Keywords

1 Introduction

Gender equality has been becoming increasingly important ever since the mid-20th century. Following its recognition as a human right in the principal international and regional declarations of rights [1], academic and institutional interest has progressively focused on how to make it effective [2]. As a result of the contributions made for this purpose, we have both a wide range of strategies for making gender equality effective (gender mainstreaming, affirmative actions, gender balance, work-life balance, etc.) and a rich set of methodologies and tools designed to put them into practice (gender analysis, gender statistics and indicators, gender audits, gender budgeting, gender-responsive public procurement, and so on).

Research and Innovation (R&I) has also been concerned with gender equality, meeting obstacles and resistance similar to those encountered in other areas of public involvement [3]. This situation followed the pattern observed in many other areas, which have moved from gender blindness to making it relevant, mainly as a consequence of the contributions of academic feminism [4]. However, this process has also had its ups and downs [5], interruptions [6] and even setbacks in periods of crisis [7].

Recently, the Responsible Research and Innovation model (hereinafter, RRI) promoted by the European Union, has conceived gender equality as one of its six key areas [8]. This approach gives a new direction to the relationship between gender equality and R&I, both because it departs from gender mainstreaming in the strict sense – that is, as a dimension that should be present in the other key areas – and because of its new implications for understanding R&I.

The purpose of this chapter is to contrast the reduction of gender equality to an area of RRI with its definition as a transversal dimension that must be integrated into any facet of R&I; find out the state of the relationship between gender equality and R&I, paying special attention to the most important challenges to be faced; showcase Gender Equality Plans as a leading tool chosen by the European Commission in its Horizon Program for funding R&I; and explain the main components and factors of the European Institute for Gender Equality’s Gender Mainstreaming Platform, as they are extremely useful for integrating gender mainstreaming in a more complete, systematic and coherent way in any organization, including those involved in R&I.

2 Gender Mainstreaming as a Multifaceted Concept

Since the World Conference in Beijing in 1995 [9], it has not been controversial to state, both in the academic and institutional spheres, that equality between women and men can only be achieved if the gender perspective is mainstreamed right across the operation and performance of an organization, whatever its territorial level (international, regional, State, autonomous community or local) or its scope of competences (general or sectorial; such as R&I). Together with positive action, gender mainstreaming forms an essential strategy for making equality between women and men effective [10].

On the other hand, there is not the same level of consensus over the meaning that should be given to gender mainstreaming. This is an issue that, along with the theoretical implications it leaves unresolved, also has important practical consequences, as it directly affects the way it is integrated in organizations and in their ethical systems of governance [11,12,13].

If the available approaches are studied, it can be appreciated that both the way of understanding gender mainstreaming, and, above all, of making it operational, differ depending on the level at which it is overseen (global, regional, State or local); the degree of regulatory and institutional development of the equality of women and men (constitutional and legal framework, government structure, specialized agencies); the strength of the political commitment to equality; the budgetary effort devoted to public policies, and the technical and professional resources available to apply them, among many other factors [14, 15]. This assessment implies that the definition of gender mainstreaming is closely embedded with the political, institutional and organizational context in which it is supposed to take shape [16]. In fact, European R&I policies have sought a way of integrating the gender perspective, at least since the ETAN Report in 2001 [17].

If the most influential definitions available on mainstreaming are addressed [18], the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, in its Agreed Conclusions (1997/2), sees it both as a process and as a strategy, in the following terms:Footnote 1

the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in any field and at all levels. It is a strategy to make the experiences and concerns of women and men an integral part of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and social spheres, in such a way that women and men benefit equally, preventing the perpetuation of inequality. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality.

The Council of Europe, through its group of experts, defined gender mainstreaming in 1997, paying special attention to its results and to the subjects responsible for adopting it, as follows [19]:

the (re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy-making.

For its part, the European Union has understood gender mainstreaming as a strategy complementary to positive actions, in such a way that public intervention is not reduced to carrying out specific measures to favour women, but rather explicitly mobilizes all general actions and policies with a view to equality, actively and visibly taking into account in their design their possible effects on the respective situations of men and women (“gender perspective”) [20]. For the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), the European Union agency specializing in this issueFootnote 2, adopting gender mainstreaming involves integrating the gender perspective in the preparation, design, monitoring and evaluation of policies, regulatory measures and spending programmes, with the aim of promoting equality between women and men and fighting discrimination [21].

