MAPPING TOOLS FOR THE EVALUATION OF

GENDER EQUALITY PLANS

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020researchandinnovationprogrammeundergrantagreementNo710534

Callidentifier: H2020-GERI-2015-1

TypeofAction: CoordinationandSupportAction(CSA)

Projectno: 710534

ProjectAcronym: SAGE

Projecttitle: SystemicActionforGenderEquality

ProjectCo-ordinatorcontact: edrew@tcd.ie

StartDateofProject: 01/09/2016

DurationofProject: 36Months

D2.4–MappingofToolsfortheEvaluationofGenderEqualityPlans

WorkPackage: 2–InstitutionalSelf-Assessment

Disseminationlevel: P(Public)

Type: R(Report)

TheSAGEConsortiumcomprises:

(Coordinator) Centre forWomen in Science & Engineering Research(WiSER),TrinityCollegeDublin

Ireland

UniversitàdegliStudidiBrescia Italy

KadirHasUniversity Turkey

InstitutoUniversitárioDeLisboa Portugal

SciencesPoBordeaux France

InternationalUniversityofSarajevo BosniaandHerzegovina

(Evaluator) Queen’sUniversityBelfast UK

Acknowledgements

Theauthorswishtothankallthepartners,volunteersandsupportersoftheSAGEproject.

TableofContentsAimoftheReport..............................................................................................................1Methodology....................................................................................................................2EvaluationTechniques......................................................................................................3

GENOVATE...........................................................................................................................4GENDERTIME......................................................................................................................5GARCIA.................................................................................................................................7INTEGER...............................................................................................................................8

Furtherreading.................................................................................................................9

1

AimoftheReportAsaCoordinationandSupportAction(CSA),oneofthetasksoftheSAGEprojectistolearnfromandextendthefindings,tools,andresultsfrompreviousFP7andotherEUprojects,aswellastoadaptorupdatewhatisavailabletomeettheneedsofSAGEpartnersandotherforthcomingHorizon2020projects.This report emphasises the importance of using gender indicators tomeasure and comparethepositionofwomenandmenovertime inacertainpolicyarea,aspecificprogramme,anactivity,oraninstitutionaswhole.Therefore, the report provides a synthesis of recent EUandnon-EUprojects on gender andstructural change, which have presented methodologies relating to gender indicators andevaluationof genderequalityplans (GEPs). Thedeliverablesof the following recentprojectswereexamined:

• ADVANCE – Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in AcademicScienceandEngineeringCareers

• EGERA–EffectiveGenderEqualityinResearchandtheAcademia• FESTA–FemaleEmpowermentinScienceandTechnologyAcademia• GARCIA – Gendering the Academy and Research: combating Career Instability and

Asymmetries• GENDERTIME–TransferringImplementingMonitoringEquality• GENDER-NET–Promotinggenderequalityinresearchinstitutionsandtheintegration

ofthegenderdimensioninresearchcontents• GENISLAB–GenderinScienceandTechnologyLab• GENOVATE–TransformingOrganisationalCultureforGenderEqualityinResearchand

Innovation• GENPORTProject• HELENA–HigherEducationLeadingtoEngineeringAndscientificcareers• INTEGER–InstitutionalTransformationforEffectingGenderEqualityinResearch• PRAGES–PractisingGenderEqualityinScience• QUING–QualityinGender+EqualityPolicies• PHASES–StructuralChangeTowardGenderEqualityinScience• TWIST–TowardsWomeninScience&Technology• WHIST–Women’sCareersHitting theTarget:GenderManagement in Scientific and

TechnologicalResearch• WISAT–WomeninGlobalScience&Technology

Eachoftheseprojectsmadeoraremakinguseofquantitativeand/orqualitativetechniquesinevaluation, and several also produced guidelines or resource material on how to developeffective indicators (these include FESTA,GENOVATE,GARCIA,GENDER TIME and INTEGER).Severaloftheseareconsequentlysummarisedinthisreport.This report is designed to be usable and accessible even by who are not familiar withinstitutional actions promoting gender equality, but who are interested in using genderindicatorsintheirinstitutionsorsectors.Comprehensiveevaluationtoolscanserveanumberof critical functions for institutions pursuing a gender equality agenda, such as providing anevidence-base for future actions, offering accountability in order to ensure transparency,

