Quality assurance mechanisms for gender
training in the European Union
http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/web-discussions/quality-assurance-mechanisms-gender-
training-european-union
Starts at: 18/09/2013, 08:00 CEST (+02:00)
Ends at: 19/09/2013, 18:30 CEST (+02:00)
Welcome to this online discussion!
Gender competence of public administrators and policy makers is of paramount importance if gender mainstreaming is to work. Assuring quality of the competence development processes therefore deserves specific attention and will be at the core of this online discussion.
On day one we invite you to share your views on the needs for quality assurance mechanisms in Europe. Do you know any examples of systems that have worked or those that haven’t?
On day two we will turn our focus to discussing ways to improve quality of gender competence development in Europe. What do you think are the options? Is certification a real option?
This event will take place on 18-19 September 2013. Each day we will begin at 09.00 (Central European Time) and we will aim to close at 18.30 (Central European Time).
Check out the 2012' s online discussion report
If you encounter any problems using the platform, contact EuroGender Administrator at [email protected]
If you want to tweet about discussion, use #QAMGT
Facilitators: Katarzyna Pabijanek, Jenny Birchall, Hazel Reeves
1. Jenny Birchall | 18/09/2013, 10:09 EEST (+03:00)
Dear all
Welcome to the first day of this online discussion on gender training in the European
Union. I’m Jenny Birchall and I’ll be moderating our discussion over the next two days
along with my colleague, Hazel Reeves.
As you will have seen from the preparatory documents, we are going to be focusing on
improving gender training through quality assurance mechanisms. This was one of the
main emerging points in the online discussion held in September last year, in which many
of you took part. Participants expressed the need for quality assurance, standardisation of
gender training programmes and accreditation systems that are flexible and adaptable for
audience needs, focus on outcomes more than content, and provide minimum standards
and general principles to follow. You can read the report of last year’s discussion here:
http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/documents/reflections-online-discussion-gender-
training-eu
What do we mean by gender training? In this context we are talking about an educational
tool employed by EU and Member State institutions in order to develop the gender
competence of actors involved in policy making at all levels. We’re very excited to
engage with you all on this topic and look forward to hearing about your experiences and
ideas.
The discussion will run until 6.30pm (Central European Time [CET]) today, and then
will continue between 9am and 6.30pm (CET) tomorrow. Today we’ll focus on why
quality assurance mechanisms are needed (9am-1pm CET), and what existing
mechanisms are in place at both EU member state and international level (1pm-6.30pm
CET). Tomorrow we’ll move on to thinking about the options for quality assurance, how
they might work on a practical level, and who could help to take them forward.
We understand that not all of you can join us for the whole two days. Some of you are in
different time zones and therefore won’t be online until 4pm (CET) each day. We look
forward to hearing from you then. We also look forward to hearing from our colleagues
at EIGE and at some point during the discussion, from some of the experts involved in
the work EIGE has been doing on gender training.
We hope that you have been able to register and log in to the platform successfully, but if
you encounter any problems using the platform, please don’t hesitate to contact the Euro
Gender Administrator at [email protected]
In a moment we’ll introduce the first discussion question. Many thanks in advance for
your participation!
Jenny and Hazel
2. Jenny Birchall | 18/09/2013, 10:21 EEST (+03:00)
As promised, here is the first question that we’d like to discuss with you today:
Why is there a need to introduce quality assurance mechanisms (of which one form is
certification) in gender training?
When thinking about this question, it may be useful for us to hear about:
• Is the idea of standardisation of gender training relevant in your country or
context?
• What is the problem that certification mechanisms would seek to address?
• Who or what should be ‘standardised’? For example gender trainers, gender
training courses, gender training organisations?
• Do you think standardisation or quality assurance could increase the provision of
gender training?
Of course these are only guiding suggestions. We look forward to hearing your ideas. Just
hit the ‘comment’ button and tell us what you think.
Jenny and Hazel
3. priya alvarez | 18/09/2013, 10:35 EEST (+03:00)
Morning here in Vilnius,
m name is priya alvarez. I am delighted to be in such good company. Bridge was for year
the information broker on gender issues for me and my colleagues working in the field.
thanks for this interesting discussion. there have been so many years of gender training
out there and still a long way to go. I am a firm believer in accountability mechanisms. If
well implemented, they help us work better. Organizations could then monitor not only
the quality of training but also learn about requirements and conditions under which
training works better.
Perhaps first we need to make training mandatory when it matters. Training is a fabulous
method to raise awareness and recondition people into new avenues of action and
perception. But very few people are exposed to (good) training. In all organizations there
are people with disparate levels of influence, and gender training needs to be targeted
also to those at the top.
The issue I would like to discuss is related to something I am working on. At present, my
work is focused on analysing current strategies for gender equality and, in particular,
gender mainstreaming. It seems that as a strategy it has made a disservice to gender
equality by depoliticizing (gender mainstreaming is seen as a technicality) and
dismantling (because mainstreaming is everybody's business (and thus nobody's)) some
of the strengths of former approaches based on specific actions to advance women's
rights and undermine power existing power arrangements. However, gender
mainstreaming offers potential to increase the reach of gender equality policies, involve
other non-traditional actors in policy making and policy implementation, and widening
the possibilities to introduce policy changes across sectors.
Some authors find gender mainstreaming as a strategy conducive to irrelevance. It has
lost the transformative edge of gender equality policies because staff and organization
culture remains gendered, stereotyped and subject to the patriarchal dynamics and values
(so many times we revered male professionals and give them limelight as "the expert" or
"the facilitator" or "the trainer" even in the field of gender equality--much to the shame
for many of us).
It is in this light that I would like to see quality assurance of gender equality training. As
a method for gender equality, it should lead to change in perceptions and attitudes, and
finally behaviors and actions. Can we measure that? Isnt this one of the main
requirements than a gender equality training should be asked for?
Otherwise, I keep thinking, we may be lured to again another hyper technical tool, full of
facts and figures, perfectly tailored to the specific field, technically perfect and targeted
to teach new skills. But other than skills, we need to "reprogram" people to perceive
reality with different eyes, to raise their awareness over the multiple manipulations of
"the System" as it is deployed now, with its intricate codes of power, prestige, and
success.
Perhaps it is a "back to the basics" reminder....
4. Despina Charalambidou-Solomi | 18/09/2013, 10:39 EEST (+03:00)
Good morning. My name is Despina Solomi from Cyprus.Personally, I belive that in
countries like Cyprus standardisation of G.training is relevant as there is no official body
or centre for it.
I believe gender trainers and gender training organisations should be standirdised as
courses and methoddologies need to bbe tailored to the needs of the participants.
Standirdisation or quality assurannce of g . training will both increase and enhance it.
5. Despina Charalambidou-Solomi | 18/09/2013, 10:46 EEST (+03:00)
i agree that traning should become mandatory for certain categories of employees
especially those involved in G. mainstreaming policies and strategies. Accountability and
feedback will follow and this will lead to the necessary changes in each member state.
6. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 10:47 EEST (+03:00)
Good morning!
My name is Jenny Claesson and I work at Add Gender in Sweden.
I believe that one soultion could be to help companies and municipalities to know what to
ask for. Some sort of demands on what to expect from a gender equality consultant would
be more helpful than to give the consultants certification.
Thoughts?
7. The Centre for Gender Equality - Iceland | 18/09/2013, 10:50 EEST (+03:00)
Hello, Tryggvi Hallgrímsson – Iceland.
Why is there a need to introduce quality assurance mechanisms?
Could we not say that if gender mainstreaming or any other work with gender equality is
mandatory – an obligation within public policy or any form of administration, that
standardization is very relevant.
Regarding what certification mechanisms would seek to address – I wonder if we
could/should take that question together with the question on what and how should be
“standardized” – and perhaps (and I might be getting ahead of myself) what do you see
thae role of EIGE in preparing guidelines for such standardization?
8. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 10:54 EEST (+03:00)
In Sweden gender mainstreaming is mandatory for state, county, municipality and a few
more, but the reality is that it is still not in place. Several years has passed. I am thinking:
how can we keep the motivation and "carrot" and still add some consequenses if you
don't follow the law?
My soultion is to work with the organization ordering gender equality services. Help
them make good choices and know what to ask for.
9. Veronika Šprincová | 18/09/2013, 11:01 EEST (+03:00)
Dear colleagues, many greetings from Prague!
My name is Veronika Šprincová and I'm lecturer and analyst in NGO Fórum 50 %.
Question of quality assurance is very relevant for us because there are no clear standards
in the Czech Republic.
There are some courses certified by Ministry of Internal Affairs, but these are tailored for
public administration only (and they aren't focused solely on gender issues) - but from
my point of view those who certify them are not experts on the subject therefore they are
able to asses only technical parameters of the courses, not the content.
At the same time in one call within EU funds (focused on human resources and labour
market, particularly on work-life balance) there is a condition to have gender expert in
the project team, but again, teher are no clear standards and therefore people with diverse
background work on this position. Therefore Czech gender NGOs and academic
instituitions are considering to establish gender experts/trainers association to supply the
role of the state in this area and to certify lecturers (experts). But of course it would be
great if there were some EU standards. I think EIGE would be the perfect body to set and
controll them.
In my point of view all the levels should be standardized/certified (and in this way it
works in the case of courses for public administration): organizations as well as particular
programmes. In the case of gender training I think it's relevant to certify also individiual
trainers because not all of them are associated with some institution (be it NGO or
academic department).
I believe some kind of standardization would help to increase the quality of provided
gender training or expertise. In my opinion for many professions gender perspective is
essential to be able to implement gender mainstreaming across various areas (be it formal
education, marketing or HR), therefore really good and quality training based on
expertise of the trainers is needed. But when the training is led by people who are
inexperienced in this area (which happens in some cases), there can be no useful
outcomes and effects of gender mainstreaming implementation (sometimes it can be even
counterproductive).
I hope I touched all the proposed questions and I'm looking forward to your opinions and
perspectives!
10. Karin Heisecke | 18/09/2013, 11:03 EEST (+03:00)
Good morning everyone, this is Karin from Berlin, Germany.
I find Priya's reflections on the need to go "back to basics" quite interesting.
I have also come across a more "basic" issue that I think would need to come before the
question of standardisation or quality assurance, namely the lack of evaluation of existing
gender trainings. If the commissioning institutions don't measure the outcomes (let alone
impact) of the gender training, it seems difficult to establish quality assurance
mechanisms. Often, the lack of funding for evaluation is mentioned as an obstacle. And I
guess this is related to a lack of political will to allocate funding for evaluation?! Is this
an issue in your countries too?
Karin
11. Roza Dimova | 18/09/2013, 11:03 EEST (+03:00)
Good morning. My name is Roza Dimova. I am working in the Center of Women's
Studies and Policies in Bulgaria and I am very curious to participate in that discussion on
quality assurance mehanisms for gender training in Europe, because I have already 8
years of experince as a gender trainer in our country and I observe that this question more
and more become important and need to be discussed at EU level.
12. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 11:04 EEST (+03:00)
My biggest issue with certification of the consultants is who will hand them out? Who
can get it?
In Sweden we have people that have been working with gender equality for so long that
Gender studies did not exist on the university. So do we need to force them back to
school or should education not be one of the criteria to get the certificate? How do you
measure knowledge?
I am also sceptical to involve money, since start up companies don't have a lot of money
it seems like a way to brake rather than help people make a career out of their knowledge
and skills in gender equality, diversity and such.
13. Mary Koutselini | 18/09/2013, 11:07 EEST (+03:00)
Hello, we are Panayiota Chrysochou and Floria Valanidou, representing the UNESCO
Chair in Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment of The University of Cyprus, and
we are here on behalf of the Chairholder Professor Mary Koutselini. We believe that
quality standards of gender training are required at both a national and EU level.
However, standardisation does not always lead to quality assurance. How do we even
define 'quality'? Based on which criteria? Standardisation does not entail quality
assurance, and even if quality is assured, this does not necessarily lead to effectiveness,
i.e. effective trainers, organisations and courses.
14. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 11:12 EEST (+03:00)
Veronika Šprincová I agree that some sort of standadisation would be good. It just needs
to be in a way that don't make it harder for equality companies to start up and grow.
Maybe make some rules about what should always be included? I'm thinking: analysis
(facts not guesses), set goals, make budget, whos responsible?, deadline.
That is still very adjustable and flexible.
And another question:
Who, in your opinion, should be giving out the certificates to consultants?
15. The Centre for Gender Equality - Iceland | 18/09/2013, 11:13 EEST (+03:00)
Mary Koutselini wrote:
Hello, we are Panayiota Chrysochou and Floria Valanidou, representing the UNESCO
Chair in Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment of The University of Cyprus, and
we are here on behalf of the Chairholder Professor Mary Koutselini. We believe that
quality standards of gender training are required at both a national and EU level.
However, standardisation does not always lead to quality assurance. How do we even
define 'quality'? Based on which criteria? Standardisation does not entail quality
assurance, and even if quality is assured, this does not necessarily lead to effectiveness,
i.e. effective trainers, organisations and courses.
I totally agree - standardization does not provide quality assurance – and that problem
comes back to funding and political will (were relevant). This poses the question – are
standards simply a way to assert “a minimum” level of competence – and if not do they
serve as counterproductive when they are in place but can not be implemented/applied
I
16. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 11:14 EEST (+03:00)
Mary Koutselini wrote:
Hello, we are Panayiota Chrysochou and Floria Valanidou, representing the UNESCO
Chair in Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment of The University of Cyprus, and
we are here on behalf of the Chairholder Professor Mary Koutselini. We believe that
quality standards of gender training are required at both a national and EU level.