The Organization of American States has also addressed gender mainstreaming, which it has defined using the same terms as the United Nations Economic and Social Council [22] (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Main international and regional definitions and identification of gender mainstreaming.

Full size image

Consideration of the meaning given to mainstreaming in the definitions compiled here allows us to see that it is conceived at the same time as a process, a strategy, an evaluation and some results. Above all, it does not have a specific enough meaning for it to be useful in determining what integrating it implies for a research institution [23] and for its development of responsible research and open science.

3 Gender Mainstreaming and R&I

The study of the gender issue, like the other key areas of RRI on the EU agenda (ethics, governance, public engagement, scientific education and open access), predates the formulation of this approach to research and innovation by the European Commission in 2010. While the literature on gender equality in R&I is abundant, with a history dating back at least to the 1990s [24], and while it continues to grow [25], the same is not true of its relationship with RRI either in the theoretical field of its conceptualization [26], or in the practice of RRI [27], or in the existing perceptions of RRI [28].

If, as most contributions do, we accept the European Commission’s proposal [29], gender equality in R&I comprises three facets: a) women’s integration – horizontally as well as hierarchically – in all organizations working on R&I, b) integration of a gender perspective in policies and funding initiatives for the promotion of a structural change to identify implicit and explicit barriers, and c) integration of a gender perspective in research. Intersectionality has recently been added as another facet of gender equality in R&I [30].

The literature that studies gender equality in R&I agrees on the persistence of gender barriers in academia and in research in the form of difficulties, obstacles and resistance that must be faced [31, 32]. The main limitations that the contributions have found are directly related to three of the facets that have been stated:

  • the increase in the presence of women in all organizations that work in R&I [33], both horizontally and vertically (glass ceiling, sticky floor, slippery ladders and, particularly, leaky pipeline), due to both gender prejudices and stereotypes (gender bias) as well as job insecurity in science and innovation [34]. The imbalance is particularly clear in STEM areas of knowledge [35].

  • The question of whether there are work-life balance policies or specific programs to improve the women’s skills for promotion at work can also be an obstacle [24].

  • the introduction of the gender perspective into actions or funding to produce a structural change [36].

  • the integration of gender into the content and development of R&I and training [28].

The existence of many problems of gender equality implementation and evaluation in R&I and the general lack of a systematic understanding of the mechanisms underlying this issue have also been pointed out [24]; for example, having to permanently negotiate what gender equality means [31]. Some contributions point to a particular problem of outstanding importance for the purpose of this book: reducing gender equality to one of the key areas of RRI, instead of mainstreaming gender to integrate it into all dimensions of RRI [28].

While the facet that has most often been put into practice is the increase in women’s participation in R&I, the aspect that has received the least attention is the introduction of gender as content and development of R&I [29]. One factor that explains this disparity is the autonomy of R&I organizations, especially university ones, in defining and implementing each of the four facets mentioned [34]. The idea is to carry out a broad policy mix, which individually supports the career of women in R&I while overcoming discriminatory institutional structures [37] – a mixed approach that has also been pointed out in other contributions [31].

There is no single mechanism to institutionalize the gender dimension in R&I, but different forms or models of institutionalization and governance have been identified, although not always sufficiently coordinated with one other:

  • Developing and applying Gender Equality Plans in organizations and research institutions [38] or, in terms of organizational culture and governance, creating gender-friendly workplace cultures [39].

  • Having a monitoring system that uses statistics and gender indicators [29].

  • Establishing gender equality as a criterion for quality or excellence in research [28]; for example, introducing the gender perspective in the international mobility of research staff [40].

  • Applying mechanisms for evaluating gender equality results [41].

  • Enforcing national legislation on gender equality, approving charters or agreements with organizational or institutional principles, applying quotas, launching programmes or initiatives with specific funding – or modernizing the requirements for obtaining funding – providing information and supporting structures for small or local organizations [34]. Although the application of specific national legislation on gender equality institutionalizes this dimension, it also limits it, as R&I organizations limit themselves to complying with it without realizing they can also adopt other measures [27].