2

benchmarkingtopromotecollectivelearning,andcontributingtoorganisational learninganddecision-making.MethodologyThis report provides a “mapping” exercise of methodologies relating to gender measuresdrawn from previous EU Framework Programme funded projects. It draws upon theexperienceandeffortsundertakenthroughtheseactionsassummarisedinarangeofprojectoutputs. Given the spectrum ofmethodologies uncovered, it is clear that there is no singleform of evaluation, or ‘one size fits all’, particularly for gender equality plans that focus onchangingstructuralinequalitiesininstitutionsthroughtargetedactions.Incollectingtheavailablemethodologies,wetriedtodistinguish,whereverpossible,betweenquantitativeandqualitativeapproaches.Whilequantitativemethodstrytoassesstheproblembycapturingnumericaldataordatathatcanbetransformedintouseablestatistics,qualitativemethods ask broad questions and collect data, from a selected set of participants, throughsemi-structuredorstructured individual interviews, therebycapturing interviewees’personalexperiences,opinions,andfeelings.Forexample,individualinterviewsareusefulforextractingsensitiveinformationaboutprocessesandresults,buttheyrequireaconsiderableamountoftimeandmayinvolveproblemsofreliabilityandvalidity.Usually the two approaches are complementary. Qualitative research is often used in anexploratorymannertogainaninitialunderstandingofatrendorpatternandtodevelopideasor hypotheses for potential quantitative research. Qualitativemethods can also be used tofurther research a problem or trend identified through quantitative research in order tounderstandorunveiltheunderlyingreasonswhy.Thechoiceofthestartingpointisuptotheresearcher,butitmustbestressedthatdatacollectionisthebaselineforanyactionthataimsatmakingadifferenceintheareaofgenderequalityandstructuralchange.Benchmarkingisimportanttodeterminewheretheinstitutionstandsandtosetappropriategoals.Evaluation should not be confused with monitoring, although both are techniques forcollectingfeedback.Whilethe latterrelatestogeneralmanagementofaprojectandhowtoimprove it, evaluation provides in-depth analysis for action planning. Like SAGE, GENOVATE(FP7-funded) was an action-project aimed at ensuring equal opportunities for women andmeninresearchinstitutions,withafocusonuniversities.Itlastedfor48monthsfrom2013to2016.GENOVATE researchers identified three distinct types/steps of evaluation. First,we need todefinewhatwewanttoevaluateandhow.Thisisthedesignandconceptualizationphaseandit isnecessarytoobtainanoverviewoftheactionwhich istobeevaluated.Second,there isthestepcalledvaluation,whichisasystematicassessmentofthedesign,implementationand,eventually, the results of the evaluation. The valuation must commence with evaluation,ratherthaninafinalphase/endoftheproject.Thefinalstepistheassessmentofresults,toencompasstheoutputsandoutcomes.Outputsrelatetothetangibleproductsoftheaction,suchastoolkits,reports,articles,butalsoactivitiesinabroadersense.Outcomesrefertotheintangible results, suchas theeffectsand impactsproduced (e.g.onattitudes/behaviour)bytheoutputs.

