Periodic Reporting for period 3 - CHANGE (CHAlleNging Gender (In)Equality in science and research)
Reporting period: 2020-11-01 to 2022-10-31
Drawing on valuable previous studies, which identified gender in-equalities and barriers for women’s careers in science and research, the implementation project CHANGE – ‘CHAlleNging Gender (In)Equality in science and research’ pursues improving gender equality in science and research since 2018. By using a co-creation approach, which includes relevant stakeholders from the beginning, and develops customized gender equality plans (GEPs) and actions for research performing organisations (RPOs) and research funding organisations (RFOs) CHANGE addresses existing knowledge-to-action- respectively research-to-practice-gaps as well as hindering politics of feminist knowledge transfer. CHANGE used existing knowledge and tools from sister projects, but co-produced context-specific knowledge within the implementing organisations, acknowledging real-life problems of those academic and research organisations. Transfer agents (TAs) – allies in the GEP implementing organisations in strategically important positions (head of departments, gender equality officers, etc.) – are in the CHANGE team since the beginning and help to put this co-created knowledge into practice.
CHANGE aimed at tackling two big hurdles when implementing Gender Equality Plans (GEPs) in research organisations. Firstly, the knowledge-to-action gap, which describes how academic knowledge and research outcomes are not always valued as relevant for practice and consequently not acted upon. CHANGErs addressed this problem by integrating relevant stakeholders and co-producing practically relevant gender equality knowledge with stakeholders from RPOs and RFOs (Research Performing/Funding Organisations) as well as policy actors.
Secondly, a conflict of knowledge from various gender theories and practice arenas has been identified (‘academic feminist fightclub’) as a catalyst for resistance within processes and organisations. CHANGE identified these two problems as the main reasons why so many organisations rather wanted to ‘fix the women’ than ‘fixing the system’.
CHANGE reacted to these power- and knowledge-gap-challenges by integrating Transfer Agents (TAs), and further stakeholders from the beginning. TAs and stakeholders brought in diverse perspectives and experiences into the knowledge co-production of CHANGE, and helped so tackling specific organisational or country-specific challenges.
Further stakeholders from the regional and national level (e.g. policy-makers, research-funding actors) have been engaged in multi-actor CoPs (Communities of Practice) to learn from each other (e.g. about the structure of the various GEPs, the good practice model of transfer agents, recruitment and retention activities, etc.). At a European level CHANGE established and maintained close contact with policy actors (especially from the Standing Working Group on Gender in Research and Innovation), and many sister projects, to support cross-project exchange and synergy, including joint policy recommendations, joint conferences and publications, mutual support in awareness campaigns and mutual invitations to give advice and inputs at project meetings.
The actual practices of knowledge co-creation among CHANGErs – in their organisations and with RPO and RFO stakeholders – had been diverse, however the overall goals to value these different types of knowledge, and produce ‘customised knowledge’ have been realized by all partners. This change process succeeded by building on iterative learning cycles of communicative interaction, action and reflection, and following an organisational change model in five steps (gender benchmarking – feedback – quick actions – mid-term actions – sustainable long-term actions). Two of these steps have proven to be immensely important: The first success factor was involving TAs (e.g. managers, gender equality officers) from the beginning, which has not only supported the implementation of GEPs but will foster the sustainable long-term change in the research organisations even after CHANGE has ended. The second success factor was a rapid action phase to generate short-term wins. These quick wins motivated employees and made the positive impact of organisational change immediately visible.
Secondly, a conflict of knowledge from various gender theories and practice arenas has been identified (‘academic feminist fightclub’) as a catalyst for resistance within processes and organisations. CHANGE identified these two problems as the main reasons why so many organisations rather wanted to ‘fix the women’ than ‘fixing the system’.
CHANGE reacted to these power- and knowledge-gap-challenges by integrating Transfer Agents (TAs), and further stakeholders from the beginning. TAs and stakeholders brought in diverse perspectives and experiences into the knowledge co-production of CHANGE, and helped so tackling specific organisational or country-specific challenges.
Further stakeholders from the regional and national level (e.g. policy-makers, research-funding actors) have been engaged in multi-actor CoPs (Communities of Practice) to learn from each other (e.g. about the structure of the various GEPs, the good practice model of transfer agents, recruitment and retention activities, etc.). At a European level CHANGE established and maintained close contact with policy actors (especially from the Standing Working Group on Gender in Research and Innovation), and many sister projects, to support cross-project exchange and synergy, including joint policy recommendations, joint conferences and publications, mutual support in awareness campaigns and mutual invitations to give advice and inputs at project meetings.
The actual practices of knowledge co-creation among CHANGErs – in their organisations and with RPO and RFO stakeholders – had been diverse, however the overall goals to value these different types of knowledge, and produce ‘customised knowledge’ have been realized by all partners. This change process succeeded by building on iterative learning cycles of communicative interaction, action and reflection, and following an organisational change model in five steps (gender benchmarking – feedback – quick actions – mid-term actions – sustainable long-term actions). Two of these steps have proven to be immensely important: The first success factor was involving TAs (e.g. managers, gender equality officers) from the beginning, which has not only supported the implementation of GEPs but will foster the sustainable long-term change in the research organisations even after CHANGE has ended. The second success factor was a rapid action phase to generate short-term wins. These quick wins motivated employees and made the positive impact of organisational change immediately visible.
Through capacity building and networking within the consortium, with advisors and stakeholders, all CHANGErs became gender experts for providing gender equality knowledge and expertise not only within their organisations but also in their regions or country-wide. This can be seen in one of the outcomes of CHANGE, the open-access publication “Customised CHANGE – Co-Producing Gender Equality Knowledge in Science and Research” (https://www.change-h2020.eu/bilder/CustomisedCHANGECo-ProducingGenderEqualityKnowledgeinScienceandResearch-2022.pdf) in which all CHANGErs contributed with their gender knowledge and their GEP experiences. The book is also proof that our strategy of co-producing knowledge with stakeholders was successful: in total 42 people – practitioners, who started from scratch, gender experts, managers of RPOs and RFOs, and policymakers – contributed to the publication. The online book itself is as diverse as CHANGErs are. It offers theory-based reflections on persistent gender inequalities in RPOs, personal stories of learnings during the GEP design and implementation process, and interviews with CHANGErs and experts, with a focus on Central and Eastern European countries (CEE) to offer knowledge about gender equality work in the presence of deeply-rooted political and social resistance.
Implementing gender equality in science and research is not a short-term undertaking, and it is certainly not finished when a GEP-document with several planned activities is written. In other words, implementing a GEP is a marathon, not a sprint. This is why the long-term success of CHANGE can only be measured in the future. However, the implemented policies and practices in the involved institutions, the changed attitudes and co-produced gender knowledge, and established communities and networks are certainly a very important basis for a sustainable impact of CHANGE.
Implementing gender equality in science and research is not a short-term undertaking, and it is certainly not finished when a GEP-document with several planned activities is written. In other words, implementing a GEP is a marathon, not a sprint. This is why the long-term success of CHANGE can only be measured in the future. However, the implemented policies and practices in the involved institutions, the changed attitudes and co-produced gender knowledge, and established communities and networks are certainly a very important basis for a sustainable impact of CHANGE.