  • Training in equality and identifying good practices in gender equality in the field of science and innovation [40].

  • Training or skilling researchers in gender, without the need for them to become specialists in the field, has also been identified as a good practice [28]. An alternative is helping staff who are experts in gender equality with research, although this generates a degree of dependency [24].

A process of institutionalizing these instruments and mechanisms has been observed, although many of them were initially implemented as good practices (such as equality plans, monitoring, balanced presence, equality units, etc.). It has also been observed that the number and variety of governance tools available are directly related to the level of development of each of the four facets indicated above.

Sometimes, implementation is imposed by legal regulations in certain countries. In the case of the European Union, the Gender Equality Plan (GEP) has been chosen as the main tool for gender mainstreaming in R&I [42], as in 2022 it became an eligibility criterion for access to public and private institutions, research organizations and higher education bodies for funding from the Horizon Europe Framework Program for Research and Innovation 2021–2027 [43].

In summary, the GEP must necessarily include two dimensions: firstly, four requirements related to the processes of the research organization: 1) its expression in a formal, public document, adopted by senior management and communicated within the institution; 2) the dedication of resources and expert knowledge for its implementation; 3) the collection of data broken down by gender and its monitoring through annual reports based on indicators; and 4) awareness-raising and training on gender equality; and, secondly, five recommended thematic areas: a) work-life balance and the organization’s culture, b) the balanced presence of women and men in leadership and decision-making, c) equality in staff selection and professional promotion, d) the integration of the gender dimension in research and e) measures against gender violence including sexual harassment [44].

If the content of the GEP incorporates a good number of the mechanisms and instruments indicated throughout this section and makes it easier for R&I organizations to institutionalize them, the main result of its application should be that the gender mainstreaming cycle becomes standard practice in the organization. As a result there should be a structural change [45] that transforms the processes and results of the research it produces.

4 The European Institute for Gender Equality’s Gender Mainstreaming Platform

Although GEPs represent a significant practical step forward in addressing the most pressing issues highlighted in the contributions on gender equality in R&I, there is still a long way together before gender mainstreaming is fully implemented in R&I organizations, at least if its content is compared with the contribution EIGE has made on gender mainstreaming with its Gender Mainstreaming Platform [21].

From a merely formal point of view, the EIGE Gender Mainstreaming Platform is a section of its website devoted to publicizing the way this EU agency understands gender mainstreaming. However, from a material point of view, the EIGE’s Gender Mainstreaming Platform simultaneously provides an Instruction Manual for mainstreaming the gender perspective and an Operation Manual so that gender mainstreaming can operate permanently. The EIGE Platform provides an Instruction Manual because this provides the components (or parts) of mainstreaming, describes them sufficiently, offers examples of good practices and, in many cases, provides manuals, guides or toolboxes to help implement them in organizations. In addition, the Platform also offers an Operating Manual for mainstreaming because, after having explained how these components or pieces should operate individually, it describes their joint and permanent operation through the mainstreaming cycle. That makes it interesting and useful for developing ethical governance systems for responsible research that mainstream gender equality (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Gender Mainstreaming Cycle.

Full size image

According to the mainstreaming cycle, the gender perspective must be implemented in the definition, planning, implementation and evaluation processes of any organization, in both its internal or organizational dimension and in its external dimension (that intended for the public).

As can be seen, the Platform not only provides gender mainstreaming instruments or tools, it also places special emphasis on their interaction and on the importance of the processes to ensure their implementation is correct. Not surprisingly, methodology is one of the most characteristic features that the literature has highlighted in gender mainstreaming [11], to the point that it has been described as a concept-method [46].

The EIGE’s Gender Mainstreaming Platform provides five components involved in the comprehensive application of this strategy in such a way that, without one or several of these five components, or with a limited or incomplete application of any of them, mainstreaming cannot be sufficiently integrated.

According to the EIGE, the five components of gender mainstreaming are the strategy, the dimensions, the conditions, the working methods and tools and, finally, the results. The five components mentioned, in turn, consist of a variable number of factors totalling 29 in all.