3

InthecontextofSAGEspecifically,anevaluationworkshopwasheldearlyonintheproject’slifespan(December2016).Throughsmallgroupwork,partnersexaminedtoolsforevaluation,andthenregroupedtoshareidentifiedstrengthsandmissingaspectsofeach.TheevaluationtoolsanalysedweretheFESTAHandbook,EIGEGEARToolkitandanNSFAdvanceToolkit.Thisled to thedecision todevelop customisedkey indicators for theevaluationof results at theend of SAGE. A draft methodology is being prepared, and one-to-one meetings with allinstitutionstodiscusstheseindicatorsfurtherhavebeenincorporated.EvaluationTechniquesA comprehensive overview of quantitative techniques can be found in the FemaleEmpowerment in Science and Technology Academia (FESTA)1 toolkit, developed by thenamesakeEUprojectfinancedunderFP7.Itranfrom2012-17,aimedatpursuingachangeinthe working environment of academic researchers, thus encouraging female researchers tostayandmakeanacademiccareer.Thetoolkit involvestwosetsof tools,developedthroughtheFESTAactivities.Thefirstdealswith quantitative data-collection and interpreting the statisticswhile the second focuses onraisinginstitutionalawareness.The first set is divided into four sub-tools. Sub-tool Dimensions describes what is to bemeasured, including how to work with indicators and take account for their potentiallimitations.Dimensionsmayhavemorethanoneindicatorandindicatorsmayhavemorethanonevariable.Forexample, thedimension“work-lifebalance”maybemeasuredthroughtheindicators“parental leave”and“jobsatisfactionandmotivation”which, in turn,mayrelyonvariables“workinghours”,“absenceandleave”,and“scientificproductions”.The second sub-toolHypotheses dealswith theexpectationsofwhat indicatorswill show. Ifinvestigating gender mainstreaming in research and the indicator is the number of fundedprojectswithgenderaspects,thebasichypothesismightbethatgenderexpertisewithinthegroupofresearchersisinsufficient.Theformulationofhypotheses,however,dependsontheinstitutionalcontext.Indicators–thethirdsub-tool–includesinformationonhowindicatorshavebeendefinedandwhere,whenandhowdataarecollected.Attentionisgiventothesourceofdataandwhetheritmaybeconsideredreliable.Reliabilityofindicatorsisacoreissueandmustbecontinuouslymonitored.Anindicatorwhichprovestonolongerbereliablemustbeabandonedorreplaced.Finally,theFESTAtoolkitsuggestsLogbooksasafourthsub-toolrelatingto‘goodpractice’ofrecording and tracking all decisions taken in the process of data-collection, from theformulationofindicatorstotheprocessingofdata.Thistoolmayhelpbothinproblem-solvingduringthedata-collectionandforkeepingtrackofwhatisdoneforfutureactions.Thetoolkitalsoprovidesexamplesoflogentries.

1http://www.festa-europa.eu/public/handbooks-toolkits-and-reports-find-and-download

4

GENOVATEAnothersetofmethodologiesthatisworthnotingisincludedintheGuidelinesforEvaluatingGender Equality Action Plans2, produced by the GENOVATE project. GENOVATE researchersidentifiedsixstepsbywhichgenderequalityplanscanbedeveloped.First,itisimportanttodefinethescopeandthemainstructuralelementstobeincluded.Theresulting draft is called an “evaluand”, or a working plan, and sets out a preliminaryassessmentofthechangesnecessarytomovetowardsgreaterequality,aswellaswhatmusthappenforsuchchangestooccur.Itisimportanttodevelopconsensusamongstakeholderstoensureasharedagenda,aswellastodevelopcommonperformanceindicatorsforevaluatingfinalresults.The first step paves the way for the second, which concerns the engagement of potentialstakeholders, both individuals and organisations. This is a crucial phase, because the morestakeholdersareengaged,themorelikelytheresultswillspreadandbeexploited.Duetothechallengesthatgenderequalityplanstendtofaceintheimplementationprocess,stakeholderengagement is especially important for receiving support and aid. Hence stakeholdersmustnot only be consulted, but must also be involved in an active and engaged manner, andencouraged to take ownership of the actions. For the same reason, the evaluation processmustbeastransparentandaccountableaspossible:“besensitive”,“beparticipatory”and“bereflective”.Stakeholders may be divided into Agents – people who are implementing the plan;Beneficiaries – people whomay be affected by the plan in a positive way; and Resisters –peoplewhomayexperiencetheimpactoftheplaninanegativeway.Thedevelopmentofastrategytokeepstakeholders’interesthighshouldalsobeconsidered.GENOVATEresearcherssuggestperiodicallycapturingthecommentsofstakeholdersthroughaccessibleandcost-effectivequalitativemethods,therebypayingattentiontothelimitedtimeofstakeholders.Comingtothenextphaseofevaluationdesignisthedevelopmentoftheevaluationquestions,taking account of stakeholders’ interests and the context of where the plan is beingimplemented.Notallquestionsareusableineveryspecificsituationandpolicymakingcontext.GENOVATE guidelines provides good insights into this qualitative step by outlining differentqualitativemethods. First, there canbe“inspiring”evaluationquestions,which refers to theanalysis of the processes by which the plan is implemented (coordination, management,communication,stakeholderparticipation,theuseofhumanresources,andprocedures,etc.),and todeterminehow these contribute to gender change. Second, are the “contextualised”evaluation questions. While interviews may start with inspiring evaluation questions,“contextualized” evaluation questions go deeper and are more sensitive to the plan andcontext. Since the plan seeks to promote structural change in that context, questionsmustfocusonthoseareas.Somesamplesofquestionsareincludedintheguidelines.Itisimportantto check the quality of the evaluation questions produced. For example, they should: bedirectedtothegenderequalityplanandnoteventsorsocialdynamics;presenttheconcerns2http://www.genovate.eu/media/genovate/docs/intconferencebrusselsdocs/GENOVATE_Guidelines_for_evaluating_GEAPs.pdf