However, standardisation does not always lead to quality assurance. How do we even
define 'quality'? Based on which criteria? Standardisation does not entail quality
assurance, and even if quality is assured, this does not necessarily lead to effectiveness,
i.e. effective trainers, organisations and courses.
I agree! What are the better options?
17. Nicolaas Vlaeminck | 18/09/2013, 11:16 EEST (+03:00)
Nicolaas Vlaeminck from EIGE
Every training should be evaluated by looking at its value; every good trainer should even
so be evaluated. It's in a way measuring return on investment.
Gender Training, as a very needed ingredient for gender mainstreaming, is so important
that it can not be left without quality assurance, both for the trainer and the training. It's
not about control, it's about making sure we all look in the same direction, with the same
desire of making gender equality a reality. If we show how serious we can be about it,
then for sure only the ignorent will be left behind :-)
18. Katlijn Demuynck | 18/09/2013, 11:17 EEST (+03:00)
Hello, I'm Katlijn Demuynck from Genderatwork (Belgium) a consultancy firm
specialised in coaching, training & consulting on gender mainstreaming.
I'm all for quality criteria in themself: they would offer a tool to organisers of
gendertraining and help them verify the quality of the trainingmodules that are offered. I
see these quality criteria that I as a trainer could use in my negotiation with those
interested in organising gender training. Very often the quality of gender trainings is not
what it could be, not so much because of the trainer or the lack of quality of materials and
methods, but because of the often very restrictive demands of the organiser (budget,
training length, etc.)
I'm not for a type of quality criteria that would fix for example content elements or
specific methods and such. Gender trainings are in my long experience always very
sensitive to context and should be constructed as such.
This would solve the problem of certification, in which I do not believe at all. There is a
UN body that has an online data base of gender consultants/trainers in which you can get
listed after filling in a long list af very dubious and debatable questions, a sort on online
test for gender experts... The only type of certification that I thiink could be usefull is a
sort of quality label that you get after a peer-review process for example.
19. Despina Charalambidou-Solomi | 18/09/2013, 11:24 EEST (+03:00)
The discussion so far has revealed that in some counttries G. training is compulsory and
on an extensive basis, in others it is not compulsory or on a very limited basis. For this
reason, at least at EIGE level, this diversiity should be taken into account in order to
decide on standardisation and quality assurance.
20. Mary Koutselini | 18/09/2013, 11:26 EEST (+03:00)
With regard to the comment made by The Centre for Gender Equality from Iceland, we
would agree that by implementing such standards we might very easily fall into the trap
of assuring only minimum levels of competencies, and this creates additional problems
for the trainers and the courses they are doing. It all comes down to the question of
motivation - both extrinsic and intrinsic. Via certification it is possible to ensure extrinsic
motivation but what about intrinsic motivation? This takes us back to people's belief
systems, attitudes and perceptions. Just because gender educators and teachers receive the
adequate training, skills or certification does not mean that they will apply the knowledge
and skills that they have acquired in order to effectively influence their trainees' actions,
beliefs and perceptions.
21. Mary Koutselini | 18/09/2013, 11:34 EEST (+03:00)
To answer Gender AB's comment regarding what the better options might be, we could
start with ensuring the quality of the basics, that is, the quality, experience and motivation
of teachers/trainers and the types of pedagogy (i.e. the curriculum, teaching strategies)
they use. This will lead to an improvement in the quality, equity and efficiency of
training. We would agree with Priya Alvarez that it is a 'back to the basics' reminder.
22. Indre Mackeviciute | 18/09/2013, 11:38 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
Good morning!
My name is Jenny Claesson and I work at Add Gender in Sweden.
I believe that one soultion could be to help companies and municipalities to know what to
ask for. Some sort of demands on what to expect from a gender equality consultant would
be more helpful than to give the consultants certification.
Thoughts?
Hello, Jenny,
indeed making the institutions more aware on how to plan gender training activities and
what to take into account in the process was one of the issues, that we've put on the table
for ourselves at EIGE at the start of the project. We thought it was important that the
institutions would not only look for gender training in order to tick the box in the gender
mainstreaming checklist. They should try to understand clearer what they are looking for,
what their specific needs are and think about the meaning of the quality of training for
themselves.
Last year, EIGE has produced a reference sheet called Step-by-step approach to quality in
gender training, which might be helpful in this regard. It's on EIGE's web:
http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/gender-training-stepbystep-approach-to-quality
Indre
23. The Centre for Gender Equality - Iceland | 18/09/2013, 11:40 EEST (+03:00)
Mary Koutselini wrote:
With regard to the comment made by The Centre for Gender Equality from Iceland, we
would agree that by implementing such standards we might very easily fall into the trap
of assuring only minimum levels of competencies, and this creates additional problems
for the trainers and the courses they are doing. It all comes down to the question of
motivation - both extrinsic and intrinsic. Via certification it is possible to ensure extrinsic
motivation but what about intrinsic motivation? This takes us back to people's belief
systems, attitudes and perceptions. Just because gender educators and teachers receive the
adequate training, skills or certification does not mean that they will apply the knowledge
and skills that they have acquired in order to effectively influence their trainees' actions,
beliefs and perceptions.
Very good – and I believe this is what we have to deal with: we have work the idea of
standardization into a field that is characterizes by both planned and processual change.
This is why I would like to propose that standardization will do well to address –
changing structures before ideas. I speak for my-self when saying, I’m a little bit stress-
free about people “not getting the idea” of for example gender mainstreaming – but still
having to conform with the principles.
24. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 11:44 EEST (+03:00)
Indre Mackeviciute wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Good morning!
My name is Jenny Claesson and I work at Add Gender in Sweden.
I believe that one soultion could be to help companies and municipalities
to know what to ask for. Some sort of demands on what to expect from a
gender equality consultant would be more helpful than to give the
consultants certification.
Thoughts?
Hello, Jenny,
indeed making the institutions more aware on how to plan gender training activities and
what to take into account in the process was one of the issues, that we've put on the table
for ourselves at EIGE at the start of the project. We thought it was important that the
institutions would not only look for gender training in order to tick the box in the gender
mainstreaming checklist. They should try to understand clearer what they are looking for,
what their specific needs are and think about the meaning of the quality of training for
themselves.
Last year, EIGE has produced a reference sheet called Step-by-step approach to quality in
gender training, which might be helpful in this regard. It's on EIGE's web:
http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/gender-training-stepbystep-approach-to-quality
Indre
That's good! I feel like the companies don'r know what to ask for. They book meetings
and want to buy "gender equality". That puts an enormous pressure on me as a
conusltant. I have to be very skilled at knowing whta they need and how I can help them
the best way.
25. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 11:47 EEST (+03:00)
Mary Koutselini wrote:
To answer Gender AB's comment regarding what the better options might be, we could
start with ensuring the quality of the basics, that is, the quality, experience and motivation
of teachers/trainers and the types of pedagogy (i.e. the curriculum, teaching strategies)
they use. This will lead to an improvement in the quality, equity and efficiency of
training. We would agree with Priya Alvarez that it is a 'back to the basics' reminder.
In Sweden we have started a business network called Genusföretagarna (gender workers)
and through that network we are trying to make the equality business more professional.
Are there similar networks in other places i Europe?
26. Veronika Šprincová | 18/09/2013, 11:48 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
Veronika Šprincová I agree that some sort of standadisation would be good. It just needs
to be in a way that don't make it harder for equality companies to start up and grow.
Maybe make some rules about what should always be included? I'm thinking: analysis
(facts not guesses), set goals, make budget, whos responsible?, deadline.
That is still very adjustable and flexible.
And another question:
Who, in your opinion, should be giving out the certificates to consultants?
I absolutely agree that the standardization can't be solely formal and limiting. But in the
Czech Republic we are in quite paradox situation: equality companies with qualified and
experienced staff exist but their growth is limited by competing with big companies
(sometimes not linked to the subject in any way) "pretending" to offer gender training
and a) provide gender training with very poor expertise or b) hire experts for very low
pay and take the rest of the money from the client (typically another big company and
very often from EU funds). This led to the idea to establish professional association (incl.
academic departments, NGOs and also companies focusing on gender issues as well as
individual experts) and keep some standards - both expertise of consultants/trainers and
minimal reward for their services. This association would also be the certification body.
And as I've written above, I would very welcome some such body on EU level and I
believe that EIGE has very good preconditions to become one.
27. Indre Mackeviciute | 18/09/2013, 11:52 EEST (+03:00)
The Centre for Gender Equality - Iceland wrote:
Hello, Tryggvi Hallgrímsson – Iceland.
Why is there a need to introduce quality assurance mechanisms?
Could we not say that if gender mainstreaming or any other work with gender equality is
mandatory – an obligation within public policy or any form of administration, that
standardization is very relevant.
Regarding what certification mechanisms would seek to address – I wonder if we
could/should take that question together with the question on what and how should be
“standardized” – and perhaps (and I might be getting ahead of myself) what do you see
thae role of EIGE in preparing guidelines for such standardization?
Dear Tryggvi and other colleagues who have managed to join the discussion,
me as project manager in the institute for the gender training project and my colleagues
are really happy to see your involvement in this discussion.
Having worked on the issue of gender training for quite a while now, we've come to the
point we'll, together with the European Commission and the EU Member States we'll
have to decide on what is to be done next. It is rather obvious that assuring quality of
gender mainstreaming training in its broad sense should be one of the things that is given
serious consideration.
For this reason, we have organised this discussion to collect your experiences with regard
to what exists already and your views with regard to what steps need to be taken next.
We'll appreciate your thoughts which will then be useful to those who decide on the
priorities of EIGE's work.
Let me once again thank you for taking your time and sharing your valuable insights.
I wish you two resourceful and fruitful days.
Indre Mackeviciute
28. Despina Charalambidou-Solomi | 18/09/2013, 11:57 EEST (+03:00)
Indeed, the EIGE leaflet "step by step approach tto quality" is very helpful. However, we
should bear in mind that in some countries 9like Cyprus) there is no officiall policy on
gender training provision neither for the public nor the private sector nor a G training
policy. For this reason, it shoulld be decided to what extent and to what sectors G.
training might become compulsory and what form of standardisation G. training should
take. Otherwise, it would remain a nice plan on paper with no application.
29. MAURIZIO MOSCA | 18/09/2013, 11:58 EEST (+03:00)
Dear all
I am Maurizio Mosca, gender expert at EIGE, in charge of the work on good practices
within the Gender Mainstreming team.
I would like to provide my contribution to discussion, focusing on the "process" of
quality assurance.
I think the gender dimension of quality assurance should be embedded at all levels of the
traning process and infrastrucure.
It is strategic gender cosnsitency is placed into the design phase, addressing needs and
gaps, into the delivery phase, identifyiing required expertise and relevant target
(audience), into the monitoring process, establishing indicators and tools to assess the
effectiveness of the training provided.
if not only at system level, the quality of the gender relevance is assured, it might happen
what many of you just said so far, with no impact in terms of tranformative effectiveness
as well as in terms of improved understanding of the gender dimension.
this undesired outcome would damage both the quality of the training provided and the
opportunity to support gender change.
to conclude, I guess that the quality assurance process needs to address ALL the stages of
the learning pathways, ensuring that gender quality and consistency it there, at all levels,
at all stages.
30. INDERA Gender Consultancy | 18/09/2013, 12:03 EEST (+03:00)
Hello Everybody!
My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I am very much enjoying to be part of this
discussion today.
I would like to refer to some very important aspects Priya raised:
1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender training lost its transformative edge.
2. We do not need another hypertechnical tool.
3. "Reprogram"
What happended in the last 20 years basically is that gender wasn't so much
mainstreamed but gender was adapted to the mainstream, to take away the individual,
collective (institutional as well as social) and political process that is the transformative
foundation of gender mainstreaming. GM was basically transformed into a technical tool
where people learned to tick the right boxes, use the right language and leave the
underlying structure of the system untouched.
The result is that people got comfortable with GM, because the transformative potential
was taken out.
People also got bored of gender training, because they still relate "gender" to "women"
and very little is understood what it is really about. And most of them do not want to face
the challenges it really brings.
And this is what I feel we have to look at, why do we train on gender and what are the
expected results. As Priya says to reprogram, to raise awareness and to put "gender
glasses" on.
From my practical experience it is not so much about the right material, contents,
knowledge, didactical, etc. its much more about how can I as a gender trainer facilitate
an individual, collective and political learning process in diverse contexts.
For me its far more important that people get the "aha" affect "that is what it is about"
than teaching them tools. Once they put their own gender glasses on they start their own
learning process and reach for knowledge and information.
Regarding standardization we have to take into account the famous sentence "doing
gender". Gender or GM is not a standard learning process of knowledge transfer it is
constantly changing and has to be adapted to its context.
Its a political process not a technical one!
31. Indre Mackeviciute | 18/09/2013, 12:07 EEST (+03:00)
Despina Charalambidou-Solomi wrote:
The discussion so far has revealed that in some counttries G. training is compulsory and
on an extensive basis, in others it is not compulsory or on a very limited basis. For this
reason, at least at EIGE level, this diversiity should be taken into account in order to
decide on standardisation and quality assurance.
Indeed, Despina, a very good point on the diversity of the countries. When talking of
gender training quality assurance this should be taken into account by all means. Still
what do you think this acutally means in real terms? How should this diversity be taken
into account?
32. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 12:08 EEST (+03:00)
INDERA Gender Consultancy wrote:
Hello Everybody!
My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I am very much enjoying to be part of this
discussion today.
I would like to refer to some very important aspects Priya raised:
1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender training lost its transformative edge.