Figure 3 below shows the 29 factors of the Gender Mainstreaming Platform classified according to the five components they make up:

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Components and factors of the EIGE’s Gender Mainstreaming Platform.

Full size image

The five components of the Platform, as well as the factors making up each component, are described in the following five subsections.

4.1 Component 1. The Gender Mainstreaming Strategy

The gender mainstreaming strategy involves two factors, without which it would no longer be a true mainstream strategy for effective equality of women and men: political commitment to mainstreaming and the appropriate legal framework for integrating and applying the strategy.

The R&I institution can promote the effective equality of women and men with different kinds of policies without these two factors (equal treatment, equal opportunities, even positive actions, etc.), or with only one of them, but both are essential for truly mainstream integration of the gender perspective.

The EIGE Platform also calls these two factors of the strategic component of mainstreaming “basic conditions”, suggesting that they are fundamental for the strategy to be fully viable.

4.2 Component 2. The Two Dimensions of Gender Mainstreaming

Gender mainstreaming must be deployed in two dimensions: the presence of women and men in the organization, and the incorporation of equality between women and men as part of the content of its involvement in R&I. These are two factors that must once again be present in all the phases that the R&I intervention goes through (definition, planning, implementation and evaluation).

4.3 Component 3. The Conditions of Gender Mainstreaming

If legally recognizing gender mainstreaming as a strategy and publicly expressing commitment at the highest level to it are two “basic conditions” for integrating it across the board in an organization, they are not enough for mainstreaming to be deployed in the two dimensions we have mentioned: the balanced presence of women and men, and effective equality in the content of their R&I activities.

To mainstream the gender perspective, the institution also needs to meet at least seven conditions linked to its governance systems, at least to some extent: having a plan to implement gender mainstreaming; having organizational structures to carry it out;, having sufficient technical, human and economic resources to achieve it; being accountable during its implementation; learning more and better about gender mainstreaming during its implementation; having staff trained in gender mainstreaming; and having stakeholders involved in R&I.

Listing the factors in this order does not imply that they should be adopted consecutively or sequentially because, as has been noted, they are mutually interrelated, so the adoption of any one of them favours the implementation of others and, at the same time, all the factors suffer when one is not operational.

4.4 Component 4. Gender Mainstreaming Methods and Tools

The fourth component of the EIGE Gender Mainstreaming Platform contains the methods to be applied and the tools to be used to mainstream gender. This is a component that pays particular attention to the instrumental content of gender mainstreaming and is fundamentally operational. This component shows a particularly close relationship with Component 3. Conditions of the Platform, as it largely provides the necessary equipment for compliance with the conditions for gender mainstreaming.

The institution’s work must use the following methods and tools so that the gender perspective is mainstreamed: gender analysis, gender auditing, awareness-raising, budgets with a gender perspective, equality training, evaluation, gender impact assessment, gender indicators, monitoring, planning, social equality clauses in public procurement, statistics, data broken down by gender, stakeholder consultation and institutional transformation.

It should be noted that the Platform does not precisely classify the 15 factors of this component into two groups, assigning certain factors to the set of methods and the rest to the set of tools. For example, it classifies Factor 13. Gender audit as a tool and as a method of mainstreaming; it describes Factor 14. Awareness-raising as a method and as a tool at the same time; it explains that Factor 15. Budgets with a gender perspective consists of both a tool and an approach to mainstreaming; and it considers that Factor 16. Equality training is not just another tool, but rather is part of a broader set of mainstreaming tools, instruments and strategies.

4.5 Component 5. The Results of Gender Mainstreaming

The fifth and final component (“Results”) shows the results that must be derived from mainstreaming, formulated fundamentally in terms of improving the quality of the organization’s intervention: policies are better formulated, the institution works better and its processes are more effective.

4.6 Characteristics of the Factors of the EIGE’S Gender Mainstreaming Platform

If the Platform’s 29 factors are analysed, it is possible to list some characteristics that make it easier to understand them better, and also to draw up a classification in line with the character they share.