5

of stakeholders without considering how to measure them (i.e. they are not indicators);evaluatethewholeplan,ratherthanmerelyinquiringintocertainaspectsofit.The development of evaluation questions is the prerequisite for the following step, called“operationalisation process”, bywhich evaluation questions are transformed into indicators,basedonthekeyattributeofeachsetofquestions.Itcanbedifficulttotransformanopinionlike‘empowermentlevel’intoanumberorameasure,soitiscrucialtospecifyinadvancetheattributes that define each evaluation question. Attributes may change depending on thefeaturesoftheproject.So,theremaybedifferentattributesthatdefineeachquestion,aswellasseveralindicators.Indicatorschosencanofcoursebequantitativeorqualitative.Once theevaluationprocess is over, theultimate step is the assessmentof the informationgathered.Howeffectivewasthegenderequalityplan?Evenifnopre-definedqualitycriteriacan be identified,GENOVATE guidelines distinguish between three different kinds of qualitycriteria.Firstofall,therearethecorequalitycriteria,crucialforboostingstructuralchangeinterms of gender equality. Second, contributing quality criteria, refer to elements which areimportant,butnotcrucial;third,therearesupportingqualitycriteriathatarenotessentialtostructuralchange.Obviously,allqualitycriteriahavetobeinterpretedinacontextualisedwayand customised to the institution. An institution with high levels of expertise on gender,cannothavethesamesetofcriteriaasonewithlowlevels.Inthelattercase,acorecriterionshouldbewhetheraremedyforthislackofexpertisehasbeenfoundandwhether,andhow,itiseffective.GENDERTIME

AspecificinsightintohowtomeasuregenderequalityinthefieldofscienceisprovidedbytheguidelinesAmodel forbuildingaGenderEquality Index foracademic institutions3,producedwithin theactivitiesof another EU-financedproject,GENDERTIME. This toolbox is themainoutcome of the project aimed at helping implement action plans with a solid genderperspectiveinwhichthegenderdimensionisevident.

GENDERTIMEresearchersdistinguishbetweenthreeapproachesfacingwomeninscience.Thefirstapproach focusesonprogrammesand initiatives toboost thenumberofwomen in thefieldofscience,bothasstudentsand inacademicposts.However, thisapproachalone lacksefficacy because the problem is much more complex than simply fixing the numbers ofwomen. The problem relates more widely to the issue of gender in determining the socialreality and affecting women’s decisions not to pursue science careers. Thus it essential toadoptasecondapproach,fixingtheinstitutionswhoseverystructuresmitigateagainstthefulland equal participation ofwomen. The third approach consists of fixing the knowledge, i.e.embeddingthegenderdimensioninmanagementandresearch.Eachapproachhasthesameaim:tomeasureandachievegenderequality.Awidevarietyofindicatorshavebeencreatedtoaddresstheissue.GENDERTIMEresearchersanalysethemostimportant,whichcanbelistedasfollows:

3http://www.gendertime.org/toolbox/toolbox_files/Page490.htm

6

Indexname DimensionscoveredThe Global Gender Gap Index (WorldEconomicForum)

• Economic participation andopportunity

• educationalattainment• generalhealth• politicalempowerment

Economic Opportunity Index (EconomistIntelligenceUnit)

