Análisis de la industria

In this section, we turn to how the external peer evaluators have assessed the project proposals, notably in terms of their integration of gender issues. For doing so, I verify what the evaluators have expressed in the Evaluation Summary Reports (ESR) for the respective projects in my sample and compare this assessment with my own review of the project proposals in terms of whether gender was mentioned or treated as a relevant factor at all by the applicants.

This analysis will bring to light any variability that may have existed in the assessment of proposals from a gender perspective. Also, it may provide insights into the capacity of the evaluators to actually assess the proposals in terms of their integration of gender issues. For nearly all (90%) of the projects, gender is mentioned as a relevant factor in the proposal (63 out of 75 for Science and Society, and 85 of the 90 Priority 7 projects).

The tables below give the split by research area for Science and Society and for Priority 7 respectively. These tables show that there were apparently research areas where the gender relevance was less clear to applicants. Notably the theme ‘Scientific and technology culture, young people, science education and careers’ in the Science and Society field shows a higher share of projects not mentioning gender.

The share of projects not mentioning gender is significantly lower within the SSH field than in Science and Society. While on the one hand this finding can be considered as quite striking because the ‘women and science’ concerns under FP6 were hosted by the Science and Society area, this observation is less surprising considering the fact that under Priority 7 funding instruments were used that required a Gender Action Plan in the projects (see Chapter 6 hereafter for a detailed analysis of the Gender Action Plans), whereas this was not the case under Science and Society.

Table 5.8: Split of the projects according to the research area in S&S and whether gender is mentioned or treated in the proposal (Science and Society, N=75)

Science and Society Gender Gender

Research area mentioned mentioned

yes no

Governance and scientific advice 7 2

Ethics 16 1

Uncertainty, risk and implementing the precautionary principle 1 1 Scientific and technology culture, young people, science education 19 6 and careers

Women in science 16 0

Science Shops 2 2

In Science and Society projects, female coordinators are more often covering gender in their proposals. However, this result is positively biased by the ‘Women in Science’ projects, of which all but one are gender specific and of which 13 are coordinated by women. Looking at Priority 7, there is no significant difference between female and male coordinators: 96% of women and 94% of men mentioned gender in their proposal. Therefore, based on this limited sample, it can be concluded that female coordinators of a gender relevant proposal do not seem more likely than their male counterparts to address gender issues in their proposal.

Gender issues are mentioned in the Evaluation Summary Reports (ESR) of four in ten Science and Society projects analysed. The table below shows that gender is more likely to be mentioned in the ESR if the issue is covered in the proposal. The two projects where gender is mentioned in the ESR and not in the proposal are cases where the evaluators identified the necessity to better cover gender in the proposal.

Table 5.9: Split of the projects according to the research area in Priority 7 and whether gender is mentioned or treated in the proposal (Priority 7, N=90)

Priority 7 Gender Gender

Research area mentioned mentioned

yes no

Improving the generation, distribution and use of knowledge and 12 0 its impact on economic and social development Options and 18 0 choices for the development of a knowledge-based society

The variety of paths towards a knowledge society 5 2

The implications of European integration and enlargement for 7 0 governance and the citizen

Articulation of areas of responsibility and new forms of governance 9 0 Issues connected with the resolution of conflicts and restoration 8 0 of peace and justice

New forms of citizenship and cultural identities 14 0

Actions to promote the European Research Area in the social 12 3 sciences and humanities and their contribution to the knowledge

based society in Europe

Total 85 5

Table 5.10: Gender mentioned in the ESR and in the proposal (Science and Society, N=75)

Mentioned ESR Mentioned ESR

yes no

Mentioned in proposal – yes 28 35

For 53 of the selected 90 Priority 7 projects (nearly 60%), the Evaluation Summary Report contained a remark concerning ‘gender’, while 85 projects of the selected 90 projects mentioned gender or treated gender as a relevant factor in their proposal.

As in the SSH field projects were funded for which a Gender Action Plan was mandatory in the project proposal, the analysis work on the SSH field also looked specifically into the comments made by the evaluators about these Gender Action Plans (for a more detailed analysis of the Gender Action Plans, see Chapter 6). The results show that when the evaluators explicitly commented in the ESR on the Gender Action Plan, these comments tended to be of a general nature (as actually opposed to other very precise and pertinent remarks given in the ESR in relation to other aspects of the proposal). This can be interpreted as a sign of some confusion and uncertainty about how to assess it.

In summary, variability has been recognised in the proportion of project proposals that explicitly mention gender as a relevant factor. Such variability may be explained in terms of the research areas addressed by the call for proposals, but possibly also by the funding instrument used (as under Priority 7, there were project formats that required a Gender Action Plan to be included in the proposal). We have also seen that the Evaluation Summary Reports are more likely to contain a remark regarding ‘gender’ when gender is mentioned as a relevant factor in the proposal. This observation suggests that the omission of gender issues by the applicants, even when gender is relevant for the research, has possibly been ignored by the evaluators. 5.4. The gender dimension in European research projects

The present section looks into how gender issues have been dealt with by the researchers in their work. By analysing the proposals (as included in the contracts with the European Commission), we will examine researchers’ understanding of gender and the comprehensiveness (or lack thereof) of the integration of gender issues in the project design. The approach taken to the gender dimension was analysed by categorising how gender is understood and treated in the project proposals (as included in the technical annexes to the contract). Six different approaches were defined, which partly overlap and are thus not mutually exclusive. Departing from the rationale of gender mainstreaming, the recognition of gendered structures and the recognition of gendered constructs hold the greatest ‘transformative’ potential. Establishing the proportion of projects that fall into these categories provides therefore an indicator of the potential held by the EU-funded projects in terms of gender change.

