Análisis PESTEL

This section looks into the factors that were foreseen in the project set-up and design (in the project planning) that could help enhance the integration of gender issues in the implementation. By looking into the planning stage of the projects, we will be able to assess whether the gender mainstreaming at the project level was approached as a staged process. This analysis will also provide insights into whether the necessary resources have been made available to ensure an adequate implementation.

Table 5.7: Split of the selected projects according to the research area of Priority 7 (N=90)

Research Area Number of

projects Research Area 1: Improving the generation, distribution and use of knowledge and 12 its impact on economic and social development

Research Area 2: Options and choices for the development of a knowledge-based society 18 Research Area 3: The variety of paths towards a knowledge society 7 Research Area 4: The implications of European integration and enlargement for 7 governance and the citizen

Research Area 5: Articulation of areas of responsibility and new forms of governance 9 Research Area 6: Issues connected with the resolution of conflicts and restoration of 8 peace and justice

Research Area 7: New forms of citizenship and cultural identities 14

Research Area 8: Actions to promote the ERA in SSH 15

Total sample 90

Table 5.6: Type of instrument and sex of coordinator in sampled projects (N=90)

IP NoE STREP CA SSA Sample

Male 13 11 30 3 6 63

Female 7 3 12 1 4 27

Male/female balance in the team

As mentioned in the previous chapter, 37 % of the Science and Society projects and one third (27 out of 90) of the Priority 7 projects in the sample have a female coordinator. For Science and Society, this high number is biased by the ‘Women in Science’ projects, of which 13 out of 16 are led by women.

Only 1 out of 3 project teams have a good male/female balance. Considered as good (or acceptable) have been those project teams with not less than 40% of members from the same sex, in line with the 40% target set by the European Commission. This assessment has been made on the basis of the sex of the persons representing the members of the partnership. This proportion is the same for gender relevant and gender specific projects, and for Science and Society and Priority 7. For gender specific projects this is because of nearly all female teams, while in gender relevant projects there is a dominance of male participants.

Projects with a female coordinator are more likely to have a good gender balance: of the gender relevant projects, 50% with a woman as leader have a good balance against 28 % of those with a male leader. Of the gender specific projects led by women only 24% show a good gender balance as these teams are often being nearly exclusively composed of women; whereas those few gender specific projects led by men (6 projects) tend to have a better gender balance. Given the current gender inequality at the expense of women, it can also be argued however that a reverse inequality in certain projects (at the expense of men’s participation) is less problematic.

The composition of the full scientific team might show different results in terms of gender balance, but this information was not systematically available. Moreover, even when the full scientific team was listed in proposals, information on the sex of the team members was not always mentioned.

Availability of gender expertise in the team

The share of projects in the sample with gender expertise available in the research team varies between 40% (Science and Society) and 50% (Priority 7). This is logically 100% for the gender specific research projects. For the gender relevant projects, 23% have gender expertise in the team in the Science and Society field, while half of the projects in Priority 7. In some cases this is explicitly put forward, while in others this had to be deduced from the presentations or curricula vitae of the team members that were provided in the proposal.

When looking at the type of instruments (only for the gender relevant projects), no differences could be noted between instruments in Priority 7, while for Science and Society the CA appears as the instrument where gender expertise is more likely to be included in the team: 47% of the projects compared to 17% for Strep and 29% for SSAs.

Regarding the sex of the coordinator, it appears that teams led by women are more likely to have gender expertise available in the team: 60% of the teams led by women have gender expertise available, and 38% of those led by men. In Priority 7, 19 out of 27 teams led by women (70%) have gender expertise available, while this is the case only for 26 out of 63 teams led by men (41%). In Science and Society, 14 out of 28 female coordinators have foreseen gender expertise, compared to 16 out of 47 male coordinators.

Measures taken in the team to ensure attention for gender issues

In half of the projects in the sample (49% in Science and Society, and 51% in Priority 7), measures are foreseen in the team structure and/or project set-up to ensure that a balanced participation, equal opportunities and/or gender issues are taken into account. This share includes all gender specific projects (which make up 25% of the sample).

Here again, female coordinators are more likely to specify such measures than men: 60% of female coordinators foresee specific measures against 35% of male coordinators.

Typical examples of such measures are:

u a specific work package being devoted to ‘gender’ in relation to the main subject of the research;

u a gender expert (or ‘gender coordinator’, or even ‘gender issues officer’) being formally appointed as responsible, to ensure the integration of gender issues in the work performed;

u the explicitation that recruitment will aim at realising a better gender balance (at all levels) in the team. A few projects even set specific targets and/or are precise as to the proposed measures: not setting age limits, effectively applying positive discrimination, allowing part-time work.

The review of the projects indicates that the claims that gender issues will duly be taken into account appear more credible when a specific work package is dedicated to gender issues. On the contrary, when gender issues are only mentioned as part of the objectives of one of the work packages, it appears questionable whether gender issues will indeed be of high relevance in the project. In such case, it is rather as if they are introduced as a mere lip service, as illustrated by the examples below.

One gender relevant project (Science and Society, call 1) focuses on bio medics from a socio-cultural, governance and ethical point of view. It proposes nine work packages with one work package generally dedicated to the realisation of focus groups. This work package will inter alia deal with the “development of contents for focus groups concerning

biomedicine and body concepts, religion, gender and their influences on identity and health-concepts.” In the absence of further specifications of gender issues, it is unclear

A gender relevant project (Science and Society, call 13) in the area of Science Communication through events states in one WP, which consists of the development of guidelines and a manual for the participants in the project, that all project activities

“will meet high ethics and gender standards”. However, there are no specifications

whatsoever in the proposal on how the project will address the gender dimension and implement these intentions.

A minority of the gender relevant projects that put in place measures to ensure gender equality in the team structure do so by appointing women to senior positions within the projects (e.g. in the steering committee). Still others take a more comprehensive approach in their planning of measures to integrate gender in their projects.

A good practice example is that of a Priority 7 project where not only a ‘gender issue coordinator’ will be appointed, but where also a ‘gender guidebook’ will be compiled. It is clear that for this project gender issues have been considered comprehensively in the project planning stage, and that endeavours were undertaken to ensure their integration during the implementation stage of the project.

This CIT3 project, a NoE coordinated by a woman, deals with ’sustainable development in a diverse world’. It integrates gender properly in the project considering the role of women in the public sphere, gender-specific migration waves, women as force for change, unequal power relations and social arrangements, etc. The ‘gender guidebook’ that will be developed is said to :

– develop a conceptual gender framework, conceptualising the gender issues in the context of the research activities and outlining guidelines for considering gender in the methodology (e.g. for data collection);

– propose long-term quantitative objectives for the participation of women in the activities (within the project, and in its ‘outreach’ activities) and define action and rules to realise the objectives (e.g. procedures for selection of participants to events / training courses; rules for gender balance in decision-making bodies; …);

– include guidelines for using gender-neutral language in the research; – include guidelines that the project website promotes gender equality.

In summary, the review of the project planning has shown that the extent to which provisions have been foreseen within the projects to ensure that gender issues would be integrated have been variable. Still, across the board, it has been noted that female project coordinators are more likely than their male counterparts to put provisions in place to allow an adequate consideration of gender in their projects: they are more like to have sex-balanced project teams, to have gender expertise available in their team, and to foresee structural measures in their project set-up.