• labourpolicyandpractice• women’seconomicopportunity• accesstofinance• educationandtraining• women’slegalandsocialstatus• generalbusinessenvironment

The Gender Inequality Index (UnitedNations)

No specific dimension. It has a focus onpoverty and it is used to better exposedifferences in the distribution ofachievementsbetweenwomenandmen

SocialInstitutionsandGenderIndex • discriminatoryfamilycode• restrictedphysicalintegrity• sonbias• restrictedresourcesandassets• restrictedcivilliberties

GenderEquityIndex(SocialWatch) • education

• empowerment• economicparticipation

GenderEqualityIndex(EIGE) Coredimensions:

• work• money• knowledge• time• power• health

Satellitedimensions:

• violence• intersectinginequalities

According toGENDERTIME,noneof thesearespecificallydesigned tomonitorandevaluateresearch institutions. They concluded that the only element they have in common is asubstantial lack of efficacy for higher education institutions. A new reliable system formeasuringgenderequality inacademic institutionsneeds tobedeveloped.Despiteprevious

7

efforts, no simple and flexible tool exists to monitor how gender equality has beenimplementedatUniversitylevel.GENDER TIME’s starting point is the eight-domains index developed by EIGE,which has themeritofcondensingthecomplexityofgenderequalityasamulti-dimensionalconcept intoasinglesummarymeasurerangingfrom1to100.However,theGenderEqualityIndex(GEI)wasdesignedforcountriesandnotforsmallacademicinstitutionsdealingwithmicro-data.Hence,GENDERTIMEfocusedontailoringtheEIGEframeworktotheacademicworld,re-formulatingallquestionsandmodifyingalmostallofthevariables,butleavingthedomain-basedstructureintact. Moreover, contrary to EIGE, the GENDER TIME index is not a “neutral” rating, butexplicitly considers the direction toward which equality must go. It established, for eachdomain, thegendergap tobemeasuredby the indicators toensure the relevantpoints areuncovered concerning the disadvantaged gender. Each indicator relies on a choice of value,assuming,forexample,that it isbettertohaveapermanentcontractthananon-permanentoneandseekingtodeterminehowwomenaresituatedinrelationtopermanentpositions:

• Working Hypothesis (identifying the direction of the simple indicator and itsconceptualassumptions);

• Collection of information from two different sources (both quantitative andqualitative);

• Coding information into variables. After collecting information, data are coded intovariables;

• Calculationofthesimpleindicatorbysex(calculatingthespecificindicatorofacertaintopicseparatelyformalesandfemales);

• Calculationofthesimpleuniqueindicator4.

Forexample,inthedomain“Work”,thesubdomain“participation”hasthevariable“typesofcontracts”,withthedirection“Havingapermanentcontract ispreferablethanhavinganon-permanentcontract”. Inthedomain“money”,there isthesubdomain“genderpaygap”andthe variable “non-institutional activities”, with the direction “performing additionalremuneratedactivities”aspositive.

GARCIA

GARCIA5,anotherEU-financedprojectfocusedontheimplementationofactionsinEuropeanUniversitiesandresearchcentrestopromoteaculturethatsupportsgenderequality,andtocombat gender stereotypes and discrimination. GARCIA researchers produced The GenderBudgeting in Academia toolkit, which is a guide for integrating gender into the financialprocessesandproceduresofhighereducationinstitutions.

Gender budgeting comprises activities and initiatives for preparing budgets or analysingpoliciesandbudgetsfromagenderperspective.Therefore,Genderbudgetingisaninstrument4Seetheguidelinesformoreinformation.Theycanbeaccessedonlineat:http://www.gendertime.org/toolbox/toolbox_files/Page490.htm5https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi2j9qAu5_UAhVlD8AKHYknBPUQFggsMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgarciaproject.eu%2F&usg=AFQjCNHOTFKrQ-TqAw4hpb-MczP_r-sswQ

8

foradvancinggenderequalitythatcancreatenewapproachestopoliciesanddecision-makingrelatedtoraisingandallocatingresources.Ithelpslookbeyondthenumbersandpayattentionto the indicators thatdirect the resources,whichmighthavedifferential impactsonwomencomparedtomen.