2. We do not need another hypertechnical tool.
3. "Reprogram"
What happended in the last 20 years basically is that gender wasn't so much
mainstreamed but gender was adapted to the mainstream, to take away the individual,
collective (institutional as well as social) and political process that is the transformative
foundation of gender mainstreaming. GM was basically transformed into a technical tool
where people learned to tick the right boxes, use the right language and leave the
underlying structure of the system untouched.
The result is that people got comfortable with GM, because the transformative potential
was taken out.
People also got bored of gender training, because they still relate "gender" to "women"
and very little is understood what it is really about. And most of them do not want to face
the challenges it really brings.
And this is what I feel we have to look at, why do we train on gender and what are the
expected results. As Priya says to reprogram, to raise awareness and to put "gender
glasses" on.
From my practical experience it is not so much about the right material, contents,
knowledge, didactical, etc. its much more about how can I as a gender trainer facilitate
an individual, collective and political learning process in diverse contexts.
For me its far more important that people get the "aha" affect "that is what it is about"
than teaching them tools. Once they put their own gender glasses on they start their own
learning process and reach for knowledge and information.
Regarding standardization we have to take into account the famous sentence "doing
gender". Gender or GM is not a standard learning process of knowledge transfer it is
constantly changing and has to be adapted to its context.
Its a political process not a technical one!
I agree! We need to helt people understand the possibilities with gender equality, then
they will search the tools.
33. Roza Dimova | 18/09/2013, 12:10 EEST (+03:00)
Nicolaas Vlaeminck wrote:
Nicolaas Vlaeminck from EIGE
Every training should be evaluated by looking at its value; every good trainer should even
so be evaluated. It's in a way measuring return on investment.
Gender Training, as a very needed ingredient for gender mainstreaming, is so important
that it can not be left without quality assurance, both for the trainer and the training. It's
not about control, it's about making sure we all look in the same direction, with the same
desire of making gender equality a reality. If we show how serious we can be about it,
then for sure only the ignorent will be left behind :-)
I agree very much with you. Our experinece show that the evaluation is necessary for
further our improvemnet and to check out if we succeed to touch the audience. I am very
much for developping standards for internal evaluation of trainers and trainings.
34. Indre Mackeviciute | 18/09/2013, 12:10 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
Indre Mackeviciute wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Good morning!
My name is Jenny Claesson and I work at Add Gender in
Sweden.
I believe that one soultion could be to help companies and
municipalities to know what to ask for. Some sort of
demands on what to expect from a gender equality
consultant would be more helpful than to give the
consultants certification.
Thoughts?
Hello, Jenny,
indeed making the institutions more aware on how to plan gender training
activities and what to take into account in the process was one of the
issues, that we've put on the table for ourselves at EIGE at the start of the
project. We thought it was important that the institutions would not only
look for gender training in order to tick the box in the gender
mainstreaming checklist. They should try to understand clearer what they
are looking for, what their specific needs are and think about the meaning
of the quality of training for themselves.
Last year, EIGE has produced a reference sheet called Step-by-step
approach to quality in gender training, which might be helpful in this
regard. It's on EIGE's web:
http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/gender-training-stepbystep-
approach-to-quality
Indre
That's good! I feel like the companies don'r know what to ask for. They book meetings
and want to buy "gender equality". That puts an enormous pressure on me as a
conusltant. I have to be very skilled at knowing whta they need and how I can help them
the best way.
Certain standard for gender training/gender trainers - would this help
institutions/companies to understand better what they might or should expect?
In your experience did you run into any other
35. priya alvarez | 18/09/2013, 12:13 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
INDERA Gender Consultancy wrote:
Hello Everybody!
My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I am very much enjoying to be
part of this discussion today.
I would like to refer to some very important aspects Priya raised:
1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender training lost its transformative
edge.
2. We do not need another hypertechnical tool.
3. "Reprogram"
What happended in the last 20 years basically is that gender wasn't so
much mainstreamed but gender was adapted to the mainstream, to take
away the individual, collective (institutional as well as social) and political
process that is the transformative foundation of gender mainstreaming.
GM was basically transformed into a technical tool where people learned
to tick the right boxes, use the right language and leave the underlying
structure of the system untouched.
The result is that people got comfortable with GM, because the
transformative potential was taken out.
People also got bored of gender training, because they still relate "gender"
to "women" and very little is understood what it is really about. And most
of them do not want to face the challenges it really brings.
And this is what I feel we have to look at, why do we train on gender and
what are the expected results. As Priya says to reprogram, to raise
awareness and to put "gender glasses" on.
From my practical experience it is not so much about the right material,
contents, knowledge, didactical, etc. its much more about how can I as a
gender trainer facilitate an individual, collective and political learning
process in diverse contexts.
For me its far more important that people get the "aha" affect "that is what
it is about" than teaching them tools. Once they put their own gender
glasses on they start their own learning process and reach for knowledge
and information.
Regarding standardization we have to take into account the famous
sentence "doing gender". Gender or GM is not a standard learning process
of knowledge transfer it is constantly changing and has to be adapted to its
context.
Its a political process not a technical one!
I agree! We need to helt people understand the possibilities with gender equality, then
they will search the tools.
All these comments are so right to the point. Thanks Rachel and Add gender.
I worked for years as a training consultant and facilitator for gender budgeting. People
expected a highly technical training on hands-on budgeting techniques, templates, etc. I
even enrolled myself in a diploma for public finances to get the vocabulary right and not
be seen as an outsider. After years of technicalities, I realized that two ingredients were
basic in any GB training. One was a wholehearted discussion about gender equality.
People needed some eye opener about the dimensions of inequality coming closer to their
own behaviors and perceptions, starting by their own working place, their families,
children and lives.
Second, people needed to understand why gender equality was important and the benefits
for a better policy making and a more effective job, their job. Otherwise, they thought it
was another fastidious chore invented by a crazy feminist somewhere and they were in
reactions already against it. When it worked, it was fabulous for me to see their faces
changing.
Eventually, I devoted a lot less time in the training to the technicalities of how to conduct
a budgeting exercise with a gender lens. For that, they already knew, even more than me
in cases when they had spent years working on budgeting and financial issues.
What they needed most was the motivation and the understanding of gender equality.
Then I could trust that they would found the exact way they could apply that to their
budgeting systems.
What I mean is that unless people have already gone through basic gender equality
training, they need those basics again and again. It is about them as gendered people, as
well.
Standards and certification should be linked to that as well.
HOW TO DO IT? How to create standards, indicators and certifications for a truly
transformative training, politically effective, change enabler and enabling??
Otherwise, mainstream experience is that those with all the certificates are the Deloittes,
Ernst&Young, etc...., right??
36. Hazel Reeves | 18/09/2013, 12:15 EEST (+03:00)
Hello all
Thank you so much for all your contributions so far - what a fantastic start to the day.
So far, these are some of the main points that have stood out for us when thinking about
why there is a need for quality assurance mechanisms in gender training:
-Standardisation could help us go 'back to basics' and think more about training as a route
to behaviour change or intrinsic motivation. As Rachel Andras says "It's a political
process not a technical one"
-It could help those commissioning training to know more about what to ask for and how
to plan what they want to get out of the training
-It could help trainers when negotiating with those commissioning training. For example
it could offer benefits to smaller trainers with greater gender expertise than bigger
companies who otherwise might dominate.
We have another two hours on this particular topic and look forward to hearing more.
One thing we might want to discuss further is around the question of who or what should
be certified or standardised? What would be the key areas - trainers, programmes,
procedures? Already there have been some interesting points made by Mary, Katlijn and
others on this.
Hazel and Jenny
37. INDERA Gender Consultancy | 18/09/2013, 12:17 EEST (+03:00)
Indre Mackeviciute wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Indre Mackeviciute wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Good morning!
My name is Jenny Claesson and I work at
Add Gender in Sweden.
I believe that one soultion could be to help
companies and municipalities to know what
to ask for. Some sort of demands on what to
expect from a gender equality consultant
would be more helpful than to give the
consultants certification.
Thoughts?
Hello, Jenny,
indeed making the institutions more aware on how to plan
gender training activities and what to take into account in
the process was one of the issues, that we've put on the
table for ourselves at EIGE at the start of the project. We
thought it was important that the institutions would not
only look for gender training in order to tick the box in the
gender mainstreaming checklist. They should try to
understand clearer what they are looking for, what their
specific needs are and think about the meaning of the
quality of training for themselves.
Last year, EIGE has produced a reference sheet called Step-
by-step approach to quality in gender training, which might
be helpful in this regard. It's on EIGE's web:
http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/gender-training-
stepbystep-approach-to-quality
Indre
That's good! I feel like the companies don'r know what to ask for. They
book meetings and want to buy "gender equality". That puts an enormous
pressure on me as a conusltant. I have to be very skilled at knowing whta
they need and how I can help them the best way.
Certain standard for gender training/gender trainers - would this help
institutions/companies to understand better what they might or should expect?
In your experience did you run into any other
I think it is very important to offer gender training first of all in the context of
Organizational Development. It cannot be a stand alone tool.
I also see myself not so much as the expert who brings the gender knowledge, but as the
facilitator of the people in an institution or company to help them to see thir area of
expertise with "gender glasses".
They are the experts, they have to explain me how their area works, I ask them just some
questions to see things form a different angle.
38. Mary Koutselini | 18/09/2013, 12:18 EEST (+03:00)
We would agree with Rachel Andras that 'gender or GM is not a standard learning
process of knowledge transfer. It is constantly changing and has to be adapted to its
context.' Due to the wide and diverse context of gender equality it becomes even more
imperative to not only make sure that quality standards are in place, but also that these
standards are implemented, monitored, adapted to their context and re-evaluated from
time to time to make sure that there is the most efficient allocation of resources and that
adequate GM is taking place at all sectors or levels, as Maurizio Mosca so aptly points
out. Learning and teaching are never static but dynamic and context is important. What
about the emerging categories in some higher education organisations that are associated
with 'borderless' and virtual education, for example? How do we standardise online
learning? Is it possible or even desirable? Even setting aside the learning environment
and different contexts, as Despina Charalmbidou-Solomi has pointed out, 'there is no
official policy on gender training provision neither for the public nor the private sector
nor a G training policy' in Cyprus. This complicates matters even further.
39. Magdalena Zadkowska | 18/09/2013, 12:20 EEST (+03:00)
Hello,
I would like to share my experience of teaching gender equality in Pomeranian region in
Poland, among managers.
I have some recommendation regarding the equality issue.
1. How to encourage participants to view gender issue as important?
In our project financed by European Social found we worked on manager skills with the
background of gender equality. The most important thing was to convince participants
that it is in 100% their choice either they implement gender mainstreaming in their
companies or not. Our role was to show them that this strategy makes profit.
2. How to deal with gender stereotypes?
We always work first in separate gender group. Women work with women and men work
with work. It help people to open themselves to the differences among them. They see
how different they are and what different manager styles they use. After first module of
training we create new mixed groups. Thanks to that they have experience of change to
deal with and they see differences among them from different perspectives, the gender
differences is only one of the differences. Its role is far less significant.
3. How to convince soft skills are even more important on labor market then hard
skills?
The aim of our strategy is to focus not only on professional life but on private and family
life too. Soft skills when practice and increased give quick result in interactions not only
in the office but also with friends and family members. Participants feel the change in
every aspect of their life.
40. INDERA Gender Consultancy | 18/09/2013, 12:21 EEST (+03:00)
priya alvarez wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
INDERA Gender Consultancy wrote:
Hello Everybody!
My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I am very much
enjoying to be part of this discussion today.
I would like to refer to some very important aspects Priya
raised:
1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender training lost its
transformative edge.
2. We do not need another hypertechnical tool.
3. "Reprogram"
What happended in the last 20 years basically is that gender
wasn't so much mainstreamed but gender was adapted to
the mainstream, to take away the individual, collective
(institutional as well as social) and political process that is
the transformative foundation of gender mainstreaming.
GM was basically transformed into a technical tool where
people learned to tick the right boxes, use the right
language and leave the underlying structure of the system
untouched.
The result is that people got comfortable with GM, because
the transformative potential was taken out.
People also got bored of gender training, because they still
relate "gender" to "women" and very little is understood
what it is really about. And most of them do not want to
face the challenges it really brings.
And this is what I feel we have to look at, why do we train
on gender and what are the expected results. As Priya says
to reprogram, to raise awareness and to put "gender
glasses" on.
From my practical experience it is not so much about the
right material, contents, knowledge, didactical, etc. its
much more about how can I as a gender trainer facilitate an
individual, collective and political learning process in
diverse contexts.
For me its far more important that people get the "aha"
affect "that is what it is about" than teaching them tools.
Once they put their own gender glasses on they start their
own learning process and reach for knowledge and
information.
Regarding standardization we have to take into account the
famous sentence "doing gender". Gender or GM is not a
standard learning process of knowledge transfer it is
constantly changing and has to be adapted to its context.
Its a political process not a technical one!
I agree! We need to helt people understand the possibilities with gender
equality, then they will search the tools.
All these comments are so right to the point. Thanks Rachel and Add gender.
I worked for years as a training consultant and facilitator for gender budgeting. People
expected a highly technical training on hands-on budgeting techniques, templates, etc. I
even enrolled myself in a diploma for public finances to get the vocabulary right and not
be seen as an outsider. After years of technicalities, I realized that two ingredients were
basic in any GB training. One was a wholehearted discussion about gender equality.
People needed some eye opener about the dimensions of inequality coming closer to their
own behaviors and perceptions, starting by their own working place, their families,
children and lives.
