Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

How can RFOs fight gender bias? Experience from ANR

372 views

Published on

Presentation held by Angela Zeller (Agence Nationale de la Recherche) during the webinar "How can RFOs fight gender bias", organised by SUPERA on 18 November 2020.

More infos are available here: https://www.superaproject.eu/experience-exchange-between-research-funding-organisations/

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

How can RFOs fight gender bias? Experience from ANR

  1. 1. How can RFOs fight gender bias? Experience from ANR 18 November 2020 Speaker: Angela Zeller
  2. 2. Introduction: the gender issue for a funding agency How to help reduce gender inequalities?  Ensuring that calls for proposals are addressed to both women and men  Ensuring fair treatment of projects submitted in response to calls for projects  Ensuring that the evaluation criteria do not disadvantage women  Promoting and giving visibility to work carried out by women
  3. 3. French legislative context  Agreement of November 2018 on professional equality between women and men in the public service  Law No. 2019-828 of August 2019 on the transformation of the public service provides for the implementation of an equality action plan (article 80)  August 2019 referential of action plans relating to professional equality between women and men in the public service  Decree No. 2020-256 of March 2020 in application of article 80 of the law on the transformation of the civil service Obligation to implement an equality action plan for all public institution in 2020 or face financial penalties
  4. 4. A European project to support us: GenderSmart  9 partners  2 technical partners  6 research and teaching organizations  1 funding organization  Objectives  Development and implementation of a gender action plan in each partner organization  Dissemination of practices at national and international level  Budget  300 000 euro for the ANR  Timeline  1st January 2019 – 31 December 2022
  5. 5. Audit and self assessment from January to July 2019  Data analysis  Social Data  Data on submission and funded projects  Analysis of strategic and framework documents  Analysis of communication actions
  6. 6. Observations  The ANR is already well advanced  Many actions have been carried out  Gender sensitive automatism  The lack of formalization  Lack of formalization of the effective consideration of gender in communication or the organization of internal and external events  Need to objectify  Lack of data  Go further in a structured way
  7. 7. Gender bias in evaluation and selection process: literature review Women are less well rated than men  Unconscious bias  Evaluators are mostly men  Evaluation criteria favor men
  8. 8. Gender bias in evaluation and selection process: data analysis Female 30,6% Male 69,3% NR 0,1% % of male & female PIs (phase 1, 2015-2018)  Among the projects submitted to the generic call for proposals from 2015 to 2018, at the end of the process, the percentage of projects conducted by women selected for funding is only 28.8% whereas at the end of stage 1 the percentage is 30.6%. Female 28,8% Male 71,2% NR 0,0% % of male &female PIs (funded projects, 2015-2018)
  9. 9. Gender bias in evaluation and selection process: data analysis 29,3% 30,2% 31,7% 31,3% 70,7% 69,8% 68,3% 68,7% 0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0% 90,0% 100,0% 2015 2016 2017 2018 Evolution of the % of male & female PIs per year (submissions phase 1, 2015-2018) Femme Homme  General evolution from submitted projects led by women throughout the different editions of the generic call for proposals. The proportion of projects led by women increases constantly (phase 1)
  10. 10. Gender bias in evaluation and selection process: data analysis The results of the selection regarding projects conducted by women increase constantly. They represent 28.2% in 2015, and 30% in 2018. 28,2% 27,5% 29,2% 30,0% 71,8% 72,5% 70,8% 70,0% 0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0% 90,0% 100,0% 2015 2016 2017 2018 Evolution of the % of male & female PIs per year (funded projects, 2015-2018) Femme Homme
  11. 11. Gender bias in evaluation and selection process: data analysis More and more women are submitting projects preferentially to the JCJC instrument. 34,9% 36,7% 27,7% 23,5% 65,1% 63,3% 72,3% 76,5% 0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0% 90,0% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018 JCJC PRC PRCE % of male & female PIs per funding instrument and per year (selected projects, 2015-2018) Femme Homme
  12. 12. Gender bias in evaluation and selection process: data analysis Breakdown by ERC discipline (2015-2018) Women Men 34,0 % 66,0 % LS 21,1 % 78,9 % PE 32,3 % 67,7 % LS // PE 42,7 %57,3 % SH 7,7% 92,3 % LS // PE // SH 34,8 % 65,2 % PE // SH 46,9 % 53,1 % LS // SH 33,8 % 66,2 % Transverses
