Certifying complexity? The case of a European gender equality certification scheme for research-performing organizations

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Science and Public Policy Pub Date : 2023-11-04 DOI:10.1093/scipol/scad069
Marina Cacace, Francesca Pugliese, Charikleia Tzanakou, Jörg Müller, Alain Denis, Maria Sangiuliano
{"title":"Certifying complexity? The case of a European gender equality certification scheme for research-performing organizations","authors":"Marina Cacace, Francesca Pugliese, Charikleia Tzanakou, Jörg Müller, Alain Denis, Maria Sangiuliano","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract By deciding to condition the access of research organizations to its €95.5 billion Horizon Europe funding programme (2021–7) on providing evidence of a gender equality plan, the European Commission has made the challenge of certifying the gender equality performance of research organizations extremely urgent, not least to avoid the risk that such plans become a mere formality (‘box-ticking’). This challenge should not be underestimated, considering the extremely complex nature of the dynamics surrounding gender equality. In this article, we analyse the feasibility of establishing a European certification scheme that would assess gender equality policies and outcomes of research organizations, and present four alternative scenarios for its set-up, co-created with a wide range of stakeholders in a participatory step-by-step process. The results of the two-stage validation process of the four scenarios are also presented, providing policy implications and recommendations to support the effective roll-out of the certification schemes.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":"55 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad069","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract By deciding to condition the access of research organizations to its €95.5 billion Horizon Europe funding programme (2021–7) on providing evidence of a gender equality plan, the European Commission has made the challenge of certifying the gender equality performance of research organizations extremely urgent, not least to avoid the risk that such plans become a mere formality (‘box-ticking’). This challenge should not be underestimated, considering the extremely complex nature of the dynamics surrounding gender equality. In this article, we analyse the feasibility of establishing a European certification scheme that would assess gender equality policies and outcomes of research organizations, and present four alternative scenarios for its set-up, co-created with a wide range of stakeholders in a participatory step-by-step process. The results of the two-stage validation process of the four scenarios are also presented, providing policy implications and recommendations to support the effective roll-out of the certification schemes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认证的复杂性?针对从事研究的组织的欧洲性别平等认证计划的案例
欧盟委员会决定以提供性别平等计划的证据为条件,限制研究组织获得其955亿欧元的“地平线欧洲”资助计划(2021-7),从而使证明研究组织性别平等表现的挑战变得极其紧迫,尤其是为了避免这些计划成为纯粹形式(“打勾”)的风险。考虑到围绕性别平等的动态极其复杂,不应低估这一挑战。在本文中,我们分析了建立一个欧洲认证计划的可行性,该计划将评估研究组织的性别平等政策和成果,并为其建立提出了四种替代方案,这些方案是与广泛的利益相关者在参与性的逐步过程中共同创建的。本文还介绍了四种情景的两阶段验证过程的结果,提供了政策影响和建议,以支持有效推出认证计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Science and Public Policy is a leading refereed, international journal on public policies for science, technology and innovation, and on their implications for other public policies. It covers basic, applied, high, low, and any other types of S&T, and rich or poorer countries. It is read in around 70 countries, in universities (teaching and research), government ministries and agencies, consultancies, industry and elsewhere.
期刊最新文献
Diversity and directionality: friends or foes in sustainability transitions? Morality policy at the frontier of science: legislators’ views on germline engineering Regulatory agencies as innovation enablers: a conceptualization The impact of winning funding on researcher productivity, results from a randomized trial Operation warp speed: Harbinger of American industrial innovation policies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1