Second, people needed to understand why gender equality was important and the benefits
for a better policy making and a more effective job, their job. Otherwise, they thought it
was another fastidious chore invented by a crazy feminist somewhere and they were in
reactions already against it. When it worked, it was fabulous for me to see their faces
changing.
Eventually, I devoted a lot less time in the training to the technicalities of how to conduct
a budgeting exercise with a gender lens. For that, they already knew, even more than me
in cases when they had spent years working on budgeting and financial issues.
What they needed most was the motivation and the understanding of gender equality.
Then I could trust that they would found the exact way they could apply that to their
budgeting systems.
What I mean is that unless people have already gone through basic gender equality
training, they need those basics again and again. It is about them as gendered people, as
well.
Standards and certification should be linked to that as well.
HOW TO DO IT? How to create standards, indicators and certifications for a truly
transformative training, politically effective, change enabler and enabling??
Otherwise, mainstream experience is that those with all the certificates are the Deloittes,
Ernst&Young, etc...., right??
I so much agree to what you said and I share the same experience.
People are the experts of their area we help them to analyse their area of expertise from
the gender perspective. We do not need to give them the perfect tools, they will develop
them, once they understood what gender really means.
41. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 12:23 EEST (+03:00)
Indre Mackeviciute wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Indre Mackeviciute wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Good morning!
My name is Jenny Claesson and I work at
Add Gender in Sweden.
I believe that one soultion could be to help
companies and municipalities to know what
to ask for. Some sort of demands on what to
expect from a gender equality consultant
would be more helpful than to give the
consultants certification.
Thoughts?
Hello, Jenny,
indeed making the institutions more aware on how to plan
gender training activities and what to take into account in
the process was one of the issues, that we've put on the
table for ourselves at EIGE at the start of the project. We
thought it was important that the institutions would not
only look for gender training in order to tick the box in the
gender mainstreaming checklist. They should try to
understand clearer what they are looking for, what their
specific needs are and think about the meaning of the
quality of training for themselves.
Last year, EIGE has produced a reference sheet called Step-
by-step approach to quality in gender training, which might
be helpful in this regard. It's on EIGE's web:
http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/gender-training-
stepbystep-approach-to-quality
Indre
That's good! I feel like the companies don'r know what to ask for. They
book meetings and want to buy "gender equality". That puts an enormous
pressure on me as a conusltant. I have to be very skilled at knowing whta
they need and how I can help them the best way.
Certain standard for gender training/gender trainers - would this help
institutions/companies to understand better what they might or should expect?
In your experience did you run into any other
I am not sure frankly. We sometimes have trouble getting people to understand that we
do this for a living. It's often thought that we somehow are paid by the state. We need to
be clear about this area as an area of knowledge. That's the first thing.
The second is that since companies often are so clueless about what to ask for I am not
sure that certifications would help. How about certificates for the companies? And
municipalities also maybe?
42. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 12:23 EEST (+03:00)
priya alvarez wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
INDERA Gender Consultancy wrote:
Hello Everybody!
My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I am very much
enjoying to be part of this discussion today.
I would like to refer to some very important aspects Priya
raised:
1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender training lost its
transformative edge.
2. We do not need another hypertechnical tool.
3. "Reprogram"
What happended in the last 20 years basically is that gender
wasn't so much mainstreamed but gender was adapted to
the mainstream, to take away the individual, collective
(institutional as well as social) and political process that is
the transformative foundation of gender mainstreaming.
GM was basically transformed into a technical tool where
people learned to tick the right boxes, use the right
language and leave the underlying structure of the system
untouched.
The result is that people got comfortable with GM, because
the transformative potential was taken out.
People also got bored of gender training, because they still
relate "gender" to "women" and very little is understood
what it is really about. And most of them do not want to
face the challenges it really brings.
And this is what I feel we have to look at, why do we train
on gender and what are the expected results. As Priya says
to reprogram, to raise awareness and to put "gender
glasses" on.
From my practical experience it is not so much about the
right material, contents, knowledge, didactical, etc. its
much more about how can I as a gender trainer facilitate an
individual, collective and political learning process in
diverse contexts.
For me its far more important that people get the "aha"
affect "that is what it is about" than teaching them tools.
Once they put their own gender glasses on they start their
own learning process and reach for knowledge and
information.
Regarding standardization we have to take into account the
famous sentence "doing gender". Gender or GM is not a
standard learning process of knowledge transfer it is
constantly changing and has to be adapted to its context.
Its a political process not a technical one!
I agree! We need to helt people understand the possibilities with gender
equality, then they will search the tools.
All these comments are so right to the point. Thanks Rachel and Add gender.
I worked for years as a training consultant and facilitator for gender budgeting. People
expected a highly technical training on hands-on budgeting techniques, templates, etc. I
even enrolled myself in a diploma for public finances to get the vocabulary right and not
be seen as an outsider. After years of technicalities, I realized that two ingredients were
basic in any GB training. One was a wholehearted discussion about gender equality.
People needed some eye opener about the dimensions of inequality coming closer to their
own behaviors and perceptions, starting by their own working place, their families,
children and lives.
Second, people needed to understand why gender equality was important and the benefits
for a better policy making and a more effective job, their job. Otherwise, they thought it
was another fastidious chore invented by a crazy feminist somewhere and they were in
reactions already against it. When it worked, it was fabulous for me to see their faces
changing.
Eventually, I devoted a lot less time in the training to the technicalities of how to conduct
a budgeting exercise with a gender lens. For that, they already knew, even more than me
in cases when they had spent years working on budgeting and financial issues.
What they needed most was the motivation and the understanding of gender equality.
Then I could trust that they would found the exact way they could apply that to their
budgeting systems.
What I mean is that unless people have already gone through basic gender equality
training, they need those basics again and again. It is about them as gendered people, as
well.
Standards and certification should be linked to that as well.
HOW TO DO IT? How to create standards, indicators and certifications for a truly
transformative training, politically effective, change enabler and enabling??
Otherwise, mainstream experience is that those with all the certificates are the Deloittes,
Ernst&Young, etc...., right??
Thank you too!
43. Christina Andersson | 18/09/2013, 12:24 EEST (+03:00)
INDERA Gender Consultancy wrote:
priya alvarez wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
INDERA Gender Consultancy wrote:
Hello Everybody!
My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I
am very much enjoying to be part of this
discussion today.
I would like to refer to some very important
aspects Priya raised:
1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender
training lost its transformative edge.
2. We do not need another hypertechnical
tool.
3. "Reprogram"
What happended in the last 20 years
basically is that gender wasn't so much
mainstreamed but gender was adapted to the
mainstream, to take away the individual,
collective (institutional as well as social) and
political process that is the transformative
foundation of gender mainstreaming. GM
was basically transformed into a technical
tool where people learned to tick the right
boxes, use the right language and leave the
underlying structure of the system
untouched.
The result is that people got comfortable
with GM, because the transformative
potential was taken out.
People also got bored of gender training,
because they still relate "gender" to
"women" and very little is understood what
it is really about. And most of them do not
want to face the challenges it really brings.
And this is what I feel we have to look at,
why do we train on gender and what are the
expected results. As Priya says to
reprogram, to raise awareness and to put
"gender glasses" on.
From my practical experience it is not so
much about the right material, contents,
knowledge, didactical, etc. its much more
about how can I as a gender trainer facilitate
an individual, collective and political
learning process in diverse contexts.
For me its far more important that people get
the "aha" affect "that is what it is about"
than teaching them tools. Once they put their
own gender glasses on they start their own
learning process and reach for knowledge
and information.
Regarding standardization we have to take
into account the famous sentence "doing
gender". Gender or GM is not a standard
learning process of knowledge transfer it is
constantly changing and has to be adapted to
its context.
Its a political process not a technical one!
I agree! We need to helt people understand the possibilities
with gender equality, then they will search the tools.
All these comments are so right to the point. Thanks Rachel and Add
gender.
I worked for years as a training consultant and facilitator for gender
budgeting. People expected a highly technical training on hands-on
budgeting techniques, templates, etc. I even enrolled myself in a diploma
for public finances to get the vocabulary right and not be seen as an
outsider. After years of technicalities, I realized that two ingredients were
basic in any GB training. One was a wholehearted discussion about gender
equality. People needed some eye opener about the dimensions of
inequality coming closer to their own behaviors and perceptions, starting
by their own working place, their families, children and lives.
Second, people needed to understand why gender equality was important
and the benefits for a better policy making and a more effective job, their
job. Otherwise, they thought it was another fastidious chore invented by a
crazy feminist somewhere and they were in reactions already against it.
When it worked, it was fabulous for me to see their faces changing.
Eventually, I devoted a lot less time in the training to the technicalities of
how to conduct a budgeting exercise with a gender lens. For that, they
already knew, even more than me in cases when they had spent years
working on budgeting and financial issues.
What they needed most was the motivation and the understanding of
gender equality. Then I could trust that they would found the exact way
they could apply that to their budgeting systems.
What I mean is that unless people have already gone through basic gender
equality training, they need those basics again and again. It is about them
as gendered people, as well.
Standards and certification should be linked to that as well.
HOW TO DO IT? How to create standards, indicators and certifications
for a truly transformative training, politically effective, change enabler and
enabling??
Otherwise, mainstream experience is that those with all the certificates are
the Deloittes, Ernst&Young, etc...., right??
I so much agree to what you said and I share the same experience.
People are the experts of their area we help them to analyse their area of expertise from
the gender perspective. We do not need to give them the perfect tools, they will develop
them, once they understood what gender really means.
This is very true! " We do not need to give them the perfect tools, they will develop
them, once they understood what gender really means" very true indeed
44. priya alvarez | 18/09/2013, 12:26 EEST (+03:00)
Hazel Reeves wrote:
Hello all
Thank you so much for all your contributions so far - what a fantastic start to the day.
So far, these are some of the main points that have stood out for us when thinking about
why there is a need for quality assurance mechanisms in gender training:
-Standardisation could help us go 'back to basics' and think more about training as a route
to behaviour change or intrinsic motivation. As Rachel Andras says "It's a political
process not a technical one"
-It could help those commissioning training to know more about what to ask for and how
to plan what they want to get out of the training
-It could help trainers when negotiating with those commissioning training. For example
it could offer benefits to smaller trainers with greater gender expertise than bigger
companies who otherwise might dominate.
We have another two hours on this particular topic and look forward to hearing more.
One thing we might want to discuss further is around the question of who or what should
be certified or standardised? What would be the key areas - trainers, programmes,
procedures? Already there have been some interesting points made by Mary, Katlijn and
others on this.
Hazel and Jenny
What are the advantages of certification processes for gender trainers? They stamp
on you the "quality assurance" hallmark and then institutions can rely (and relax) on this.
But, as a feminist, I want certification processes to be able to assess commitment,
experience or ability to facilitate change.
Who will benefit from certification processes? If the market is interesting enough, big
consultancy companies will want a piece of that. Overexpensive or cumbersome
certification processes can leave out traditional gender trainers coming from civil society
organizations.
Shouldnt we have "AND Gender" certification process? Many times I need a training in
leadership and managerial skills and I would love to find a facilitator able to offer
"leadership, managerial skills AND gender.
45. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 12:26 EEST (+03:00)
priya alvarez wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
INDERA Gender Consultancy wrote:
Hello Everybody!
My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I am very much
enjoying to be part of this discussion today.
I would like to refer to some very important aspects Priya
raised:
1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender training lost its
transformative edge.
2. We do not need another hypertechnical tool.
3. "Reprogram"
What happended in the last 20 years basically is that gender
wasn't so much mainstreamed but gender was adapted to
the mainstream, to take away the individual, collective
(institutional as well as social) and political process that is
the transformative foundation of gender mainstreaming.
GM was basically transformed into a technical tool where
people learned to tick the right boxes, use the right
language and leave the underlying structure of the system
untouched.
The result is that people got comfortable with GM, because
the transformative potential was taken out.
People also got bored of gender training, because they still
relate "gender" to "women" and very little is understood
what it is really about. And most of them do not want to
face the challenges it really brings.
And this is what I feel we have to look at, why do we train
on gender and what are the expected results. As Priya says
to reprogram, to raise awareness and to put "gender
glasses" on.
From my practical experience it is not so much about the
right material, contents, knowledge, didactical, etc. its
much more about how can I as a gender trainer facilitate an
individual, collective and political learning process in
diverse contexts.
For me its far more important that people get the "aha"
affect "that is what it is about" than teaching them tools.
Once they put their own gender glasses on they start their
own learning process and reach for knowledge and
information.
Regarding standardization we have to take into account the
famous sentence "doing gender". Gender or GM is not a
standard learning process of knowledge transfer it is
constantly changing and has to be adapted to its context.
Its a political process not a technical one!
I agree! We need to helt people understand the possibilities with gender
equality, then they will search the tools.
All these comments are so right to the point. Thanks Rachel and Add gender.
I worked for years as a training consultant and facilitator for gender budgeting. People
expected a highly technical training on hands-on budgeting techniques, templates, etc. I
even enrolled myself in a diploma for public finances to get the vocabulary right and not
be seen as an outsider. After years of technicalities, I realized that two ingredients were
basic in any GB training. One was a wholehearted discussion about gender equality.
People needed some eye opener about the dimensions of inequality coming closer to their
own behaviors and perceptions, starting by their own working place, their families,
children and lives.
Second, people needed to understand why gender equality was important and the benefits
for a better policy making and a more effective job, their job. Otherwise, they thought it
was another fastidious chore invented by a crazy feminist somewhere and they were in
reactions already against it. When it worked, it was fabulous for me to see their faces
changing.