Table 5.11: Gender mentioned in the ESR and in the proposal (Priority 7, N=90)

Mentioned ESR Mentioned ESR

yes no

Mentioned in proposal – yes 51 34

By subsequently analysing the project reporting, we will try to assess to what extent gender- related intentions and tasks have also been implemented.

5.4.1. Science and Society

The gender dimension in the research content

The table below gives the overall results of the analysis for the full sample, differentiating between gender specific and gender relevant projects. Not surprisingly, the way in which gender is addressed and understood in gender specific projects is different and more complex than in gender relevant projects. One also has to take into account that twelve of the gender relevant projects did not mention gender at all in their proposal.

From the gender specific projects, seven out of ten proposals recognise inequalities explicitly and all of them identify specific research issues to be addressed; four out of five proposals present disaggregated figures according to sex; six out of ten proposals recognise gender differences between the sexes that are related to the subject of the work; one out of three was considered as recognising gendered structures, systems and constructs. These results correspond to what could be expected for gender specific research projects, gender issues constituting their main research topic.

In gender relevant projects, the ways to address gender which are most common are the acknowledgement of specific research issues (for approximately 4 out of 10) and the recognition of inequalities (approximately 1 out of 4 projects), as the examples below show. The occurrence Table 5.12: Approach taken to the gender dimension in absolute figures and in percentages (all projects – N=75)

Gender specific Gender relevant

N=19 N=56

No. % No. %

Sex disaggregation in statistics 15 79% 1 2%

Acknowledgement of specific characteristics of women / 19 100% 21 38% identification of gender issues to be addressed

The recognition of gender differences in roles or 11 58% 6 11% responsibilities which might be inter-related (gender

relations)

The recognition of inequalities 13 68% 12 21%

The recognition of gendered structures or systems (how 9 47% 5 9% the differences are (re-)produced or altered)

The recognition of gender constructs (i.e. that key 2 11% 1 2% concepts in society are gendered)

of the recognition of gender differences and the use of sex disaggregated figures are however surprisingly low.

One gender relevant project proposal (call 5) claims that women need role models in science and states that “Taking into account the gender-specific popularisation of science, girls must be addressed differently by discussing the reasons for the relatively low female participation in science in the past und present, as well as presenting “positive” and stimulating female role-models.”

One gender relevant project (call 4) investigates the issue of the incorporation of ethics in S&T policy in terms of the methodologies used and their actual impact in decision making. The proposer states that “gender is undisputedly a main differentiating factor

in identifying the content and direction of ethical considerations.”

A gender relevant project from call 19 explores the role of Civil Society Organisations as actors in the European system of research and innovation. The proposal states (in a footnote) that there are differences in health diagnosis and treatment between the two sexes, and this factor needs to be taken into account for each research project.

The proportion of projects that recognise the existence of gendered structures, systems and/ or constructs is 9%. Overall, the first calls issued under Science and Society contained more projects where gendered structures, systems and/or constructs were identified, while in the calls 13 up to 20 no gender relevant projects were found that recognise the existence of gendered structures, systems and/or constructs.

One gender relevant project proposal (call 5, different as the one stated above) claims that the choice of education is gendered, as “parents choose different types of education

for their children according to whether the child is a boy or girl.”

From the above we can conclude that there are important differences in the understanding of gender on the part of the researchers. Gender specific projects show a much more complex understanding of gender issues than what can be recognised in the other (gender relevant) projects and thus hold a significantly higher potential for gender change. While an important proportion of the projects working on gender relevant themes still indicate understandings and recognitions of inequalities on the part of their researchers, the absence of insights into the mechanisms that may reproduce or alter gender inequalities hamper their transformative potential.

Integration of gender in the project design

behind this exercise is that gender can only truly be addressed in a research project when it is fully embedded in the project cycle: taken into account in the formulation of research objectives, when activities and corresponding inputs are foreseen to ensure the realisation of these objectives, and when reflected in outputs and ultimately also in intended impacts of the project.

This analysis looks at different components and stages of the project and indicates whether gender is mentioned or taken into account in: the abstract of the proposal (which includes the project’s main objectives), the inputs (human resources or documentation) the project activities, the expected outputs (results, findings) and in the intended impacts. This analysis is not relevant for the gender specific projects which have by definition integrated gender in their project design and score almost 100% positively on all these aspects.

