Bilimoria, D., & Wheeler, J. (2000). Women corporate directors: Current research and future directions. Current Research Issues, 2, 138–163.
Google Scholar
BMBF: Federal Ministry of Education and Science (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung). (2016). Pakt für Forschung und Innovation. Retrieved March 13, 2018, from https://www.bmbf.de/de/pakt-fuer-forschung-und-innovation-546.html.
BMBF: Federal Ministry of Education and Science (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung). (2018). Bekanntmachung. Richtlinie zur Umsetzung des Professorinnenprogramms des Bundes und der Länder zur Förderung der Gleichstellung von Frauen und Männern in Wissenschaft und Forschung an deutschen Hochschulen—Professorinnenprogramm III. Bundesanzeiger vom 21.02.2018 https://www.bmbf.de/foerderungen/bekanntmachung-1600.html vom 13.03.2018.
Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E., Jingjing, M., Isaac, M. S., & David, G. (2016). Is eco-friendly unmanly? The Green-Feminine Stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 567–582.
Article
Google Scholar
Bührer, S., & Frietsch, R. (2020). How do public investments in gender equality initiatives and publication patterns interrelate? The case of Germany. Evaluation and Program Planning, 79, 101769.
Article
Google Scholar
Bührer, S., & Yorulmaz, M. (2019). The manifold benefits of gender equality and (responsible) research & innovation. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from https://www.efforti.eu/sites/default/files/2019-10/Efforti_Overview_Performance_Effects_GenderDiversity.pdf.
Bustelo, M. (2017). Evaluation from a gender + perspective as a key element for (re)gendering the policymaking process. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 38(1), 84–101.
Article
Google Scholar
Campbell, L. G., Mehtani, S., Dozier, M. E., & Rinehart, J. (2013). Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e79147.
Article
Google Scholar
Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Book
Google Scholar
Civitas. (2020). Smart choices for cities. Gender equality and mobility: mind the gap! Cleaner and better transport in cities (CIVITAS), 2020.
Cosley, D., Forte, A., Ciolfi, L., & McDonald, D. (Eds.). (2015). Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. The 18th ACM conference. Vancouver, BC, Canada. New York, NY: ACM.
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2012). The evaluation society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar
Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und evaluation in den sozial- und humanwissenschaften. Berlin: Springer.
Book
Google Scholar
Espinosa, J. F. (2013). Towards a gender sensitive evaluation? Practices and challenges in international development evaluation. Evaluation, 19(2), 171–182.
Article
Google Scholar
European Commission (Ed.). (2015a). Indicators for promoting and monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation. Brussels.
European Commission. (2015b). She figures 2015: Gender in research and innovation. Brüssel. Retrieved September 30, 2017, from https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/she_figures_2015-final.pdf.
European Union. (2016). European innovation scoreboard 2016. Brussels: European Union.
Google Scholar
European Union (Ed.). Research innovation observatory. https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/stats/key-indicators.
Eurostat. (2016). Average number of actual weekly hours of work in main job, by sex, professional status, full-time/part-time and occupation (hours). Retrieved from http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=lfsa_ewhais&lang=en.
Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
GARCIA. Gendering the academy and research: combating career instability and asymmetries. http://garciaproject.eu/.
GEDII. Gender diversity impact—Improving research and innovation through gender diversity. https://www.gedii.eu/.
GENERA. Gender equality network in the European research area. https://genera-project.com/.
GenPORT. (2017). E-discussion: Gender balance in decision-making in research organisations. Retrieved from http://www.genderportal.eu/group/e-discussion-gender-balance-decision-making-research-organisations.
GESIS. (2017). Evaluation des Professorinnenprogramms des Bundes und der Länder: Zweite Programmphase und Gesamtevaluation. Abschlussbericht. Januar 2017. Beauftragt vom Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Download: http://www.gwk-bonn.de/fileadmin/Papers/Evaluation_des_Professorinnenpro-gramms-Bericht_Januar_2017.pdf. am 13.03.2017.
GWK: Joint Science Conference (Gemeinsame Wissenschaftskonferenz). (2012). Pakt für Forschung und Innovation. Monitoring-Bericht 2012. Heft 28. http://www.gwk-bonn.de/themen/wissenschaftspakte/pakt-fuer-forschung-und-innovation/.
GWK: Joint Science Conference (Gemeinsame Wissenschaftskonferenz). (2016). Chancengleichheit in Wissenschaft und Forschung. 20. Fortschreibung des Datenmaterials (2014/2015) zu Frauen in Hochschulen und außerhochschulischen Forschungseinrichtungen. Retrieved from http://www.gwk-bonn.de/fileadmin/Papers/GWK-Heft-50-Chancengleichheit.pdf.
GWK: Joint Science Conference (Gemeinsame Wissenschaftskonferenz). (2018). Pakt für Forschung und Innovation. Monitoring-Bericht 2018. Heft 58. http://www.gwk-bonn.de/themen/wissenschaftspakte/pakt-fuer-forschung-und-innovation/.
Halpern, D. F. (2014). It’s complicated—In fact, it’s complex: Explaining the gender gap in academic achievement in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15, 72–74.
Article
Google Scholar
HIVOS. (2014). Gender and theories of change: 4th E-discussion June 2014, end note.
