Conclusions on mainstreaming gender in the projects

As in the previous chapters, the starting point for the analysis of the gender mainstreaming implementation at the project level is to first pinpoint where variability and unevenness have occurred, and then to see how these can be explained in terms of the factors set out in Chapter two: has a confusion or misunderstanding on concepts played a role, were one or more key conditions for effective gender mainstreaming not fulfilled, has resistance been manifested, and how have the EC organisational features impeded a better gender mainstreaming implementation?

This chapter has looked at the integration of gender considerations in the projects, both in terms of their design and in their implementation, looking at women’s participation and at gender in the content.

Across the board, the research shows that the approach taken to gender in FP6 has brought about real results: the share of gender-integrated projects has risen significantly in comparison to FP5 (in the area of socio-economic sciences, the share of gender-integrated projects tripled from FP5 to FP6) and the awareness-raising effect in the research community has been substantial. Still, the uptake of gender issues and the efforts undertaken by the actors have been uneven: some were substantial (gender-specific projects were submitted and approved for funding under Priority 7 even in the absence of gender-specific calls, examples of projects were identified that had comprehensively embedded gender in their project design and implementation), many were lip service (gender being mentioned in the proposal, but not

integrated in the project planning). The research shows this is the case not only among the applicants, but also among the proposal evaluators (who tended to ignore the gender dimension if gender issues were not mentioned in the proposal, although exceptions were identified who did point out the projects’ shortcomings in terms of gender when gender was not addressed in the proposal) and project officers within the European Commission (who, in general, did not seem to have adequately followed up the projects’ performances in terms of gender).

This uneven uptake and the variable efforts are noticeable in various respects. Projects showed a better integration of gender issues where the formal framework programme provisions (work programme and call topics) specified gender and/or identified specific topics with gender relevance. Some themes’ and topics’ gender relevance also appeared clearer than others’, and this reflected in how gender was addressed in the project contents.

Several more elements of variability were found. Where projects undertook to consider gender issues, the tendency has been towards focussing on women’s participation (the ‘counting heads’ phenomenon), whereas ‘the gender dimension of the research content’ appeared more difficult to grasp and was consequently less addressed. A noteworthy difference has been noted between female and male project coordinators: female coordinators are more likely than their male counterparts to integrate gender issues in their proposal, to put in place a gender balanced team, to foresee gender expertise in the team and to foresee structural provisions in their project design so that gender can be tackled. Gender issues have been addressed in the projects in variable ways: often in a fragmented way (for example, partly considered in the research activities, but not in the research hypotheses, not in the resources, nor in the planned outputs), sometimes in a comprehensive way, embedded in the project cycle. This finding concerns the staged approach to gender that was followed (or not) in the projects, and is consistent with the marked difference that has been found between the proposals / technical annexes (corresponding to the project planning stage) and the project reporting (corresponding to the project implementation stage), the latter clearly showing a (much) weaker consideration of gender issues than appeared from the proposal. This is a clear sign of ‘evaporation’: of gender-related promises not being kept, at least in part due to the fact that these commitments were not strictly followed up by the EC project officers. Lastly, unevenness has been identified also in time: a deterioration of how gender was dealt with was noticeable towards the end of FP6 (more clearly so in the Social Sciences and Humanities domain than in Science and Society).

How can this variability and unevenness be explained? Considering whether there might have been problems with the understanding of the gender equality goal under FP6, the absence can be noted of an explicit formulation of the transformative goal of the gender policy in FP6. Still, as we have seen that a large share of the proposals does integrate gender in their planning to some extent, it does not seem that this lack of an explicit transformative aim, nor ambiguity on the meaning of terms explain the overall rather disappointing results in

terms of gender mainstreaming in the projects. Rather, a lack of capacity among all actors, notably to understand how gender may relate to their research subject and to adequately integrate gender into the different stages of their project cycle, is a more likely explanation. The analysis performed of the research projects in the ‘Science in Society’ and ‘Social Sciences and Humanities’ parts of FP6, suggests that the absence of accompanying measures, notably for awareness-raising and capacity building, targeting the various actors involved in the process is an important explanatory factor for the shortcomings in projects’ gender approach. It is especially interesting to see that the projects (with a few exceptions) have not addressed gender as a ‘staged process’ in their projects (a requirement which could have been pointed out had capacity-building been undertaken) and that their fragmented approach (notably when no resources are planned for the implementation of gender-related activities) partly explains the fact that results remain below expectations.