Eventually, I devoted a lot less time in the training to the technicalities of how to conduct
a budgeting exercise with a gender lens. For that, they already knew, even more than me
in cases when they had spent years working on budgeting and financial issues.
What they needed most was the motivation and the understanding of gender equality.
Then I could trust that they would found the exact way they could apply that to their
budgeting systems.
What I mean is that unless people have already gone through basic gender equality
training, they need those basics again and again. It is about them as gendered people, as
well.
Standards and certification should be linked to that as well.
HOW TO DO IT? How to create standards, indicators and certifications for a truly
transformative training, politically effective, change enabler and enabling??
Otherwise, mainstream experience is that those with all the certificates are the Deloittes,
Ernst&Young, etc...., right??
Yes! We need to make sure that the right people get the certificates. I can see very clearly
that the big consultant companies in Sweden are starting to see the money in equality and
I worry about their level of knowledge. In my experience, it is worse to come to a
company after a "bad" gender equality consultant than to be the first they meet.
How do we secure this from happening?
EIGE?
46. Magdalena Zadkowska | 18/09/2013, 12:26 EEST (+03:00)
As academic teacher and gender trainer I would need the certificate (the best would be
European level) to make my work seen as important and needed especially at the very
first stage of cooperation. The first contact with clients is crucial. I feel that the certificate
might be good idea to give strength to the work we do and feel clients convinced they
invest in important field of human resources. When the coperation is already on-going the
certifcate importance is not that significant.
47. priya alvarez | 18/09/2013, 12:30 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
priya alvarez wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
INDERA Gender Consultancy wrote:
Hello Everybody!
My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I
am very much enjoying to be part of this
discussion today.
I would like to refer to some very important
aspects Priya raised:
1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender
training lost its transformative edge.
2. We do not need another hypertechnical
tool.
3. "Reprogram"
What happended in the last 20 years
basically is that gender wasn't so much
mainstreamed but gender was adapted to the
mainstream, to take away the individual,
collective (institutional as well as social) and
political process that is the transformative
foundation of gender mainstreaming. GM
was basically transformed into a technical
tool where people learned to tick the right
boxes, use the right language and leave the
underlying structure of the system
untouched.
The result is that people got comfortable
with GM, because the transformative
potential was taken out.
People also got bored of gender training,
because they still relate "gender" to
"women" and very little is understood what
it is really about. And most of them do not
want to face the challenges it really brings.
And this is what I feel we have to look at,
why do we train on gender and what are the
expected results. As Priya says to
reprogram, to raise awareness and to put
"gender glasses" on.
From my practical experience it is not so
much about the right material, contents,
knowledge, didactical, etc. its much more
about how can I as a gender trainer facilitate
an individual, collective and political
learning process in diverse contexts.
For me its far more important that people get
the "aha" affect "that is what it is about"
than teaching them tools. Once they put their
own gender glasses on they start their own
learning process and reach for knowledge
and information.
Regarding standardization we have to take
into account the famous sentence "doing
gender". Gender or GM is not a standard
learning process of knowledge transfer it is
constantly changing and has to be adapted to
its context.
Its a political process not a technical one!
I agree! We need to helt people understand the possibilities
with gender equality, then they will search the tools.
All these comments are so right to the point. Thanks Rachel and Add
gender.
I worked for years as a training consultant and facilitator for gender
budgeting. People expected a highly technical training on hands-on
budgeting techniques, templates, etc. I even enrolled myself in a diploma
for public finances to get the vocabulary right and not be seen as an
outsider. After years of technicalities, I realized that two ingredients were
basic in any GB training. One was a wholehearted discussion about gender
equality. People needed some eye opener about the dimensions of
inequality coming closer to their own behaviors and perceptions, starting
by their own working place, their families, children and lives.
Second, people needed to understand why gender equality was important
and the benefits for a better policy making and a more effective job, their
job. Otherwise, they thought it was another fastidious chore invented by a
crazy feminist somewhere and they were in reactions already against it.
When it worked, it was fabulous for me to see their faces changing.
Eventually, I devoted a lot less time in the training to the technicalities of
how to conduct a budgeting exercise with a gender lens. For that, they
already knew, even more than me in cases when they had spent years
working on budgeting and financial issues.
What they needed most was the motivation and the understanding of
gender equality. Then I could trust that they would found the exact way
they could apply that to their budgeting systems.
What I mean is that unless people have already gone through basic gender
equality training, they need those basics again and again. It is about them
as gendered people, as well.
Standards and certification should be linked to that as well.
HOW TO DO IT? How to create standards, indicators and certifications
for a truly transformative training, politically effective, change enabler and
enabling??
Otherwise, mainstream experience is that those with all the certificates are
the Deloittes, Ernst&Young, etc...., right??
Yes! We need to make sure that the right people get the certificates. I can see very clearly
that the big consultant companies in Sweden are starting to see the money in equality and
I worry about their level of knowledge. In my experience, it is worse to come to a
company after a "bad" gender equality consultant than to be the first they meet.
How do we secure this from happening?
EIGE?
Even in recruitment processes for staff, I always rely in commitment. Commitment can
be shown by people consistently chosing gender equality all along their professional
lives, instead of other more luring paths.
Years of experience IN gender equality, affiliation to gender equality organizations (civil
society) vs. experience on a variety of related topics, for which generalists consultancy
companies are unbeatable.
48. Mary Koutselini | 18/09/2013, 12:32 EEST (+03:00)
In response to Hazel Reeves' questions 'Who or what should be certified or standardised?
What would be the key areas - trainers, programmes, procedures?' we would suggest that
procedures should certainly be standardised, as well as certain programmes (although this
imposes limits and can be difficult), but that it is difficult and undesirable, if not
impossible, to standardise trainers. If we are talking about standardising numbers to
ensure an equal or 50/50 participation rate, i.e. one female and one male gender trainer,
then that may be manageable (although even here we are opening the door to judgemental
claims of discrimination), but to standardise people's belief systems, attitudes and
perceptions is not a viable option.
49. INDERA Gender Consultancy | 18/09/2013, 12:34 EEST (+03:00)
Hazel Reeves wrote:
Hello all
Thank you so much for all your contributions so far - what a fantastic start to the day.
So far, these are some of the main points that have stood out for us when thinking about
why there is a need for quality assurance mechanisms in gender training:
-Standardisation could help us go 'back to basics' and think more about training as a route
to behaviour change or intrinsic motivation. As Rachel Andras says "It's a political
process not a technical one"
-It could help those commissioning training to know more about what to ask for and how
to plan what they want to get out of the training
-It could help trainers when negotiating with those commissioning training. For example
it could offer benefits to smaller trainers with greater gender expertise than bigger
companies who otherwise might dominate.
We have another two hours on this particular topic and look forward to hearing more.
One thing we might want to discuss further is around the question of who or what should
be certified or standardised? What would be the key areas - trainers, programmes,
procedures? Already there have been some interesting points made by Mary, Katlijn and
others on this.
Hazel and Jenny
We have to be very careful in standadisation and certification, as lots of people already
mentioned, there is a huge danger of getting into a very competetive process, where again
the real quality gets lost.
In my experience it has to be a quality assurance for trainers which is considered a
learning cycle and not a fixed certficate.
I feel it is important to set up a community of practice where trainers have the possibility
for constant reflection and peer review on a supportive basis, not as a control!
50. Mary Koutselini | 18/09/2013, 12:36 EEST (+03:00)
Not to mention the fact that when notions of equity and quality are analyzed according to
measurable criteria, this ironically produces inequality among trainees and techniques
among teachers.
51. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 12:37 EEST (+03:00)
Magdalena Zadkowska wrote:
As academic teacher and gender trainer I would need the certificate (the best would be
European level) to make my work seen as important and needed especially at the very
first stage of cooperation. The first contact with clients is crucial. I feel that the certificate
might be good idea to give strength to the work we do and feel clients convinced they
invest in important field of human resources. When the coperation is already on-going the
certifcate importance is not that significant.
I understand what you mean, but I rather have better argumnets and work on my selling
skills. I still don't see how a certificate would work. Who shall give them out? On what
grounds? How much will this cost? How is small start ups going to pay for the
certificate?
It is still a bransch with many small companies. I strive to make it easier to start and live
off a gender equality company and I see certificates as a threshold at the moment. Things
might change in the future.
52. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 12:39 EEST (+03:00)
INDERA Gender Consultancy wrote:
Hazel Reeves wrote:
Hello all
Thank you so much for all your contributions so far - what a fantastic start
to the day.
So far, these are some of the main points that have stood out for us when
thinking about why there is a need for quality assurance mechanisms in
gender training:
-Standardisation could help us go 'back to basics' and think more about
training as a route to behaviour change or intrinsic motivation. As Rachel
Andras says "It's a political process not a technical one"
-It could help those commissioning training to know more about what to
ask for and how to plan what they want to get out of the training
-It could help trainers when negotiating with those commissioning
training. For example it could offer benefits to smaller trainers with
greater gender expertise than bigger companies who otherwise might
dominate.
We have another two hours on this particular topic and look forward to
hearing more.
One thing we might want to discuss further is around the question of who
or what should be certified or standardised? What would be the key areas -
trainers, programmes, procedures? Already there have been some
interesting points made by Mary, Katlijn and others on this.
Hazel and Jenny
We have to be very careful in standadisation and certification, as lots of people already
mentioned, there is a huge danger of getting into a very competetive process, where again
the real quality gets lost.
In my experience it has to be a quality assurance for trainers which is considered a
learning cycle and not a fixed certficate.
I feel it is important to set up a community of practice where trainers have the possibility
for constant reflection and peer review on a supportive basis, not as a control!
I agree, and I have mentioned the Swedish gender business network. Are there similar
networks in Europa? Can we collaborate?
53. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 12:40 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
INDERA Gender Consultancy wrote:
Hazel Reeves wrote:
Hello all
Thank you so much for all your contributions so far - what
a fantastic start to the day.
So far, these are some of the main points that have stood
out for us when thinking about why there is a need for
quality assurance mechanisms in gender training:
-Standardisation could help us go 'back to basics' and think
more about training as a route to behaviour change or
intrinsic motivation. As Rachel Andras says "It's a political
process not a technical one"
-It could help those commissioning training to know more
about what to ask for and how to plan what they want to get
out of the training
-It could help trainers when negotiating with those
commissioning training. For example it could offer benefits
to smaller trainers with greater gender expertise than bigger
companies who otherwise might dominate.
We have another two hours on this particular topic and look
forward to hearing more.
One thing we might want to discuss further is around the
question of who or what should be certified or
standardised? What would be the key areas - trainers,
programmes, procedures? Already there have been some
interesting points made by Mary, Katlijn and others on this.
Hazel and Jenny
We have to be very careful in standadisation and certification, as lots of
people already mentioned, there is a huge danger of getting into a very
competetive process, where again the real quality gets lost.
In my experience it has to be a quality assurance for trainers which is
considered a learning cycle and not a fixed certficate.
I feel it is important to set up a community of practice where trainers have
the possibility for constant reflection and peer review on a supportive
basis, not as a control!
I agree, and I have mentioned the Swedish gender business network. Are there similar
networks in Europa? Can we collaborate?
http://www.genusforetagarna.se/
In swedish though...
54. Roza Dimova | 18/09/2013, 12:43 EEST (+03:00)
I would like to add on the question of Hazel that certifying procedures and programs
would be difficult, because in most of the cases GM trainings are demand driven. So,
probably certifying trainers is better option, especially setting a minimum standards for
them, based on experineces in the field.
55. INDERA Gender Consultancy | 18/09/2013, 12:43 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
INDERA Gender Consultancy wrote:
Hazel Reeves wrote:
Hello all
Thank you so much for all your contributions so far - what
a fantastic start to the day.
So far, these are some of the main points that have stood
out for us when thinking about why there is a need for
quality assurance mechanisms in gender training:
-Standardisation could help us go 'back to basics' and think
more about training as a route to behaviour change or
intrinsic motivation. As Rachel Andras says "It's a political
process not a technical one"
-It could help those commissioning training to know more
about what to ask for and how to plan what they want to get
out of the training
-It could help trainers when negotiating with those
commissioning training. For example it could offer benefits
to smaller trainers with greater gender expertise than bigger
companies who otherwise might dominate.
We have another two hours on this particular topic and look
forward to hearing more.
One thing we might want to discuss further is around the
question of who or what should be certified or
standardised? What would be the key areas - trainers,
programmes, procedures? Already there have been some
interesting points made by Mary, Katlijn and others on this.
Hazel and Jenny
We have to be very careful in standadisation and certification, as lots of
people already mentioned, there is a huge danger of getting into a very
competetive process, where again the real quality gets lost.
In my experience it has to be a quality assurance for trainers which is
considered a learning cycle and not a fixed certficate.
I feel it is important to set up a community of practice where trainers have
the possibility for constant reflection and peer review on a supportive
basis, not as a control!
I agree, and I have mentioned the Swedish gender business network. Are there similar
networks in Europa? Can we collaborate?
We started over two years ago to set up a gender training CoP, but had to stop due to lack
of funds. There is already a group of trainers who are interested in.
I think its a point we have to raise in the second part of this discussion.
56. City of Vienna | 18/09/2013, 12:45 EEST (+03:00)
Hello, we are Ursula Bauer and Jana Schultheiß from the City of Vienna, working for the
section gender mainstreaming. This is our first participation in an EIGE online discussion
and we are very impressed about how in informative and well organizes this works. We
are offering gender trainings for civil servants working for the vast city administration.
And we are as well commissioning gender experts either for trainings or for gender
expertise when working out pilot projects. Thus we see both sides: as trainers and as an
organization looking for trainers. So standardizations seems promising - makes life easer
for organizations. But we completely agree to those who point out the problem of who
will decide what and who is beeing cerified and who will be able to pay for cerfitication.
