Gender Equality Plan (GEP) at the institutional level has become the new eligibility criterion for research funding in the EU countries. Each university or research organisation is thus required to design a strategy for gender equality with, among others, an adequate tool for progress measurement and inclusive approach. This raises questions on indicators for gender equality in research and higher education, but also requires deep reflection on intersectionality. Both problems have been addressed in Gender Equality Audit and Monitoring (GEAM) - a questionnaire framework developed within the ACT and INSPIRE (Horizon), used already by about 30 institutions. GEAM captures the experiences and perceptions of employees regarding key dimensions of gender equality, such as working conditions, work-life balance, discrimination, sexual harassment, micro-aggressions.
This presentation focuses on the analysis of indicators included in the GEAM and its usefulness for design and monitoring of GEPs. We look at the importance of both objective (institutional statistics) and subjective (survey-based) indicators, but also at indicators capturing the organisational culture as the environment for inequality.
Secondly, we assess the measurement of implicit/covered discrimination, which – contrary to overt discrimination - is harder to diagnose and target with the policies. We discuss whether the GEAM provides effective indicators to capture implicitly biased behaviours and acts.
Thirdly, we examine which indicators appear useful to design institutional solutions in regards to inclusive gender equality. We look into the potential to carry out an intersectional analysis based on the data generated with the GEAM. How feasible is the analysis of discrimination based upon intersecting categories such as gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or age? We carefully discuss whether – or, if yes, to what extent – focusing on the intersectionality and strengthening inclusiveness of GEP plays down the gender inequalities and risks that gender is lost in the process.
Gender Equality Plan (GEP) at the institutional level has become the new eligibility criterion for research funding in the EU countries. Each university or research organisation is thus required to design a strategy for gender equality with, among others, an adequate tool for progress measurement and inclusive approach. This raises questions on indicators for gender equality in research and higher education, but also requires deep reflection on intersectionality. Both problems have been addressed in Gender Equality Audit and Monitoring (GEAM) - a questionnaire framework developed within the ACT and INSPIRE (Horizon), used already by about 30 institutions. GEAM captures the experiences and perceptions of employees regarding key dimensions of gender equality, such as working conditions, work-life balance, discrimination, sexual harassment, micro-aggressions.
This presentation focuses on the analysis of indicators included in the GEAM and its usefulness for design and monitoring of GEPs. We look at the importance of both objective (institutional statistics) and subjective (survey-based) indicators, but also at indicators capturing the organisational culture as the environment for inequality.
Secondly, we assess the measurement of implicit/covered discrimination, which – contrary to overt discrimination - is harder to diagnose and target with the policies. We discuss whether the GEAM provides effective indicators to capture implicitly biased behaviours and acts.
Thirdly, we examine which indicators appear useful to design institutional solutions in regards to inclusive gender equality. We look into the potential to carry out an intersectional analysis based on the data generated with the GEAM. How feasible is the analysis of discrimination based upon intersecting categories such as gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or age? We carefully discuss whether – or, if yes, to what extent – focusing on the intersectionality and strengthening inclusiveness of GEP plays down the gender inequalities and risks that gender is lost in the process.
Gender Equality Plan (GEP) at the institutional level has become the new eligibility criterion for research funding in the EU countries. Each university or research organisation is thus required to design a strategy for gender equality with, among others, an adequate tool for progress measurement and inclusive approach. This raises questions on indicators for gender equality in research and higher education, but also requires deep reflection on intersectionality. Both problems have been addressed in Gender Equality Audit and Monitoring (GEAM) - a questionnaire framework developed within the ACT and INSPIRE (Horizon), used already by about 30 institutions. GEAM captures the experiences and perceptions of employees regarding key dimensions of gender equality, such as working conditions, work-life balance, discrimination, sexual harassment, micro-aggressions.
This presentation focuses on the analysis of indicators included in the GEAM and its usefulness for design and monitoring of GEPs. We look at the importance of both objective (institutional statistics) and subjective (survey-based) indicators, but also at indicators capturing the organisational culture as the environment for inequality.
Secondly, we assess the measurement of implicit/covered discrimination, which – contrary to overt discrimination - is harder to diagnose and target with the policies. We discuss whether the GEAM provides effective indicators to capture implicitly biased behaviours and acts.
Thirdly, we examine which indicators appear useful to design institutional solutions in regards to inclusive gender equality. We look into the potential to carry out an intersectional analysis based on the data generated with the GEAM. How feasible is the analysis of discrimination based upon intersecting categories such as gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or age? We carefully discuss whether – or, if yes, to what extent – focusing on the intersectionality and strengthening inclusiveness of GEP plays down the gender inequalities and risks that gender is lost in the process.