  • The factors are very different, ranging from political commitment or the legal framework to measuring the improvements in the processes and the results the institution achieves, including the material resources it dedicates to this and the methods its staff uses. As a result they are not homogeneous, as they refer to a wide range of variables directly related to all facets of public intervention, from the binding legal framework to the training of staff responsible for their implementation.

  • In many cases, the factors are mutually dependent, although with a different degree of intensity. Depending on their level of dependence or autonomy with respect to the rest of the factors, they can be classified into primary factors (compliance does not directly depend on other factors; for example, the regulatory framework of application, which comes before the dimensions, conditions, methods and results, and is not necessarily linked to political commitment) and secondary (compliance depends on the implementation of one or more of the other factors; for example, gender-sensitive evaluation, which depends on the gender analysis and evaluation as methodologies being adopted first).

  • The way the implementation of each factor is demonstrated is not uniform either, as there are factors whose compliance can be shown through a single piece of evidence (simple factors; for example, an institutional declaration of political commitment to mainstreaming), while others need two or more pieces of evidence (complex factors; for example, awareness of equality).

Figure 4, inserted below, shows the classification of each factor depending on its degree of dependency on the other factors and according to the amount of evidence necessary to demonstrate compliance with it.

Fig. 4.
figure 4

Matrix of factors depending on their interdependence with other factors and the means of demonstrating compliance.

Full size image

5 Discussion

Recognition of gender equality in the main international and European texts on human rights in the mid-20th century has encouraged the formulation of strategies and mechanisms to make it effective. This has been occurring in R&I at least since the beginning of the 21st century. Among these strategies, gender mainstreaming has occupied a prominent place for the last 30 years, even though it is a multifaceted concept whose operational application is neither direct nor easy.

Advances in gender equality and gender mainstreaming have been slow, costly and often fragile, and their development in R&I has not been any more straightforward. The reflection on gender equality in R&I is the accumulation of at least three decades of work, in which the difficulties, obstacles and resistance to achieving it have been sufficiently shown in relation to three facets: a) women’s integration – horizontally as well as hierarchically – in all organizations working on R&I, b) integration of a gender perspective in policies and funding initiatives for the promotion of a structural change to identify implicit and explicit barriers, and c) integration of a gender perspective in research. Only recently has intersectionality been added as a fourth facet of the relationship between gender equality and R&I.

The reflection on gender equality and R&I has barely addressed the new approach represented by RRI. Two reasons can be put forward to explain this: it is an approach that, despite its potential, has not yet become widely established either in European culture nor in institutional practice on R&I; and RRI systematizes gender equality as one of its six keys without sufficiently noting that it is an overall dimension that must also be present in the other keys established by the European agenda: ethics, governance, public engagement, open access and scientific education.

Among the many gender mainstreaming methods and tools indicated to tackle the gender equality challenges in R&I, the Horizon Europe research funding program has chosen Gender Equality Plans (GEP) as a reference instrument for implementing gender mainstreaming in R&I organizations that want to obtain its aid. This decision represents progress for gender equality in R&I, as it addresses the main challenges in the facets that have been set out by institutionalizing a good number of gender mainstreaming methods and tools. However, it does not exhaust all the possibilities available for an organization to fully integrate gender mainstreaming. Hence the importance and opportunity of mainstreaming gender equality in the ethical governance systems of research in R&I development and funding centres.

Through five components and 29 factors, the EIGE’s Gender Mainstreaming Platform provides a more complete operational approach than the GEP for an R&I organization to integrate the gender mainstreaming cycle and achieve a true institutional transformation. However, the Platform maintains a complementary relationship with GEPs, as knowledge and the application of it can help appreciably not only in preparing, implementing and evaluating GEPs in better conditions, but also in enhancing their content to achieve better results in the processes, the operations and research results of R&I organizations.

The conclusions formulated allow us to argue that gender equality in RRI faces a double challenge: firstly, RRI itself is not yet definitively established in the European culture or institutional practice of R&I, at least if one takes into account the content of the Horizon Europe Framework Programme 2021–2027. And, secondly, there is the fact that the application of gender mainstreaming across the board, intended to produce a structural change in the organization, operation and activities of R&I organizations and, consequently, in the research and innovation stemming from them, is still far from being a standard in R&I governance.