IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v51y2024i2p261-273..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Marina Cacace
  • Francesca Pugliese
  • Charikleia Tzanakou
  • Jörg Müller
  • Alain Denis
  • Maria Sangiuliano

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Marina Cacace & Francesca Pugliese & Charikleia Tzanakou & Jörg Müller & Alain Denis & Maria Sangiuliano, 2024. "Certifying complexity? The case of a European gender equality certification scheme for research-performing organizations," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 261-273.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:2:p:261-273.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scad069
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:2:p:261-273.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.