Keywords
gender equality indicators
gender equality plans
intersectionality
research and innovation
Gender Equality Plan (GEP) at the institutional level has become the new eligibility criterion for research funding in the EU countries. Each university or research organisation is thus required to design a strategy for gender equality with, among others, an adequate tool for progress measurement and inclusive approach. This raises questions on indicators for gender equality in research and higher education, but also requires deep reflection on intersectionality. Both problems have been addressed in Gender Equality Audit and Monitoring (GEAM) - a questionnaire framework developed within the ACT and INSPIRE (Horizon), used already by about 30 institutions. GEAM captures the experiences and perceptions of employees regarding key dimensions of gender equality, such as working conditions, work-life balance, discrimination, sexual harassment, micro-aggressions.
This presentation focuses on the analysis of indicators included in the GEAM and its usefulness for design and monitoring of GEPs. We look at the importance of both objective (institutional statistics) and subjective (survey-based) indicators, but also at indicators capturing the organisational culture as the environment for inequality.
Secondly, we assess the measurement of implicit/covered discrimination, which – contrary to overt discrimination - is harder to diagnose and target with the policies. We discuss whether the GEAM provides effective indicators to capture implicitly biased behaviours and acts.
Thirdly, we examine which indicators appear useful to design institutional solutions in regards to inclusive gender equality. We look into the potential to carry out an intersectional analysis based on the data generated with the GEAM. How feasible is the analysis of discrimination based upon intersecting categories such as gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or age? We carefully discuss whether – or, if yes, to what extent – focusing on the intersectionality and strengthening inclusiveness of GEP plays down the gender inequalities and risks that gender is lost in the process.
Gender Equality Plan (GEP) at the institutional level has become the new eligibility criterion for research funding in the EU countries. Each university or research organisation is thus required to design a strategy for gender equality with, among others, an adequate tool for progress measurement and inclusive approach. This raises questions on indicators for gender equality in research and higher education, but also requires deep reflection on intersectionality. Both problems have been addressed in Gender Equality Audit and Monitoring (GEAM) - a questionnaire framework developed within the ACT and INSPIRE (Horizon), used already by about 30 institutions. GEAM captures the experiences and perceptions of employees regarding key dimensions of gender equality, such as working conditions, work-life balance, discrimination, sexual harassment, micro-aggressions.
This presentation focuses on the analysis of indicators included in the GEAM and its usefulness for design and monitoring of GEPs. We look at the importance of both objective (institutional statistics) and subjective (survey-based) indicators, but also at indicators capturing the organisational culture as the environment for inequality.
Secondly, we assess the measurement of implicit/covered discrimination, which – contrary to overt discrimination - is harder to diagnose and target with the policies. We discuss whether the GEAM provides effective indicators to capture implicitly biased behaviours and acts.
Thirdly, we examine which indicators appear useful to design institutional solutions in regards to inclusive gender equality. We look into the potential to carry out an intersectional analysis based on the data generated with the GEAM. How feasible is the analysis of discrimination based upon intersecting categories such as gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or age? We carefully discuss whether – or, if yes, to what extent – focusing on the intersectionality and strengthening inclusiveness of GEP plays down the gender inequalities and risks that gender is lost in the process.
Gender Equality Plan (GEP) at the institutional level has become the new eligibility criterion for research funding in the EU countries. Each university or research organisation is thus required to design a strategy for gender equality with, among others, an adequate tool for progress measurement and inclusive approach. This raises questions on indicators for gender equality in research and higher education, but also requires deep reflection on intersectionality. Both problems have been addressed in Gender Equality Audit and Monitoring (GEAM) - a questionnaire framework developed within the ACT and INSPIRE (Horizon), used already by about 30 institutions. GEAM captures the experiences and perceptions of employees regarding key dimensions of gender equality, such as working conditions, work-life balance, discrimination, sexual harassment, micro-aggressions.
This presentation focuses on the analysis of indicators included in the GEAM and its usefulness for design and monitoring of GEPs. We look at the importance of both objective (institutional statistics) and subjective (survey-based) indicators, but also at indicators capturing the organisational culture as the environment for inequality.
Secondly, we assess the measurement of implicit/covered discrimination, which – contrary to overt discrimination - is harder to diagnose and target with the policies. We discuss whether the GEAM provides effective indicators to capture implicitly biased behaviours and acts.
Thirdly, we examine which indicators appear useful to design institutional solutions in regards to inclusive gender equality. We look into the potential to carry out an intersectional analysis based on the data generated with the GEAM. How feasible is the analysis of discrimination based upon intersecting categories such as gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or age? We carefully discuss whether – or, if yes, to what extent – focusing on the intersectionality and strengthening inclusiveness of GEP plays down the gender inequalities and risks that gender is lost in the process.
Keywords
gender equality indicators
gender equality plans
intersectionality
research and innovation