Shouldn´t we not rather think about making organizations who ask for trainings "gender
fit" and offer guidelines what they should look for?
57. Despina Charalambidou-Solomi | 18/09/2013, 12:46 EEST (+03:00)
As to Add Gender AB question on gender diversity in Member States, my concern is that
if we donot take into account the vast diversity on GM and G. training to begin with, any
plans or measures decided at EU or EIGE level will not be effective. Probably, by
dividing EU mmember states into categories as regards their policies and degree of
implementation of GM and G training, we might be able to cater for each
category/country separately e.g. by making G.training compulsory for all institutions
private or public that acquire EU funding.
Another issue we have not mentioned so far, is that gender equality policies and actions
are taking back seat in the priorities and budgets of southern european countries, like
Cyprus, because of the financial crisis.
Thus, however, excellent or thorough plans on G. training are, they will not be applied in
some countries like GM has not become official policy and has not had any real bearing
on official policies so far in some countries.
58. Mary Koutselini | 18/09/2013, 12:49 EEST (+03:00)
I agree with Magdalena Zadkowsa on the topic of certification. The question is, what
authority or organisation will implement this gender training? Someone mentioned
political will earlier. Political will is clearly needed if a certain authority's cerificate is
going to be used routinely. How will this certificate be validated? It won't say how
effective the training was, and trainers and educators will receive it once they have
attended certain seminars, courses, etc. So is attendance going to be the main criterion?
Then there is the question of funding. Will the authority be supported financially by an
external body, for example, as takes place with the European Quality Mark - EQM?
Training must clearly be financially viable and sustainable.
59. Krini Kafiris | 18/09/2013, 12:51 EEST (+03:00)
Hi, I'm Krini Kafiris. Both the topic and the comments here are very thought provoking.
Here are some of my thoughts.
1. It seems to me that quality assurance mechanisms are put in place in order to improve
outcomes and impacts. However, in some kinds of trainings at least, we don't really know
what those are. Evaluations are very limited and there is little opportunity for follow up
over longer periods of time. There is also little independent/academic research on these
issues. So, if we don't know exactly what gender training has resulted in, how do we
know how to improve it?
The assumption that more gender training will lead to better results--has not been proved
to be true. If anything, in many places in Europe, even though we are doing more and
more gender trainings of all kinds, the situation for women is getting worse especially in
employment settings, not better, and a social and cultural backlash against feminism
seems to be everywhere.
2. In the kind of training that I do, there is already a fair bit of informal standardisation--
content, methods, structure, approaches. It is not always adjusted or tailored to address
local needs, experiences, understandings and standpoints. And newer ideas and theories
which could be useful in getting points across---have not been incorporated. Trainers and
clients are not interested in exploring new approaches or in promoting locally relevant
trainig for specific people and places---there is little time, funding and political incentive.
Which I think is another main issue here--as our colleagues in Cyprus pointed out. There
is increasingly limited time and funding for gender training and little political
commitment to it--at institutional but also individual levels. This includes participants.
How can gender training be developed with these issues in mind so that it can make a
difference? I am not convinced that quality assurance mechanisms--as I understand them
at least---is the way to go.
60. Krini Kafiris | 18/09/2013, 12:51 EEST (+03:00)
Hi, I'm Krini Kafiris. Both the topic and the comments here are very thought provoking.
Here are some of my thoughts.
1. It seems to me that quality assurance mechanisms are put in place in order to improve
outcomes and impacts. However, in some kinds of trainings at least, we don't really know
what those are. Evaluations are very limited and there is little opportunity for follow up
over longer periods of time. There is also little independent/academic research on these
issues. So, if we don't know exactly what gender training has resulted in, how do we
know how to improve it?
The assumption that more gender training will lead to better results--has not been proved
to be true. If anything, in many places in Europe, even though we are doing more and
more gender trainings of all kinds, the situation for women is getting worse especially in
employment settings, not better, and a social and cultural backlash against feminism
seems to be everywhere.
2. In the kind of training that I do, there is already a fair bit of informal standardisation--
content, methods, structure, approaches. It is not always adjusted or tailored to address
local needs, experiences, understandings and standpoints. And newer ideas and theories
which could be useful in getting points across---have not been incorporated. Trainers and
clients are not interested in exploring new approaches or in promoting locally relevant
trainig for specific people and places---there is little time, funding and political incentive.
Which I think is another main issue here--as our colleagues in Cyprus pointed out. There
is increasingly limited time and funding for gender training and little political
commitment to it--at institutional but also individual levels. This includes participants.
How can gender training be developed with these issues in mind so that it can make a
difference? I am not convinced that quality assurance mechanisms--as I understand them
at least---is the way to go.
61. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 12:52 EEST (+03:00)
Despina Charalambidou-Solomi wrote:
As to Add Gender AB question on gender diversity in Member States, my concern is that
if we donot take into account the vast diversity on GM and G. training to begin with, any
plans or measures decided at EU or EIGE level will not be effective. Probably, by
dividing EU mmember states into categories as regards their policies and degree of
implementation of GM and G training, we might be able to cater for each
category/country separately e.g. by making G.training compulsory for all institutions
private or public that acquire EU funding.
Another issue we have not mentioned so far, is that gender equality policies and actions
are taking back seat in the priorities and budgets of southern european countries, like
Cyprus, because of the financial crisis.
Thus, however, excellent or thorough plans on G. training are, they will not be applied in
some countries like GM has not become official policy and has not had any real bearing
on official policies so far in some countries.
Yes and we have such different histories, one soultion for all will not be enough.
But I would like to use GE as a motor for economic growth and a way out of crisis.
62. INDERA Gender Consultancy | 18/09/2013, 12:55 EEST (+03:00)
I have the feeling if we start to standardize 50/50 participants and female and male
trainers, etc. people will again focus on this aspects and they will get more importance
than the actual training.
Yes I agree it is good to have a female and a male trainer, but its not crucial. We also
have to be careful to not go into a biased approach, it is not so much about male and
female it is about power relations and they equally exist between different groups of male
and female, etc.
If we focus too much on those aspects we will again drift away from the essential aspect
of GM: power relations.
63. The Centre for Gender Equality - Iceland | 18/09/2013, 13:07 EEST (+03:00)
Hazel Reeves wrote:
Hello all
Thank you so much for all your contributions so far - what a fantastic start to the day.
So far, these are some of the main points that have stood out for us when thinking about
why there is a need for quality assurance mechanisms in gender training:
-Standardisation could help us go 'back to basics' and think more about training as a route
to behaviour change or intrinsic motivation. As Rachel Andras says "It's a political
process not a technical one"
-It could help those commissioning training to know more about what to ask for and how
to plan what they want to get out of the training
-It could help trainers when negotiating with those commissioning training. For example
it could offer benefits to smaller trainers with greater gender expertise than bigger
companies who otherwise might dominate.
We have another two hours on this particular topic and look forward to hearing more.
One thing we might want to discuss further is around the question of who or what should
be certified or standardised? What would be the key areas - trainers, programmes,
procedures? Already there have been some interesting points made by Mary, Katlijn and
others on this.
Hazel and Jenny
There seems to be a general tendency to point out the discrepancy between
standardization and “real gender equality” grounded on real understanding of a feminist
critique. – Is this where we are? Because this means that discussion on how a certificate
should work needs to address this.
In Iceland we have “done gender” basically on these two levels. The first: Based on
approaching the mechanical structures with more or less the same tools you are all
familiar with. Second (and this is less formalised): We try to reinforce the need for
constantly re-addressing the “classic” questions posed by the women’s rights movements.
If a standard is to work universally – it will have to allow for “a positioning” of different
actors (organizations/companies) on this continuum between (A)--->---(B) were A: the
technical requirement/and a positioning of gender issues within the formal structures B:
an understanding (“the proper understanding”.. power relations etc).
And after we position actors on this continuum we need to be sure that the work done
moves progressively towards more equality.
Trainers must therefore be able to work within this “archetype” –
Question remains how much autonomy they should have? – and does the need for
autonomy eliminate the possibility for a standard?
64. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 13:07 EEST (+03:00)
INDERA Gender Consultancy wrote:
I have the feeling if we start to standardize 50/50 participants and female and male
trainers, etc. people will again focus on this aspects and they will get more importance
than the actual training.
Yes I agree it is good to have a female and a male trainer, but its not crucial. We also
have to be careful to not go into a biased approach, it is not so much about male and
female it is about power relations and they equally exist between different groups of male
and female, etc.
If we focus too much on those aspects we will again drift away from the essential aspect
of GM: power relations.
Well put. I agree. The goal for me is never 50/50 it is awareness and knowledge.
65. Indre Mackeviciute | 18/09/2013, 13:12 EEST (+03:00)
City of Vienna wrote:
Hello, we are Ursula Bauer and Jana Schultheiß from the City of Vienna, working for the
section gender mainstreaming. This is our first participation in an EIGE online discussion
and we are very impressed about how in informative and well organizes this works. We
are offering gender trainings for civil servants working for the vast city administration.
And we are as well commissioning gender experts either for trainings or for gender
expertise when working out pilot projects. Thus we see both sides: as trainers and as an
organization looking for trainers. So standardizations seems promising - makes life easer
for organizations. But we completely agree to those who point out the problem of who
will decide what and who is beeing cerified and who will be able to pay for cerfitication.
Shouldn´t we not rather think about making organizations who ask for trainings "gender
fit" and offer guidelines what they should look for?
Welcome Ursula and Jana!
it's relate great to have people who see both sides of the coin. As I have mentioned
before, EIGE has developed a short guide for the institutions on what to think about when
they plan training: http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/gender-training-stepbystep-
approa...
Indeed, we should consider different options for making sure that the quality is there.
Certification is one of them. But we know well, that certification in the worst case
scenario might turn into a complicated system that requires lots of resources and does not
always serve the initial purpose. Therefore we could take this possibility to also see what
the other options are to make sure that gender training transforms the realities for the
benefit of gender equality. What are the ways to make sure that quality is there in
Austrian gender training efforts?
66. Benedetta Magri | 18/09/2013, 13:14 EEST (+03:00)
Hello this is Benedetta Magri from the International Training Centre of the ILO (Gender
Programme). Thanks for the interesting contribution, here are just some initial ideas,
hope I am not repeating too much of what said before.
On the why for quality assurance in gender training : a bad gender training course is
worse than no training at all. In a way this is true for any training, but for gender it seems
to be worse because it is very easy to downplay the issue with the excuse that the training
was bad.
If we are talking about training for institutional capacity development - quality of training
is closely related to the quality of the overall institutional capacity development strategy
and its relevance to the very specific context of people's working environment. So yes
there is need for quality assurance of the training design, delivery and evaluation process:
relevance, inclusiveness, (potential) impact on behavioural change.
Certification of trainers is a bit more complex and needs to be - in my view -
contextualised as "gender training" covers very different areas of technical expertise.
To be a gender trainer you need to put together two sets of not necessarily linked
competences. I mean that a good gender trainer must have direct experience in gender
analysis and planning in a specific field + capacity to help people develop their own
skills.
In relation to contents: we have been working on defining sets of competences for various
types of professional gender-related profiles over the last 15 years (eg EO Advisors for
Italian Ministry of Labour, gender focal points in the UN, gender audit facilitators - here
we have a proper Certification programme by the way) and one of the lessons learned is -
I agree with INDERA - that Certification is valid only if it is a on-going learning process
and not a system to create competition.
67. Veronika Šprincová | 18/09/2013, 13:23 EEST (+03:00)
Benedetta Magri wrote:
Hello this is Benedetta Magri from the International Training Centre of the ILO (Gender
Programme). Thanks for the interesting contribution, here are just some initial ideas,
hope I am not repeating too much of what said before.
On the why for quality assurance in gender training : a bad gender training course is
worse than no training at all. In a way this is true for any training, but for gender it seems
to be worse because it is very easy to downplay the issue with the excuse that the training
was bad.
If we are talking about training for institutional capacity development - quality of training
is closely related to the quality of the overall institutional capacity development strategy
and its relevance to the very specific context of people's working environment. So yes
there is need for quality assurance of the training design, delivery and evaluation process:
relevance, inclusiveness, (potential) impact on behavioural change.
Certification of trainers is a bit more complex and needs to be - in my view -
contextualised as "gender training" covers very different areas of technical expertise.
To be a gender trainer you need to put together two sets of not necessarily linked
competences. I mean that a good gender trainer must have direct experience in gender
analysis and planning in a specific field + capacity to help people develop their own
skills.
In relation to contents: we have been working on defining sets of competences for various
types of professional gender-related profiles over the last 15 years (eg EO Advisors for
Italian Ministry of Labour, gender focal points in the UN, gender audit facilitators - here
we have a proper Certification programme by the way) and one of the lessons learned is -
I agree with INDERA - that Certification is valid only if it is a on-going learning process
and not a system to create competition.
Benedetta, I absolutely agree. You put it very precisely.
68. Edīte Kalniņa | 18/09/2013, 13:31 EEST (+03:00)
I do not have a clarity whom are we going to certify? What's trhe rational to certify EIGE
and for EIGE to hold ISO certificate? Most of learning providers on gender
mainsteraming/ gender equality are small and medium size companies, self-employed
consultants, even not-for-profits. Requiring ISO certificate seems to me more like a
lobbying action for ISO certificate providers. It is costly. I think our Ministry of Welfare,
social partners (e.g tradfeunions, employers confideration) got ISO certified using EU
social funds. Does it help with gender equality situation in Latvia. No.
69. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 13:32 EEST (+03:00)
Benedetta Magri wrote:
Hello this is Benedetta Magri from the International Training Centre of the
ILO (Gender Programme). Thanks for the interesting contribution, here
are just some initial ideas, hope I am not repeating too much of what said
before.
On the why for quality assurance in gender training : a bad gender training
course is worse than no training at all. In a way this is true for any
training, but for gender it seems to be worse because it is very easy to
downplay the issue with the excuse that the training was bad.
If we are talking about training for institutional capacity development -
quality of training is closely related to the quality of the overall
institutional capacity development strategy and its relevance to the very
specific context of people's working environment. So yes there is need for
quality assurance of the training design, delivery and evaluation process:
relevance, inclusiveness, (potential) impact on behavioural change.
Certification of trainers is a bit more complex and needs to be - in my
view - contextualised as "gender training" covers very different areas of
technical expertise.
To be a gender trainer you need to put together two sets of not necessarily
linked competences. I mean that a good gender trainer must have direct
experience in gender analysis and planning in a specific field + capacity to
help people develop their own skills.
In relation to contents: we have been working on defining sets of
competences for various types of professional gender-related profiles over
the last 15 years (eg EO Advisors for Italian Ministry of Labour, gender
focal points in the UN, gender audit facilitators - here we have a proper
Certification programme by the way) and one of the lessons learned is - I
agree with INDERA - that Certification is valid only if it is a on-going
learning process and not a system to create competition.
I agree, it is very important that we think this through, but it is also important the gender
equality training has high quality.
70. Magdalena Zadkowska | 18/09/2013, 13:32 EEST (+03:00)
Thank you for all inspiring comments :-)
I see two issues that can be standardized:
3. We can develop the evaluation tool – like a questionnaire that appears at the very
beginning of training and the very end. We can collect data then (on international
level) and see if trainings work (also for our, trainers needs) when analyzing the
change of attitudes towards men and women before and after course (that is what
I do with psychological test of Heilman and/or ASI – backlash of stereotypes)
4. We could agree on having certificate saying that we work under EU gender policy
– gender mainstreaming as the green light for our activism in every area we
work.
Comments:
o Katarzyna Pabijanek | 18/09/2013, 13:40 EEST (+03:00)
Magdalena, this is interesting idea. As you my know, we have Gender Trainers'
Database available through EuroGender (accessible from Communications Hub
menu). The database features up-to-date profiles of gender trainers and
organisations offering gender training across the EU and Croatia. This database
was created to help finding gender trainers with specific thematic knowledge,
skills and expertise to design training courses tailored for different needs and
policy areas. While trainers who currently are in the database were identified
through a specific project, EuroGender seeks to serve as a platform where trainers
will be able to advertise their work. Of course, here comes again the question of
standardization and certification. Anyway, as the launch of EuroGender is
approaching, we will be grateful for your, gender training practitioners,ideas on
how make it useful and credible!
71. Edīte Kalniņa | 18/09/2013, 13:36 EEST (+03:00)
In my eyes what we need is mininum standard for learning/ training providers. I would go
for individual certification or assessment against minimum criteria. When can you call
yourself a gender trainer? As an NGO activist I found recently an issue how to actually
prove/ get evidence for volunteer NGO work in gender equality field.
72. Christian Veske | 18/09/2013, 13:40 EEST (+03:00)
Hello,
My name is Christian. Before starting working at EIGE I used to work at Estonian
Ministry of Social Affairs Gender Equality Department. From the ESF programme the
ministry organised training for Gender Equality trainers. During the course participants
also had to do practical work within the large institutions. Some participants at the
training already had gender studies background, some not. Training the trainers allowed
ministry to be sure of the quality.
To my knowledge, after participation at the training the participants also established a
consultation body to work in the field.
Nevertheless, Estonia faces issues of training its public service eployees. It is not
systematic. A good example however is a project led by the Equality Commissioner
where part of the gender budgeting project they also provided participants (state
institutions) with the basics of gender equality. To my knowledge they also made it very
relevant to different groups.
I hope that it will be a fruitful discussion on how to proceed and what has been done in
different member states.
73. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 13:55 EEST (+03:00)
Maybe one way to start this is to compare the laws in the member countries. What are the
similarities? Where is the common grounds? What is mandatory and so on?
Has this been a topic in EIGE?
74. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 13:58 EEST (+03:00)
I feel that the Swedish gender business network is a great way to tell companies where to
find skilled consultants. And because we are many we can share experiences, teach each
other, get better deals on ensurance and so on. I would really like to extend the network
to the whole of Europe!
75. Hazel Reeves | 18/09/2013, 14:06 EEST (+03:00)
What rich insights. Our discussions show how we are all actively engaging, in our own
ways, with how gender training can make a difference and leverage change towards
gender equality. Our priorities and routes may be different but we have a unifying goal.
Clearly there are fundamental questions and dilemmas emerging: what makes for
‘quality’ training; how can we ensure that quality assurance mechanisms will result in
better gender equality outcomes; how do we assure any quality assurance system is
embedded in a process of learning; under what conditions might standardisation be
desirable, or indeed, undesirable; how do we avoid a system of standards that defaults to
a lowest level of acceptable competence; what are the tensions between standardisation,
sensitivity to context, and autonomy for the trainer; how can we improve evaluation of
existing training.
We are about to pose the next question for our afternoon discussions.
Hazel and Jenny
76. Jenny Birchall | 18/09/2013, 14:13 EEST (+03:00)
Hello again everyone
After such an interesting morning of discussion, we'd now like to introduce our second
topic question:
What quality assurance mechanisms are in place for gender training programmes
and trainers at EU Member State and international level?
When thinking about this question, things we might want to consider include:
-What quality assurance mechanisms are in place at national and international level to
standardise either the quality of training or the quality of gender trainers, and how are
they implemented?
-What are the strengths and weaknesses of the approach?
-Do you think that a similar approach might work in your country?
From the preparatory discussions we had with some of you, we know that there are some
interesting examples to share. There are also a range of examples in the document by
Marianne Dauvellier and Thera van Osch which was circulated last night. You can find
this document online here too: http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/web-discussions/quality-
assurance-mechanisms-gender-training-european-union
We look forward to hearing about your experiences in this area for the rest of the
afternoon. (Although if you are joining us later from a different time zone, please feel
free to comment on both this and the question we posed this morning).
Jenny and Hazel
77. Krini Kafiris | 18/09/2013, 14:16 EEST (+03:00)
I don't agree that standardisation will help going back to basics; (the moderators referred
to this point) nor am I clear that this is what was meant by it actually.
I also do not believe that standardisation will be helpful to trainers working with, in and
for small institutions.
1. I agree the gender training is all about context--, it really needs to be adapted to
specific local needs, of a workplace, institution and culture to even stand a chance.
It needs to be open and creative enough to keep on questioning its own approaches and
methods in specific contexts, and to keep on looking for better and more effective ones--
to whatever extent this is possible of course. It needs support to do this and a collective
effort--such as academic research to draw from on these issues, pilot projects exploring
these things, and input from others. The logic of standardisation, of trying to standardise,
even at the national level, will not promote these activities and objectives.
I also disagree with the idea that standardisation could help trainers working for smaller
institutions---I think this assumes that they don't have enough experience, confidence,
knowledge or up-to-date skills and thus need a standard, pre-fab training to get it right.
The main problem for trainers working with smaller NGOs and institutions is that less
and less funding is going to the smaller NGOS in the first place. Which means more
limited trainings, even one-off efforts.. things we know won't have much, if any, impact.
Yet these gender trainers are the ones who are in the fabric of the local community and
often have a lot of knowledge and a lot to offer in terms of training because of their
positions, knowledge and local acceptance. They would really benefit from the kinds of
activities I suggested above. Standardisation however, would not promote those activities
and thus would not allow them to develop their contributions to gender training.
2. I agree that gender training is ultimately a political process. You can give people
information, strategies and techniques---but it takes political commitment to really use
them, apply them and to want to make a difference. Gender training is only one aspect of
these processes.
I don't think that it can be enhanced through quality assurance mechanisms, only by more
coordinated, long-term and diverse action between those interested in gender equality and
social change--individuals, political collectivities, institutions.
78. City of Vienna | 18/09/2013, 14:16 EEST (+03:00)
Hello Indre, this is a very tricky question. We cannot answer for Austria all together but
this is how we do it in Vienna: we first check the background of possible gender trainers
among people within our informal network of gender experts (inside and outside
institutions), then we look at their formation (where they got their diplomas), their
attitude towards gender roles and the methods and tools they offer.
But when looking closer at the issue in 2007 an EQUAL project
called "Qualitätsentwicklung Gender Mainstreaming" (Quality Development of Gender
Mainstreaming) took place and dealt with all these questions about quality in trainings
and whether there should be standards or not. But there was no final answer to that.
79. Edīte Kalniņa | 18/09/2013, 14:17 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
I feel that the Swedish gender business network is a great way to tell companies where to
find skilled consultants. And because we are many we can share experiences, teach each
other, get better deals on ensurance and so on. I would really like to extend the network
to the whole of Europe!
But what if someone created pseudo Gender Business Network No 2. How to choose the
correct one? How do we know that business network is skilled?
80. Edīte Kalniņa | 18/09/2013, 14:19 EEST (+03:00)
On Gender's Trainers data base - how do we know that gender trainer in x country is the
same in country y? Gender trainers and experts are simply named by other gender
experts, civil servants etc. But we do not have joint criteria/ requirements for all
81. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 14:28 EEST (+03:00)
Edīte Kalniņa wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
I feel that the Swedish gender business network is a great way to tell
companies where to find skilled consultants. And because we are many we
can share experiences, teach each other, get better deals on ensurance and
so on. I would really like to extend the network to the whole of Europe!
But what if someone created pseudo Gender Business Network No 2. How to choose the
correct one? How do we know that business network is skilled?
First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a network. Second I think that a bad one will
have a hard time surviving.
There will always be consultants that is not skilled. But they wont survive if more of us
are skilled. I don't see any problem with competition as long as I am good. We shouldn't
be afraid, we shall be better.
82. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 14:59 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
Edīte Kalniņa wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
I feel that the Swedish gender business network is a great
way to tell companies where to find skilled consultants.
And because we are many we can share experiences, teach
each other, get better deals on ensurance and so on. I would
really like to extend the network to the whole of Europe!
But what if someone created pseudo Gender Business Network No 2. How
to choose the correct one? How do we know that business network is
skilled?
First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a network. Second I think that a bad one will
have a hard time surviving.
There will always be consultants that is not skilled. But they wont survive if more of us
are skilled. I don't see any problem with competition as long as I am good. We shouldn't
be afraid, we shall be better.
The Gender business network is a non profit and has an elected board. We have rules for
what to do and not to do.
83. Christina Andersson | 18/09/2013, 15:00 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
Edīte Kalniņa wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
I feel that the Swedish gender business network is a great
way to tell companies where to find skilled consultants.
And because we are many we can share experiences, teach
each other, get better deals on ensurance and so on. I would
really like to extend the network to the whole of Europe!
But what if someone created pseudo Gender Business Network No 2. How
to choose the correct one? How do we know that business network is
skilled?
First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a network. Second I think that a bad one will
have a hard time surviving.
There will always be consultants that is not skilled. But they wont survive if more of us
are skilled. I don't see any problem with competition as long as I am good. We shouldn't
be afraid, we shall be better.
A gender equality Issue or a gender issue should never turn into a buisness.
I think this is the wrong way to go.
84. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 15:03 EEST (+03:00)
Christina Andersson wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Edīte Kalniņa wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
I feel that the Swedish gender business
network is a great way to tell companies
where to find skilled consultants. And
because we are many we can share
experiences, teach each other, get better
deals on ensurance and so on. I would really
like to extend the network to the whole of
Europe!
But what if someone created pseudo Gender Business
Network No 2. How to choose the correct one? How do we
know that business network is skilled?
First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a network. Second I think that a
bad one will have a hard time surviving.
There will always be consultants that is not skilled. But they wont survive
if more of us are skilled. I don't see any problem with competition as long
as I am good. We shouldn't be afraid, we shall be better.
A gender equality Issue or a gender issue should never turn into a buisness.
I think this is the wrong way to go.
Explain more, I am not sure I understand.
85. Edīte Kalniņa | 18/09/2013, 15:08 EEST (+03:00)
Christina Andersson wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Edīte Kalniņa wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
I feel that the Swedish gender business
network is a great way to tell companies
where to find skilled consultants. And
because we are many we can share
experiences, teach each other, get better
deals on ensurance and so on. I would really
like to extend the network to the whole of
Europe!
But what if someone created pseudo Gender Business
Network No 2. How to choose the correct one? How do we
know that business network is skilled?
First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a network. Second I think that a
bad one will have a hard time surviving.
There will always be consultants that is not skilled. But they wont survive
if more of us are skilled. I don't see any problem with competition as long
as I am good. We shouldn't be afraid, we shall be better.
A gender equality Issue or a gender issue should never turn into a buisness.
I think this is the wrong way to go.
It is a business already. ILO is charging 2 000 EUR plus for gender training;-)
Consultants and researchers do get paid for gender equality work
86. Christina Andersson | 18/09/2013, 15:09 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
Christina Andersson wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Edīte Kalniņa wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
I feel that the Swedish gender
business network is a great
way to tell companies where
to find skilled consultants.
And because we are many we
can share experiences, teach
each other, get better deals on
ensurance and so on. I would
really like to extend the
network to the whole of
Europe!
But what if someone created pseudo Gender
Business Network No 2. How to choose the
correct one? How do we know that business
network is skilled?
