Support Package 5 - “Inclusive Gendered Innovation” - For Funders - Step 7

This step is about how funding decisions are made and communicated. It focuses on how proposals are selected for funding, how inclusion is considered in the final stage, and what kind of feedback applicants receive.

Final decisions reflect your programme's values. Even if IGI is assessed during evaluation, it may not influence outcomes unless it is clearly factored into the selection process. Applicants notice when inclusion efforts are ignored in the final result.

Selection and feedback should align with the call. If IGI was part of the objectives, it should be visible in the funding rationale. This helps ensure transparency and avoids sending mixed signals.

Feedback helps shape future proposals. Applicants take cues from what is mentioned in the outcome letters. If IGI was strong, they should know it was appreciated. If it was missing, they should receive encouragement and guidance for improvement.

This is also a point of trust-building. Clear communication and consistent criteria help applicants see your organisation as credible and supportive of inclusive innovation.

Use this step to make sure that final decisions and feedback reinforce what your programme stands for, including inclusive gendered innovation as a part of research excellence.

After working through this step, you:

understand how funding decisions reflect inclusion goals: You know what to look for when reviewing alignment between evaluation results and selection outcomes.
can ensure IGI is considered in the final selection: You are able to check that inclusion is visible in the funding rationale or decision summaries.
are equipped to give clear feedback to applicants: You provide constructive comments that reflect the programme’s values, including IGI.
can explain how inclusion shaped outcomes: You feel confident describing how IGI was factored into decisions when asked by applicants or stakeholders.
support fairer, more transparent communication: You help reinforce trust by giving applicants insight into how decisions were made.

Even when IGI is assessed during evaluation, it can be lost during the final funding stage. Applicants notice when inclusion is left out of decisions or feedback:

Challenges:

Inclusion is not reflected in selection outcomes: IGI may be discussed in reviews but ignored when funding lists are finalised.
Feedback omits comments on IGI: Applicants who addressed inclusion receive no signal that their effort was noticed or valued.
Final decisions are based on narrow definitions of excellence: Societal relevance or user diversity is overlooked if selection favours only technical or commercial criteria.
No space to justify how inclusion influenced decisions: Decision records or templates do not prompt discussion or explanation of IGI-related factors.
Mixed signals undermine credibility: When IGI is encouraged in the call but absent in decisions, applicants lose trust in the process.
Staff feel unsure about what feedback to give: Without examples or clear expectations, programme officers may avoid commenting on IGI altogether.

These actions help make sure that funding outcomes and feedback reflect your programme’s inclusion goals and support learning for the next round:

Actions:

Include IGI in funding discussions: Make space in decision meetings to reflect on how inclusion was assessed and whether it influenced outcomes.
Check alignment between decisions and call objectives: Review whether proposals selected for funding reflect the inclusion goals of the programme.
Adapt templates for decision rationales: Add a prompt to record whether and how IGI contributed to the selection.
Make IGI visible in applicant feedback: Acknowledge when it was well addressed and encourage further development when missing.
Use simple, encouraging language: Help applicants see IGI as a meaningful part of quality, not just a compliance item.
Coordinate feedback across teams: Ensure consistency between decision letters, helpdesk responses, and reviewer comments.

Here you find more support for inclusive Review Processes

These resources can support Research Funding Organisations in selecting, preparing, and guiding reviewers to meaningfully assess the integration of gender and diversity in research content.