Horbach, J., & Jacob, J. (2017). The relevance of personal characteristics and gender diversity for (eco-)innovation activities at the firm-level. Results from a linked employer-employee database in Germany. Business Strategy and The Environment, 27(7), 924–934.
Article
Google Scholar
Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., & Graversen, E. K. (2020). Developing a conceptual evaluation framework for gender equality interventions in research and innovation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 79, 101750.
Article
Google Scholar
Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., & Cacace, M. (2017). Addressing gender inequality in science. The multifaceted challenge of assessing impact. Research Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx003.
Article
Google Scholar
Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., Bührer, S., Schraudner, M., Reidl, S. Müller, J., et al. (2018). A conceptual evaluation framework for promoting gender equality in research and innovation. Toolbox I—A synthesis report. EFFORTI—Deliverable 3.3.
Knowlton, L. W., & Phillips, C. C. (2012). The logic model guidebook: Better strategies for great results. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Google Scholar
McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (2004). Using logic models. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, 2, 7–32.
Google Scholar
Martin, B. (2011). The research excellence framework and the impact agenda: are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation, 20(3), 247–254.
Article
Google Scholar
Mayne, J., & Johnson, N. (2015). Using theories of change in the agriculture for nutrition and health CGIAR research program. Evaluation, 21(4), 407–428.
Article
Google Scholar
Niessen, C., Sonnentag, S., Neff, A., & Unger, D. (2010). Ressourcen und Belastungen von Doppelkarrierepaaren in der Wssenschaft—eine arbeitspsychologische Perspektive. In E. Gramespacher, J. Funk, & I. Rothäusler (Eds.), Dual Career Couples an Hochschulen Zwischen Wissenschaft, Praxis und Politik (pp. 75–88). Barbara Budrich: Opladen.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Nutley, S., Huw, D., & Walter, I. (2002). Evidence based policy and practice: Cross sector lessons from the UK. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice. Working paper 9. London.
OECD. (2014). Science, technology and industry outlook 2014. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Book
Google Scholar
OECD. (2015). Science, technology and industry scoreboard 2015. Innovation for growth and society. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Book
Google Scholar
Okamura, K. (2019). Interdisciplinarity revisited: evidence for research impact and dynamism. Palgrave Commun. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0352-4.
Article
Google Scholar
Powell, A., Hassan, T. M., Dainty, A., & Carter, C. (2009). Note. Exploring gender differences in construction research: a European perspective. Construction Management and Economics, 27(9), 803–807.
Article
Google Scholar
PRAGES. Practicing gender equality in science. http://www.pragesdatabase.eu/.
Ravn, T., Nielsen, M. W., & Mejlgaard, N. (2015a). Synthesis report on existing indicators across RRI dimensions. Progress report D3.1. Monitoring the evolution and benefits of responsible research and innovation (MoRRI). www.technopolis-group.com/morri/.
Ravn, T., Nielsen, M. W., & Mejlgaard, N. (2015b). Metrics and indicators of responsible research and innovation. Progress report D3.2. Monitoring the evolution and benefits of responsible research and innovation (MoRRI). www.technopolis-group.com/morri/.
Reale, E., Avramov, D., Canhial, K., Donovan, C., Flecha, R., Holm, P., et al. (2017). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 298–308.
Article
Google Scholar
Reale, E., Nedeva, M., Thomas, D., & Primeri, E. (2014). Evaluation through impact: A different viewpoint. Fteval Journal, 39, 36–41.
Google Scholar
Rogers, P. J. (2008). Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14(1), 29–48.
Article
Google Scholar
Rommes, E. (2014). Feminist interventions in the design process. In W. Ernst & I. Horwath (Eds.), Gender in science and technology interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 41–55). Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Google Scholar
Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning, and evidence based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1–22.
Article
Google Scholar
Schultz, I., & Stiess, I. (2009). Gender aspects of sustainable consumption strategies and instruments. EUPOPP work package 1, deliverable 1.1. Frankfurt/Main: Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE).
Solesbury, W. (2001). Evidence based policy: Whence it came and where it’s going. In: ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice (Ed.). Working paper 1. London.
STAGES. Structural transformation to achieve gender equality in science.
Timmers, T. M., Willemsen, T. M., & Tijdens, K. G. (2010). Gender diversity policies in universities: A multi-perspective framework of policy measures. Higher Education, 59, 719–735.
Article
Google Scholar
Tower, G., Plummer, J., & Ridgewell, B. (2011). A multidisciplinary study of gender-based research productivity in the world’s best journals. Journal of Diversity Management, 2(4), 23–32.
Article
Google Scholar
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research. Design and methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Google Scholar
Van Belle, S. B., Marchal, B., Dubourg, D., & Kegels, G. (2010). How to develop a theory driven evaluation design? Lessons learned from an adolescent sexual and reproductive health programme in West Africa. BMC Public Health, 10, 741.
Article
Google Scholar
Vogel, I. (2012). Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’ in international development. London: Review Report.
Wang, J., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127298. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127298.
Article
Google Scholar
Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2012). Explaining gender differences in concern about environmental problems in the United States. Society and Natural Resources, 25, 1067–1084.
Article
Google Scholar