/Aligning the programme to

the organisation’s culture and structure8. Scope and target/Keeping a unitary approach while addressing

a broad target9. Awareness/Supporting all programmes with awareness raising

and sensitisation activities

61

Action patterns/effectiveness

1. Staff/Tightening the programme to a motivated, experienced, diversified and active core of people

2. Voluntary action/Promoting voluntary action in support to the programme

3. Programme leadership/Ensuring continuity in the programme leadership

4. Planning/Developing public, long-term and realistic action plans

5. Monitoring and assessment/Endowing programmes with effective monitoring and assessments systems

6. Partnerships/Promoting inclusive partnerships involving key actors

7. Transparency and transferability/Making programme transparent and transferable to external actors

8. Diversification/Diversifying actors and tools

62

Action patterns/efficiency

1. Funding mix/Diversifying financing sources as far as possible

2. Adherence to plans/Keeping a flexible but close adherence to the established action plans

3. Accounting and management/Providing programme with professional accounting and resource management systems

4. Scenarios/Timely developing scenarios for future resource needs and sources

5. Co-operation/Widening co-operation networks to increase access to resources

6. Staff capacities/Reinforcing staff capacities on resource raising and management

63

Action patterns/sustainability

1. Sustainability planning/Plan sustainability from the very beginning

2. Fund-raising/Developing sustainability-oriented initiatives while the programme is still running

3. Men’s involvement/Involving men in the promotion and implementation of the programme

4. Programme visibility/Making the programme as visible as possible

5. Partners’ commitment/Promoting a direct engagement of partners

6. Organisational flexibility/Envisaging flexible organisational solutions

7. Institutional embeddedness/Shooting for progressive embeddedness of the programme in the organisation

64

Methodological orientations

• Linking action to knowledge• Creating institutional places for gender

issues• Looking for alliances and support• Adopting an integrated approach• Connecting gender and diversity issues to

science development• Promoting a community of practices• Protecting programme’s vitality

65

Different use of the parts

• Parts B, C and D: providing ideas and examples already implemented and reasonably reliable, linking them not to the tools used (f.i. mentoring), but to the general objectives pursued

• Part E : cross-cutting through the strategies, providing hints on the basic features needed to implement successful programmes, and showing the different strategic orientations that tools can have

66

Examples

• Many examples, not described in detail, but sketching a wealth of ideas for the different strategies and objectives

• To get more information and access the resources many make available:– specific links of the different initiatives on the

programmes’ web pages– the database, to search for the most successful

initiatives of a kind and learn about transferability issues, specific enablers and obstacles

• “Breaking programmes to pieces”

67

In conclusion

• The guidelines co-ordinate information about existing programmes to help implement integrated efforts– as for the strategies– as for the tools

• Integration may be pursued even in small programmes

• The structure of the guidelines has been devised to show the variety of approaches that can be adopted, and at the same time help manage problems of adaptation to different national, institutional and organisational contexts, by its analytic approach and setup

PRAGES PRActising Gender Equality in Science Guidelines presentation Manchester, November 9 2009 Marina Cacace - ASDO.

Documents

impact slide

st slide

finance slide

gender organizationusa

programmes database

diversity of programmes

geographical area slide

case programmes