Background information

Since the publication of the ETAN report in 2000 by the European Commission, much research has been devoted to understanding the reasons for and the consequences of the underrepresentation of women in research and innovation. From 2012 onwards, enacting institutional change through gender equality plans has been the preferred strategy to tackle gender inequalities in research careers, decision-making (boards and leadership positions) as well as integrating the gender dimension in research content and teaching – at least in the research sector. Dedicated funding has been provided to over 200 research performing and research funding organisations through over 30 projects of consortia with on average 6 or 7 organisations working together with an overall budget of over EU 72 million. A great deal of knowledge has been generated about these structural change processes, now the subject of numerous academic articles, books and reports whilst gender experts and practitioners have developed institutional change and gender based competences. With Horizon Europe, the European Commission has put in place mechanisms to drive forward this momentum for institutional change by requiring that organisations in receipt of research funding have a Gender Equality Plan in place, project proposals must also examine if and how biological and/or socio cultural gender dimensions may influence the results and outcomes.

In growing recognition of the multiple inequalities in R&I organisations in Europe, Gender Equality Plans have become “Inclusive” Gender Equality Plans and the European Commission is funding consortia to implement these plans. There is, however, very little consensus on what an “inclusive gender equality” plan actually is, and what ‘inclusion’ means in this context. Inclusion can be understood as a participatory process enacted throughout the design, implementation and evaluation of a GEP. This process aims to involve different stakeholders, including under-represented groups- throughout the GEP, audit, design, decision-making and implementation processes. This should be complemented by an intersectional approach which recognises the need to go beyond gender, and examines how gender intersects with other axes of privileges and disadvantages, i.e. race/ ethnicity, religion, gender identity and sexual orientation, socio-economic background and class, and dis/ability, health and chronic illness. Whilst there is a general consensus that historically marginalised groups should be involved in the production of knowledge, if science is to be excellent and innovations socially relevant– how to achieve this is very much up for debate.