Integrating gender in the project activities is what most projects do. This is the case for 41 projects out of the 56 gender relevant projects, which corresponds to the share of projects that treat gender in their proposal. It is on other aspects of the design that results are lower, which is a sign of lack of real integration of gender, and illustrates the risk that activities are not really embedded in the project. Still, eleven of these 56 projects (or nearly one in five) have taken the gender dimension into account in the description of their intended impacts.

Of the nineteen gender relevant projects that were considered as ‘gender integrated’, eleven still did not integrate gender in the description of their intended impacts.

The chart that follows gives the results for the 56 gender relevant projects in the sample.

In summary, only a minority of gender relevant projects comprehensively integrate gender in their project design. Of those who treat gender in their proposal (79%), nine out of ten have foreseen actions in their activities, while half of these have foreseen inputs and only one fourth describes outputs. In the absence of inputs or outputs, the adequacy and usefulness of the integration of gender in the project can be questioned.

Figure 5.1: Integration of gender in project design; proportion of ‘Science and Society’ gender rel- evant projects that integrate gender in which part of the project design (N=56)

Project categorisation

Based on the above analysis, a conclusive categorisation of all projects was made that brings to the forefront the variability in how researchers have addressed gender in their projects.

Table 5.13 gives the categorisation for the full sample. When the gender specific projects are excluded, it appears that 1 out of 3 projects can be considered as “gender integrated”. This is a high score, which however hides important differences in the extent and quality to which gender is dealt with in the project. As all projects in S&S are considered as gender relevant, it is not surprising that only 2 projects were categorised in the group “gender not mentioned but only indirectly relevant”.

In nearly half of the gender relevant projects, gender is assessed as ‘mentioned but not addressed’. This can be seen as an indication of lip service, possibly to hide away incapacity to adequately deal with gender. Anyhow, this important proportion of projects not addressing gender leaves a significant potential for change unexploited, and for transforming (part of) this group into gender integrated projects specific measures would be needed.

Looking at the sex of the coordinators in this conclusive categorisation of the projects, we see that nearly half of the gender integrated projects is coordinated by a woman, whereas the share of female coordinators in the total sample of projects is significantly lower (37%), and that two of the gender blind projects are coordinated by a woman. This observation (again) confirms that the projects set up by women are more likely to be gender sensitive.

5.4.2. Social Sciences and Humanities (Priority 7)

The gender dimension in the research content

As indicated before, the work started from the assumption that all projects submitted in the Social Sciences and Humanities domain are per definition gender relevant. Excluding the four gender specific projects, which logically address gender more comprehensively, the approach that has been taken to gender in the proposals has been analysed and the results are presented in table 5.14. This table illustrates that while most gender relevant projects do mention gender somewhere in their proposal as a relevant variable (as indicated above), there are many less that really address it in their work.

Table 5.13: Categorisation of projects based on how gender is addressed (N=75)

No. of projects % of total Gender is relevant and may be mentioned, but is not addressed 25 33%

Gender integrated 19 25%

Gender specific 19 25%

Gender blind 10 13%

The most common approach to gender (in 40% of the projects who do not have gender as their main focus) is the recognition of differences between the sexes in relation to certain topics being studied (e.g. that women and men demonstrate different forms of violent behaviour). About one third of the proposals recognise gender inequalities (e.g. that women are more likely than men to occupy non-standard forms of employment, which puts limitations to their economic independence), and/or acknowledge that there are specific issues associated with one sex (e.g. that women in their role of mothers play a significant role in the transmission of aspects of culture to next generations).

In nearly one out of three proposals (in 29%) gendered structures or systems are identified, i.e. the structures and systems that (re-)produce or can alter gender inequalities. Some examples of such structures that have been recognised are:

u apparently neutral policies with different impacts on women and men (in a NoE on European private law);

u recruitment, retention and promotion policies in organisations (in a proposal for a STREP that investigates professional knowledge in the health and education sectors); u the role of culture (art, language, …) in reinforcing gender images (in a NoE on European

history and its relation to the future research agenda);

u the gender division of labour (in a SSA on a dialogue between social scientists and non- academic actors);

u education and its impact on employability at older ages (in an IP on European welfare state interventions).

Only eight proposals identified gender constructs, in that they recognised that key concepts used are fundamentally gendered. Examples are : ‘part-time work’; certain professions like ‘teaching’ and ‘nursing’; ‘the public sphere’; the discourse on ‘universal human rights’; the concept of ‘citizenship’; ‘parenthood’.

Sex-disaggregated statistics have only been provided in six proposals.

Table 5.14: The approach taken to gender in the gender relevant projects of Priority 7 (N=86)

Number %

Sex disaggregation in statistics 6 7%

Acknowledgement of specific characteristics of women / identification of 29 34% gender issues to be addressed

The recognition of gender differences in roles or responsibilities which might 34 40% be inter-related (gender relations)

The recognition of inequalities 30 35%

The recognition of gendered structures or systems (how the differences 25 29% are (re-)produced or altered)

The recognition of gender constructs 8 9%

Important to note is that the majority of these projects that do address gender still do so only partially in their work, recognising that gender is a relevant variable to particular aspects of the study and to particular components of the work programme but overlooking or ignoring