The approach taken by the EC to gender mainstreaming in FP6 has been a continuation of the earlier policy choice of encouraging research with, for and about women, and aimed at improving the structural provisions for gender mainstreaming planned at the framework programme level, based on the lessons learnt from FP5. It did not break in any way with the earlier gender in research policy, but showed a consistent path. As such, it can be concluded that capacity for gender mainstreaming was fostered and growing at the EC framework programme level. However, while a new tool, the Gender Action Plan (or GAP) was developed and introduced to support the integration of gender issues in the largest projects (see Chapter 6), no specific accompanying measures were taken to raise awareness for gender issues among those (interested in) taking part in the Framework Programme. Neither were capacity-building efforts for any of the actors undertaken. On top of this, the electronic reporting system which should have served the monitoring of the projects’ performances, including in terms of gender, has not been fully functional, and this was not remedied in the course of the process (as also addressed in Chapter 7). These are all indications that insufficient resources were made available for gender mainstreaming in FP6.

A consequence of this lack of capacity among the actors, in particular to grasp the possible gender issues in relation to the subject of the research to be undertaken, and of the non- effective accountability measures has been a shrinking of the consideration of gender in the projects towards a focus on equal opportunities and women’s participation.

The research has revealed an evaporation of gender-related commitments at the project level, which in turn has led to ‘policy evaporation’ as the aggregate result of the disappointing performance of the projects has been that outcomes in terms gender mainstreaming at framework programme level have remained below expectations too. We have identified inconsistencies (in terms of ‘equipment’ of the actors, in terms of rhetorics versus practice), lack of coherence (between what was expected from applicants and what was followed up later in the process) and lack of structurally embedded resources in the policy implementation framework, and I argue that these are likely explanations for the ‘policy evaporation’.

As project officers did not appear to be very demanding on the part of the projects where gender performance was concerned, and were themselves not held accountable for this (too) soft approach, the achievements in terms of gender integration in the projects have gone down as FP6 progressed. This finding suggests that the policy evaporation effect has been reinforced by the lack of accountability structures.

An important finding from the research relates to the role and space of actors to make a difference. The analysis has brought to the fore that projects coordinated by women are in general doing better where the integration of gender in the research design and content is concerned. Also are these projects more likely to have a good gender balance, and to structurally ensure attention for gender issues and equal opportunities. Still, as shown in the previous chapter, success rates of female coordinators do not differ from those of men. This means that, while the projects coordinated by women are more likely to correspond better to the criteria put forward for ‘excellent research’, this quality does not reflect in higher success rates, which is more than likely a sign of gender bias in the selection of proposals for funding. As pointed out earlier, this can to a large extent be explained by the fact that integration of gender considerations in the project has not been a criterion that was marked during the proposal evaluation stage (which, had it been, should have translated into higher evaluation marks for proposals coordinated by women) – an obvious flaw in the design of the gender policy implementation plan.

The above results indicate that lack of or insufficient performance in terms of gender on the part of the actors – be they researchers, evaluators or project officers – can at least in part be explained by reservations and reluctance because of incapacity, and hence uncertainty, to duly meet the expectations rather than by resistance to gender equality in itself. Especially when considering there were no (or hardly any) ‘incentives’ in place for doing otherwise, as non- action went largely undiscovered or remained unchallenged.

Still there are some signs that there might exist some ‘real’ resistance as well. Indeed, as female project coordinators do better in terms of gender in their projects than their male counterparts and as there is no reason to think they were better ‘equipped’ than men, or suffer less from lack of capacity than men to make their projects gender-sensitive, this does indicate a certain resistance among male project coordinators.

Also, as insufficient resources were put in place for the actors to adequately implement the gender mainstreaming plan in their regular work and as project officers were apparently not instructed by their superiors or given the capacity to duly follow up on the gender dimension in the projects, there is at least a suspicion of resistance on the part of the highest hierarchical levels in the Commission’s DG Research.

6. The ‘Gender Action Plan’: a new gender