Inclusive Funding: Guideline for Research Funding Organisations – GENDERACTIONplus: Provides concrete steps for research funding organisations to design and implement funding programs that actively mitigate gender bias and promote inclusivity. Offers practical guidance on integrating IGI into funding decisions and feedback mechanisms.
Gender-Sensitive Research Funding Procedures - EIGE: Guidelines for incorporating gender-sensitive practices in research funding. Includes suggestions on selecting diverse reviewers and preparing them to evaluate IGI.
Practical Guide to Improving Gender Equality in Research Organizations – Science Europe: Offers strategies for research organisations to integrate gender equality into their operations. Includes best practices for reviewer training and evaluation criteria to ensure fair assessment processes.
A gender-equal process: A qualitative investigation of the assessment of research grant applications 2023 (Swedish Research Council): Based on observations from 14 review panels in 2023, this report provides qualitative evidence on how gender equality plays out in actual grant assessment meetings. It documents panel dynamics, discussion patterns, and decision-making practices, and describes concrete improvements achieved through ongoing observation since 2012. Useful for RFOs reviewing or developing their own assessment processes and quality assurance practices.
UN Women – Evaluation Handbook: How to Manage Gender-Responsive Evaluations: This handbook provides detailed guidance on managing evaluations that are responsive to gender considerations. It includes participatory tools for stakeholder consultation and strategies for including women and vulnerable groups in the evaluation process.
UNICEF – Guidance on Gender Integration in Evaluation; This comprehensive guide outlines a "how-to" approach for integrating a gender lens into evaluations. It addresses the importance of considering gender norms and discrimination throughout the evaluation process to ensure that outcomes are gender-transformative.
Gendered Innovations 2 – European Commission: Includes field-specific examples that show how IGI strengthens research quality. Useful for briefings, evaluation handbooks, or guiding reviewers.
Adaptation Fund - Gender Guidance Document: Outlines how to integrate gender in review and implementation processes. Offers considerations for assigning responsibilities and supporting decision-makers.
GEECCO - Guidelines for Jury Members and RFO Employees: Offers targeted advice on how reviewers and RFO staff can integrate gender considerations into proposal assessment. Includes guiding questions and criteria to support fair and inclusive evaluation. Developed by the GEECCO Horizon 2020 project.
GENDER-NET – Guidelines for Evaluators: Offers structured guidance and a detailed checklist for reviewers assessing the integration of sex and gender analysis in research proposals. Helps funders and peer reviewers evaluate inclusion across all research phases.
GENDER-NET Plus – Policy Brief on Promoting Gender Equality in Research Funding: This policy brief emphasizes the importance of mandatory gender equality and diversity training for reviewers. It provides actionable recommendations for research funding organizations to promote gender equality throughout the funding process, including reviewer training and evaluation panel composition.
Women and Science Committee - Spanish National Research Council (CSIC): Institutional body promoting gender equality in research. Offers recommendations for improving gender balance and awareness in evaluation panels.
DFG – Checklist for Assessing the Relevance of Sex, Gender, and Diversity in Research: The German Research Foundation (DFG) provides a checklist to help reviewers determine the necessity of including information about sex, gender, and diversity in research proposals. It serves as a starting point for evaluating the integration of these aspects in research planning.
CIHR – Reviewer Guidance and Training Modules: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) offers a suite of resources to assist reviewers in evaluating the integration of sex and gender in health research. These include online training modules, decision trees, and videos that provide guidance on assessing sex as a biological variable and gender considerations in research proposals.
SSHRC Canada - Best practices in equity, diversity and inclusion in research practice and design; Provides reviewer guidance, inclusive language tips, and equity frameworks for proposal evaluation. Useful for designing fair and informed assessment processes.
Guidelines for Gender Equality in the Research Funding Process – Swedish Research Council: Outlines comprehensive measures to ensure gender equality throughout the research funding process, including planning, training, review panel composition, and decision-making. Emphasises the importance of equal gender distribution in review panels and the prevention of unconscious bias.
UNODC – Gender-Responsive Evaluation Toolkit: The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) offers a toolkit that provides guidance on integrating gender considerations into evaluations. It includes checklists and tools to assess the extent to which interventions have incorporated gender equality principles.
Gender Equality Results Case Studies – Asian Development Bank: Presents lessons from evaluation practice, including how to incorporate gender into scoring, analysis, and performance review.