GARCIAguidelinesprovideaguidancemodelonhowtoimplementgenderbudgetinginsevensteps. First, what activities to analyse from the perspective of allocation of resources:employment contracts, tasks, department funding, facilities, etc. However, activities whichhave a more gender impact or involve more employees, should be prioritised. Second,qualitativeand/orquantitativedataneedtobecollectedonthechosenactivitiesfocusingonpolicies,objectives,andfinancialconsequencesofthoseactivitiesandtheirimpactongender.The guidelines provide samples of questions to be used. Based on these findings, newobjectivesandmeasuresshouldbeformulated.Itisimportanttobrainstormhowtoproceedandlistthepossibilitiesforchange,includingare-allocationofresources.Relevantactorsandstakeholdersmustbeengagedto implement thenewobjectives.This isnecessarytoensurethatchangesareeffectiveandlong-term.Allresultsmustbemeasuredincludingindicatorsformonitoringand final evaluation. Finally,outcomesneeda followup, inorder to identify thelessons learned, theobstaclesencounteredand long-termsustainabilityof gender structuralchanges.

INTEGERFinally, the FP7 project INTEGER6 produced a set of evaluation guidelines7 and a toolkit8,aimedatsupplyinghighereducationandresearchinstitutionswithtoolsandguidancefortheassessment of their Transformational-Gender Action Plans. It suggests using evaluationmethodologyforqualityassuranceofgenderactionplans,tosupportlegitimacyandin-housedialogue and tomeasure institutional performanceof the implementation of these plans tofostergenderequality.Thetargetgroupoftheguidelinescomprisesanyactorsinchargeof,orinterested in, conductinganassessmentofTransformational-GenderActionPlan.Thesemayincludecoordinators,genderequalitybodiesandqualitymanagemententities.Theguidelinesprovideastructurewhichcanformthebasisofeitheraself-assessmentoranexternal evaluation, and thus have multiple uses. Information and instructions are givenregarding theproper collectionandanalysisofdata regardinggenderequality/inequality, aswell as how to use the feedback from data-collection and analysis efforts to develop andimplement targeted actions. Furthermore, the guidelines offer practical tools to developmethodological competence in theuser, andaredesigned tobea resource forbeginners inthefieldofself-assessment.

6http://www.integer-tools-for-action.eu/en7http://www.integer-tools-for-action.eu/en/resource/assess-your-action-plan8http://www.integer-tools-for-action.eu/en/resource/assessment-toolkit

9

FurtherreadingAcker,J.(1992).‘DifferentialRecruitmentandControl:TheSexStructuringofOrganizations’,in

Mills,J.A.&Tancreds,P.,eds.(2006).GenderingOrganizationalAnalysis.NewburyPark:Sage

Acker, J. (1999). ‘Gender and Organizations.’ In Salzman Chafez, J., ed. Handbook of theSociologyofGender.NewYork:KluwerAcademic

Acker,S.&Armenti,C.(2004).‘Sleeplessinacademia.’GenderandEducation.Vol.16,1,pp.3-24

Babbie,E.(2009).Thepracticeofsocialresearch(12thed.)Belmont,CA,WadsworthBagilhole,B.(2002).‘ChallengingEqualOpportunities:ChangingandAdaptingMaleHegemony

inAcademia.’Taylor&Francis,BritishJournalofSociologyofEducation.Vol.23,1,pp.19-33

Bagilhole, B.&Goode, J. (2001). ‘The contradiction of themyth of individualmerit and thereality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers.’ The European Journal ofWomen’sStudies.Vol.8,2,pp.161-180

Benschop, Y. & Brouns, M. (2003). ‘Crumbling ivory towers. Academic organizing and itsgendereffects.’Gender,WorkandOrganization.Vol.10,2,pp.194-2012

Blickenstaff,J.C.(2005) ‘Womenandsciencecareers: leakypipelineorgenderfilter?’GenderandEducation.Vol.17,4,pp.369–386

Bohm,D.(2002)DerDialog.Stuttgart:KlettCottaBrouns,M.&Addis,E.(2004).‘Synthesisreportontheworkshop.’InGenderandExcellencein

the Making. Luxembourg: Publications Office, European Commission, Directorate-GeneralforResearch,pp.11-32

