This step is about how review panels assess and reach their decisions. It focuses on what happens during meetings, when proposals are compared, scores are discussed, and final funding recommendations are made. Even with strong preparation, inclusive gendered innovation (IGI) can be overlooked if it is not actively considered during this stage.
Panel discussions have strong impact on what gets funded. If the gender dimension is not raised or clearly valued, it may not shape the final outcome. This can disadvantage proposals that approach innovation through user diversity, social relevance, or inclusive design.
You can’t script every conversation, but you can help structure the process. This includes reminding panel chairs that IGI is part of what should be assessed, encouraging space for reflection in discussions, and making sure that final scores and justifications reflect the values outlined in your call.
Trade-offs are part of the process. A proposal may be strong on inclusion but receive questions on feasibility. Reviewers may find it difficult to compare very different types of excellence. Panels need room and clarity to navigate these discussions in a fair and informed way.
What gets recorded matters. If Inclusive Gendered Innovation is discussed but not included in the written summary, that insight is lost. You can support this by including a specific section in the review form that asks whether gender and diversity dimensions have been adequately addressed. This could be a yes/no checkbox with a short explanation field. Even without a dedicated score, this field creates a consistent space for reviewers to reflect on inclusion.
If your programme treats Inclusive Gendered Innovation as a central objective, you may also consider assigning a specific score to this aspect of the proposal. Doing so shifts responsibility for weighting inclusion from individual reviewers to the call design itself and sends a strong signal about its relevance to research quality.
These kinds of structured feedback fields can serve multiple purposes: they help provide applicants with meaningful inputs and offer your organisation valuable insights for future monitoring and improvement.
Use this step to ensure that your decision-making process reflects the intent of your programme and recognises Inclusive Gendered Innovation as a meaningful part of research and innovation quality.
- understand how panel discussions affect IGI uptake: You can recognise when and how inclusion gets considered during final decisions.
- can support panel chairs in guiding inclusive discussion: You know how to flag IGI as a valued aspect of research quality.
- are able to align scores with call expectations: You ensure that scoring reflects what the programme asks applicants to deliver.
- can document inclusion in evaluation summaries: You have formats or prompts that help capture IGI-related insights.
- are better prepared for trade-offs during decision-making: You understand how to navigate tensions between different dimensions of quality.
- can strengthen consistency across panels: You use small changes to encourage fairer, more aligned decisions.
Choosing the right reviewers is not only a technical task. Small decisions around panel composition can strongly affect how inclusion is assessed in practice:
- IGI is not raised during panel discussion: Reviewers may notice inclusion in individual assessments but not bring it up in the final conversation.
- Panel chairs are unsure how to handle IGI: Without guidance, chairs may avoid the topic or steer discussion back to more familiar criteria.
- Scoring does not reflect inclusion goals: Even strong IGI proposals may receive lower scores if reviewers are not confident weighing different aspects of quality.
- Inclusion-related feedback is lost in documentation: IGI may be discussed but not recorded in evaluation forms or funding rationales.
- Panels struggle with trade-offs between criteria: Reviewers may disagree on how to value IGI when balanced against feasibility, risk, or novelty.
- No space for reflection in panel process: If discussion is rushed or tightly scripted, there may be no time to reflect on inclusion.
These actions help ensure that IGI is part of how quality is discussed, scored, and reflected in final decisions.
- Brief panel chairs on IGI expectations: Let them know inclusion is part of what should be addressed in the discussion.
- Include prompts in panel materials: Add short reminders to consider IGI when comparing or scoring proposals.
- Adapt evaluation templates and forms. Include a dedicated field asking whether IGI has been adequately addressed (yes/no), with space for comments.
- Use scoring where relevant. If IGI is central to your call, consider assigning a specific score to this section of the proposal to ensure it’s meaningfully weighted.
- Support consistent scoring decisions: Use simple scoring guidance to help reviewers apply IGI criteria with confidence.
- Allow time to reflect on inclusion: Build in space for panels to weigh IGI alongside other dimensions of quality.
- Encourage transparency in decisions: Clarify how inclusion is factored into outcomes, especially when proposals are close in score.
- Use skilled facilitation to support balanced discussion. Structured techniques can help surface diverse viewpoints, manage disagreement, and reduce the dominance of louder voices.