  13. 13. Gender Equality Plan: Elaboration  Based on: • Audit’s results • 3 collaborative workshops with the executive committee, the head of impact unit and the prevention assistant  The structure: • Three main areas o Culture and organisation o Human resources o Research funding • For each area we have identified 4-5 axes Gender as an object of research Sex and / or gender dimension in projects regardless of the scientific field
  14. 14. Gender Equality Plan: Structure  Culture and organisation  Institutionalise the GEP  Incorporate equality in values  Objectify possible inequalities  Communicate  Train and raise awareness  Human Ressources  Recruitment  Remuneration  Career management  Professional life/ private life  Sexual harassment/ sexism  Funding research  Call for proposals (AAP)  Incorporate the sex and/ or gender dimension in the research project  Evaluation  Impact
  15. 15. Gender Equality Plan: Focus on Funding Research  Call for proposals (AAP) Actions Entity(ies)/person(s) in charge Indicators/ deliverables Timetable 3.1.1: Word the calls for proposals in compliance with the drafting rules set out in the specific guide (1.4.5) DOS Guide 2021 3.1.2: Incorporate the sex and/or gender dimension when drafting scientific areas for calls for proposals DOS AAPG wording 2021 2020 (for 2021 edition)
  16. 16. Gender Equality Plan: Focus on Funding Research  Incorporate the sex and/or gender dimension in the research project Actions Entity(ies)/person(s) in charge Indicators/deliverables Timetable 3.2.1: Raise the awareness of scientific communities to the issues on taking this into account under the ANR Tour, on the website, etc. DOS_EM, DICO Number of awareness-raising actions In application and to be made systematic 3.2.2: Ask project leaders to describe in their scientific document how they take the sex and/or gender dimension into account in their research projects: test phase launched on the generic AAP 2020 DOS_EM Export of specific tab In application and to be analysed 3.2.3: Prepare feedback after analysing the test phase GenderSmart project team, DOS_EM Consolidated document July 2020 3.2.4: Ask project leaders to describe in their scientific document how they take the sex and/or gender dimension into account in their research projects: test phase launched on the 2020 generic AAP: make standard for all calls for proposals launched by the Agency based on feedback from AAPG 2020 DOS_EM Paragraph to be incorporated in the AAP wording 2021/2022 3.2.5: Introduce an evaluation criterion on whether or not this sex and/or gender dimension is taken into account in research projects submitted to the Agency's AAP CDS, DOS_EM Drafting the criterion 2022
  17. 17. Gender Equality Plan: Focus on Funding Research  Evaluation Actions Entity(ies)/person(s) in charge Indicators/deliverables Timetable 3.3.1: Strive for parity when constituting evaluation committees by mobilising networks or databases such as AcademiaNet. This objective must, however, be put into perspective according to the scientific communities involved DOS/DGPIE Proportion of women in the committees In application 3.3.2: Identify potential biases in evaluation using a quantitative and qualitative methodology (indicators, observation, surveys of committee members, etc.) GenderSmart project team Report In application and to be made systematic 3.3.3: Test anonymisation of applications in a call for proposals DOS Feedback 2022
  18. 18. Gender Equality Plan: Focus on Funding Research  Impact Actions Entity(ies)/person(s) in charge Indicators/deliverables Timetable 3.4.1: Develop indicators to measure the scientific production of women and men Studies Unit, impact analyses, DOS/DGPIE Methodology document 2023 3.4.2: Develop indicators to identify who are the spokespersons for the results of research projects Studies Unit, impact analyses, DOS/DGPIE Methodology document 2023 3.4.3: Develop indicators to collect gender-disaggregated data on the status of project leaders and scientists involved in the project Studies Unit, impact analyses, DOS/DGPIE Information rate 2021
  19. 19.  Validation:  Executive committee : December 2019  Staff representative: March 2020  Board of directors: July 2020  Dissemination  Presentation to all staff in July  Website (in french) Gender Equality Plan approval
  20. 20.  Analysis on whether the sex and / or gender dimension has been integrated or not in projects submitted to our Generic Call phase 2.  Conference « Gender in Research: evaluation and knowledge production »  15 Decembre 2020 https://live.eventtia.com/fr/gendersmartanrcirad To conclude

×