Brown,J.&Isaacs,D.(2005).TheWorldCafé.ShapingOurFuturesThroughConversationsThatMatter.SanFrancisco:Berrett-KoehlerPublishers

Carter, S., Blumenstein, M., & Cook, C. (2013). ‘Different for women? The challenges ofdoctoralstudies.’TeachinginHigherEducation.Vol.18,4,pp.339-351

Cotter,D.,Joan,A.,Hermsen,M.,Ovadia,S.,&Vanneman,R.(2001).‘Theglassceilingeffect.’SocialForces,Vol.80,2,pp.655-81

Davey, K.M. (2008). ‘Women’s Accounts of Organizational Politics as a Gendering Process.’Gender,WorkandOrganization.Vol.15,6,pp.650-671

Ely,R. J.&Meyerson,D.E. (2000). ‘TheoriesofGender inOrganizations:anewapproachtoorganizational analysis and change.’ Elsevier Science Inc.: Research in OrganizationalBehavior,Vol.22,pp.103-151

Ernst,C.&Chrobot-Mason,D.(2011).Boundaryspanningleadership:Sixpracticesforsolvingproblems,drivinginnovation,andtransformingorganizations.NewYork:McGrawHill

Fenstermaker,S.&West,C.,eds. (2002).DoingGender,DoingDifference. Inequality,Power,andInstitutionalChange.NewYork/London:Routledge

Fox,M.F.(2001).‘Women,scienceandacademia.Graduateeducationandcareers.’Gender&Society.Vol15,5,pp.654-666

Gender and excellence in themaking (2004). European Commission,Directorate-General forResearch.Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion

Hasse,C.etal(2008).DrawtheLine!Universitiesasworplacesformaleandfemaleresearchersin Europe, UPGEM- Understanding Puzzles in the Gendered European Map. Tartu,Estonia:TartuUniversityPress

Hearn, J. (2004). ‘Genderingmenandmasculinities in researchandscientificevaluations.’ InEuropean Commission, ed. Gender and Excellence in the Making, Luxembourg:PublicationsOffice,57-69

10

Husu, L. (2001). Sexism, support and survival in academia. Academic women and hiddendiscriminationinFinland.Helsingfors:Helsingforsuniversitet

Husu, L. (2005). ‘Towards gender equality in higher education: problems, policies andpractices.’InThaler,A.&Wächter,C.,eds.ConferenceProceedings,CreatingCulturesofSuccessforWomenEngineersGraz,Austria6-8October2005.Pp.13-32

Kantola, J. (2008). ‘Why do all the women disappear? Gendering processes in a politicalsciencedepartment.’Gender,WorkandOrganization.Vol.15,2,pp.202-225

Kegena, N. V. (2013) ‘Science Networks in Cutting-edge Research Institutions: GenderHomophily and Embeddedness in Formal and Informal Networks’ inProcedia – SocialandBehavioralSciences.Vol.79,pp.62-81

Kjeldal, S.-E., Rindfleish, J.& Sheridan,A. (2005). ‘Deal-making and rule-breaking: behind thefacadeofequityinacademia.’InRoutledge:GenderandEducation,Vol.17,4,pp.431-447

Kohlstedt,S.G.&Fischer,S.M.(2009). ‘UnstableNetworksAmongWomeninAcademe:TheLegalCaseofShyamalaRajender.’Centaurus,Vol51,1,pp.37–62,February2009

Lamont,M. (2009).How Professors Think. Inside the CuriousWorld of Academic Judgment.Cambridge,Ma.:HarvardUniversityPress

Lehn, S. & LykkeNielsen,M. (2001).Methods for GenderMainstreaming. Copenhagen: TheDanishNationalResearchandDocumentationCentreonGenderEquality.

Liff, S. & Cameron, I. (1997). ‘Changing Equality Cultures to Move Beyond “Women’s”Problems.’Gender,Work&Organization.Vol.4,1,pp.35-46

Mapping the Maze. Getting More Women to the Top in Research (2008) EuropeanCommission,Directorate-General forResearch. Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeof theEuropeanUnion

Martin, P. Y. (2001). ‘Mobilizing masculinities. Women’s experiences of men at work.’Organization.Vol.8,4,pp.587-61

McPhersonM., Smith-Lovin L.,&Cook, J.M. (2001). ‘Birdsof a Feather:Homophily in SocialNetworks.’AnnualReviewofSociology,Vol.27,pp.415-444

Morley, L. (1999). Organising Feminisms: The Micropolitics of the Academy. Basingstoke:Macmillan

Morley, L. (2006). Hidden transcripts: The micropolitics of gender in Commonwealthuniversities.UK:UniversityofSussex

Morissey,C.S.&Schmidt,M.L.(2008).‘ModelofExcellenceinLeadershipDevelopment.FixingtheSystem,NottheWomen:AnInnovativeApproachtoFacultyAdvancement.’JournalofWomen’sHealth,Vol.17,8

O’Connor,P.(2001).‘Abird’seyeview...ResistanceinAcademia’.InIrishJournalofSociology,Vol.10,2,pp.86-104

OECD (2003). Frascati Manual: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research andExperimentalDevelopment.Paris,France:OECD

Owen, H. (2008). Open Space Technology: a user’s guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-KoehlerPublishers

Parsons,E.&Priola,V.(2013).‘AgentsforChangeandChangedAgents:TheMicro-politicsofChangeandFeminismintheAcademy.’Gender,WorkandOrganization.Vol.20,5,pp.580-598

PROMETEA (2008). Empowering Women Engineers in Industrial and Academic Research,Deliverable No 20, Periodic Progress Report on WP7 results Transversal integratinganalysisandinterpretation

Purcell,D.,MacArthur, K.R.,& Samblanet, S. (2010) ‘Gender and theGlass Ceiling atWork’.SociologyCompass.Vol.4,9,pp.705-717

11

Scharmer, C.O. (2009). Theory U, Leading from the Future as It Emerges – The SocialTechnologyofPresencing.SanFrancisco:Berrett-KoehlerPublishers

Schiebinger, L. & Klinge, I., eds. (2013). Gendered Innovations: How Gender AnalysisContributestoResearch.Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion

Senge, P. (2004).Presence: Human Purpose and the Field of the Future. New York: RandomHouse,CurrencyBooks

She Figures 2012. Gender in Research and Innovation – Statistics and Indicators. (2013).EuropeanCommission,Directorate-General forResearchand Innovation. Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion

Stacey, R. (2001). Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and KnowledgeCreation.London:Routledge

Stacey, R. (2012). The Tools and Techniques of Leadership and Management: Meeting thechallengeofcomplexity.London:Routledge

Shaw,P.(2002)ChangingConversationsinOrganisations.London:RoutledgeTrauth,E.M.(2012).‘AreThereEnoughSeatsforWomenattheITTable?’ACMInroads.Vol3,

4,pp.9-54Tripp-Knowles, P. (1995). ‘A review of the literature on barriers encountered by women in

scienceacademia’.ResourcesforFeministResearch,pp.28-34VandenBrink,M.&Benschop,Y. (2011). ‘Genderpractices in the constructionofacademic

excellence:Sheepwithfivelegs.’Organization.Vol.19,4,pp.507-624VandenBrink,M.&Benschop, Y. (2012). ‘Slaying the Seven-HeadedDragon: TheQuest for

GenderChangeinAcademia.’Gender,WorkandOrganization.Vol.19,1,pp.71-92Wajcman,J.(2000).‘ReflectionsonGenderandTechnologyStudies:InWhatStateistheArt?’

SocialStudiesofScience.Vol.30,3,pp.447-464Wajcman,J.(1991).FeminismConfrontsTechnology.PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPressWeisbord,M.&Janoff,S. (2010).FutureSearch–GettingtheWholeSystemintheRoomfor

Vision,Commitment,andAction,3rdEdition.SanFrancisco:Berrett-KoehlerPublishersWeisbord, M. & Janoff, S (2007).Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There! Ten Principles for

LeadingMeetingsthatMatter.SanFrancisco:Berrett-KoehlerPublishersWest,C.&Zimmerman,D.H. (1987). ‘DoingGender.’GenderandSociety.Vol.1,2,pp.125-

151