First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a network.
Second I think that a bad one will have a hard time
surviving.
There will always be consultants that is not skilled. But
they wont survive if more of us are skilled. I don't see any
problem with competition as long as I am good. We
shouldn't be afraid, we shall be better.
A gender equality
Issue or a gender issue should never turn into a buisness.
I think this is the wrong way to go.
Explain more, I am not sure I understand.
I think gender is ought to be implemented in the society in a natural way of trust
humanity and awareness among the citizens. Therefore I believe that the word
"buisness" might give the wrong signals at the start.
87. Veronika Šprincová | 18/09/2013, 15:17 EEST (+03:00)
Good afternoon from rainy Prague! :)
I indicated some basic framework regarding QA in the Czech Rep. in the morning. To be
more precise now:
There are no QA mechanisms applied specificaly to gender training/expertise. The only
existing one is "top-down" mechanism applied to courses for public administration (civil
servants) some of which are focused on gender related agenda (e.g. Fórum 50 % has two
courses certified by Ministry of Internal Affairs: "Current Problems of Equal
Opportunities of Women and Men for Public Service” and "Participatory Budgeting").
Within the certification process mainly general features are assessed, not partilular
content. In courses for other target groups (management, general public etc.) no standards
are set.
Therefore relevant parties (gender NGOs, academic departments and also companies
focusing on the topic) are planning to introduce "bottom-up" mechanisms reacting to
current situation and together establish professional association or at least gender
trainers/experts network. The "gender" community is not big therefore the firs phase will
probably be based on personal contact and knowledge of the work and expertise of the
others. But in order to create more sustainable network/association we are planning to
introduce some mechanisms such as certification. The question is to which extent it will
be recognized by the state authorities and other "clients".
Comments:
o Jenny Birchall | 18/09/2013, 15:43 EEST (+03:00)
Veronika the point you make on "bottom-up" mechanisms is very interesting. Am
I right in thinking that this is at an early stage of development, although with
some interesting possibilities for the future? I wonder if any other participants
have experience of these kind of initiatives and how they have been recognised
(or not) by authorities and clients? And what do others think about the potential of
professional associations or gender training networks to assure quality?
88. Christina Andersson | 18/09/2013, 15:21 EEST (+03:00)
Edīte Kalniņa wrote:
Christina Andersson wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Edīte Kalniņa wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
I feel that the Swedish gender
business network is a great
way to tell companies where
to find skilled consultants.
And because we are many we
can share experiences, teach
each other, get better deals on
ensurance and so on. I would
really like to extend the
network to the whole of
Europe!
But what if someone created pseudo Gender
Business Network No 2. How to choose the
correct one? How do we know that business
network is skilled?
First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a network.
Second I think that a bad one will have a hard time
surviving.
There will always be consultants that is not skilled. But
they wont survive if more of us are skilled. I don't see any
problem with competition as long as I am good. We
shouldn't be afraid, we shall be better.
A gender equality
Issue or a gender issue should never turn into a buisness.
I think this is the wrong way to go.
It is a business already. ILO is charging 2 000 EUR plus for gender training;-)
Consultants and researchers do get paid for gender equality work
:(
89. Jenny Birchall | 18/09/2013, 15:23 EEST (+03:00)
Moving into this afternoon's topic, it would be good to draw out people's experiences and
ideas on quality assurance mechanisms. Already today people have talked about
certification, 'quality labels', communities of practice, EU standards for gender training, a
gender trainers database, the potential for 'bottom up' mechanisms, professional
associations and gender business networks.
It would be very interesting to hear about these or others, including any reflections you
have on examples in the paper from Marianne Dauvellier and Thera van Osch - for
example, the ITC/ILO gender marker, GEMTrEx (quality standards for gender
workers/trainers) and Pro(e)Quality standards for gender equality. Can anyone tell us
more about these and how they work practically in different countries and contexts?
Jenny and Hazel
90. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 15:23 EEST (+03:00)
Christina Andersson wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Christina Andersson wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Edīte Kalniņa wrote:
Add Gender
AB wrote:
I feel that the
Swedish
gender
business
network is a
great way to
tell companies
where to find
skilled
consultants.
And because
we are many
we can share
experiences,
teach each
other, get
better deals on
ensurance and
so on. I would
really like to
extend the
network to the
whole of
Europe!
But what if someone created
pseudo Gender Business
Network No 2. How to
choose the correct one? How
do we know that business
network is skilled?
First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a
network. Second I think that a bad one will
have a hard time surviving.
There will always be consultants that is not
skilled. But they wont survive if more of us
are skilled. I don't see any problem with
competition as long as I am good. We
shouldn't be afraid, we shall be better.
A gender equality
Issue or a gender issue should never turn into a buisn
ess. I think this is the wrong way to go.
Explain more, I am not sure I understand.
I think gender is ought to be implemented in the society in a natural way of trust
humanity and awareness among the citizens. Therefore I believe that the word
"buisness" might give the wrong signals at the start.
But it is a business. I make my living on helping companies and municipalities be more
gender equal. Do you believe that it is wrong paying for my knowledge? Or am I not
understanding what you mean?
How do you see gender equality spreading without training?
91. Edīte Kalniņa | 18/09/2013, 15:24 EEST (+03:00)
Krini Kafiris wrote:
I don't agree that standardisation will help going back to basics; (the moderators referred
to this point) nor am I clear that this is what was meant by it actually.
I also do not believe that standardisation will be helpful to trainers working with, in and
for small institutions.
1. I agree the gender training is all about context--, it really needs to be adapted to
specific local needs, of a workplace, institution and culture to even stand a chance.
It needs to be open and creative enough to keep on questioning its own approaches and
methods in specific contexts, and to keep on looking for better and more effective ones--
to whatever extent this is possible of course. It needs support to do this and a collective
effort--such as academic research to draw from on these issues, pilot projects exploring
these things, and input from others. The logic of standardisation, of trying to standardise,
even at the national level, will not promote these activities and objectives.
I also disagree with the idea that standardisation could help trainers working for smaller
institutions---I think this assumes that they don't have enough experience, confidence,
knowledge or up-to-date skills and thus need a standard, pre-fab training to get it right.
The main problem for trainers working with smaller NGOs and institutions is that less
and less funding is going to the smaller NGOS in the first place. Which means more
limited trainings, even one-off efforts.. things we know won't have much, if any, impact.
Yet these gender trainers are the ones who are in the fabric of the local community and
often have a lot of knowledge and a lot to offer in terms of training because of their
positions, knowledge and local acceptance. They would really benefit from the kinds of
activities I suggested above. Standardisation however, would not promote those activities
and thus would not allow them to develop their contributions to gender training.
2. I agree that gender training is ultimately a political process. You can give people
information, strategies and techniques---but it takes political commitment to really use
them, apply them and to want to make a difference. Gender training is only one aspect of
these processes.
I don't think that it can be enhanced through quality assurance mechanisms, only by more
coordinated, long-term and diverse action between those interested in gender equality and
social change--individuals, political collectivities, institutions.
and most of initatives on quality assurance seems coming from EU funded projects. Even
a simple certification will need some resources - human, finance. Where that will come
from?
92. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 15:27 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
Christina Andersson wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Christina Andersson wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Edīte Kalniņa
wrote:
A
d
d
G
e
n
d
e
r
A
B
w
r
o
t
e
:
I
f
e
e
l
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
S
w
e
d
i
s
h
g
e
n
d
e
r
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
i
s
a
g
r
e
a
t
w
a
y
t
o
t
e
l
l
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
w
h
e
r
e
t
o
f
i
n
d
s
k
i
l
l
e
d
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
.
A
n
d
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
w
e
a
r
e
m
a
n
y
w
e
c
a
n
s
h
a
r
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
,
t
e
a
c
h
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
,
g
e
t
b
e
t
t
e
r
d
e
a
l
s
o
n
e
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
s
o
o
n
.
I
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
a
l
l
y
l
i
k
e
t
o
e
x
t
e
n
d
t
h
e
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
t
o
t
h
e
w
h
o
l
e
o
f
E
u
r
o
p
e
!
But what if
someone
created pseudo
Gender
Business
Network No 2.
How to choose
the correct
one? How do
we know that
business
network is
skilled?
First, it's a lot of work to
establish and run a network.
Second I think that a bad one
will have a hard time
surviving.
There will always be
consultants that is not skilled.
But they wont survive if
more of us are skilled. I don't
see any problem with
competition as long as I am
good. We shouldn't be afraid,
we shall be better.
A gender equality
Issue or a gender issue should never tur
n into a buisness.
I think this is the wrong way to go.
Explain more, I am not sure I understand.
I think gender is ought to be implemented in the society in a natural
way of trust humanity and awareness among the citizens. Therefore
I believe that the word
"buisness" might give the wrong signals at the start.
But it is a business. I make my living on helping companies and municipalities be more
gender equal. Do you believe that it is wrong paying for my knowledge? Or am I not
understanding what you mean?
How do you see gender equality spreading without training?
Also, at least in Sweden there is a decision that the strategy to reach GE is through GM
and with the help of a "healthy consultant market"... Of course you don't have to agree
just because there is a decision but I'm curious on your alternatives.
93. Christina Andersson | 18/09/2013, 15:33 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
Christina Andersson wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Christina Andersson wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Edīte Kalniņa
wrote:
A
d
d
G
e
n
d
e
r
A
B
w
r
o
t
e
:
I
f
e
e
l
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
S
w
e
d
i
s
h
g
e
n
d
e
r
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
i
s
a
g
r
e
a
t
w
a
y
t
o
t
e
l
l
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
w
h
e
r
e
t
o
f
i
n
d
s
k
i
l
l
e
d
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
.
A
n
d
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
w
e
a
r
e
m
a
n
y
w
e
c
a
n
s
h
a
r
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
,
t
e
a
c
h
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
,
g
e
t
b
e
t
t
e
r
d
e
a
l
s
o
n
e
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
s
o
o
n
.
I
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
a
l
l
y
l
i
k
e
t
o
e
x
t
e
n
d
t
h
e
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
t
o
t
h
e
w
h
o
l
e
o
f
E
u
r
o
p
e
!
But what if
someone
created pseudo
Gender
Business
Network No 2.
How to choose
the correct
one? How do
we know that
business
network is
skilled?
First, it's a lot of work to
establish and run a network.
Second I think that a bad one
will have a hard time
surviving.
There will always be
consultants that is not skilled.
But they wont survive if
more of us are skilled. I don't
see any problem with
competition as long as I am
good. We shouldn't be afraid,
we shall be better.
A gender equality
Issue or a gender issue should never tur
n into a buisness.
I think this is the wrong way to go.
Explain more, I am not sure I understand.
I think gender is ought to be implemented in the society in a natural
way of trust humanity and awareness among the citizens. Therefore
I believe that the word
"buisness" might give the wrong signals at the start.
But it is a business. I make my living on helping companies and municipalities be more
gender equal. Do you believe that it is wrong paying for my knowledge? Or am I not
understanding what you mean?
How do you see gender equality spreading without training?
I understand what you mean and this is not wrong to make a living to create a c
hange. I am just saying that the word "buisness" is wrong.
It is such a big Issue that courses should be free of charge funded by goverments.
Much more is needed to create awarness among the society.
94. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 15:37 EEST (+03:00)
Jenny Birchall wrote:
Moving into this afternoon's topic, it would be good to draw out people's experiences and
ideas on quality assurance mechanisms. Already today people have talked about
certification, 'quality labels', communities of practice, EU standards for gender training, a
gender trainers database, the potential for 'bottom up' mechanisms, professional
associations and gender business networks.
It would be very interesting to hear about these or others, including any reflections you
have on examples in the paper from Marianne Dauvellier and Thera van Osch - for
example, the ITC/ILO gender marker, GEMTrEx (quality standards for gender
workers/trainers) and Pro(e)Quality standards for gender equality. Can anyone tell us
more about these and how they work practically in different countries and contexts?
Jenny and Hazel
I love these open discussions and ope questions but I sometimes miss a definition of what
we are discussing. And I also see that we have different approaches depending on from
which perspective we are talking. It's interesting but hard to disucss so openly when you
are not sure everyone means the same with "quality", "certificate", "gender training" or
even "gender equality" for that matter.
Could you maybe help summarise even more? And in terms of how people seem to
interprete the topics? Or is that going to lead to misunderstandings?
Very interesting people here!
Comments:
o Hazel Reeves | 18/09/2013, 15:50 EEST (+03:00)
Yes, some very interesting people here : ) You are right that we come to these
discussions with differing understandings of key concepts/terms and have
differing priorities. The more we have opportunities like this to talk about the
issues, the more we will understand each other - our similarities and differences.
Let's try and be explicit as we post about what we mean by different terms, such
as 'certification', 'standardisation' and so on. I think summarising may indeed be
more confusing. Hazel and Jenny
95. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 15:40 EEST (+03:00)
Christina Andersson wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Christina Andersson wrote:
Add Gender AB wrote:
Christina Andersson wrote:
Add Gender
AB wrote:
E
d
ī
t
e
K
a
l
n
i
ņ
a
w
r
o
t
e
:
A
d
d
G
e
n
d
e
r
A
B
w
r
o
t
e
:
I
f
e
e
l
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
S
w
e
d
i
s
h
g
e
n
d
e
r
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
i
s
a
g
r
e
a
t
w
a
y
t
o
t
e
l
l
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
w
h
e
r
e
t
o
f
i
n
d
s
k
i
l
l
e
d
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
.
A
n
d
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
w
e
a
r
e
m
a
n
y
w
e
c
a
n
s
h
a
r
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
,
t
e
a
c
h
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
,
g
e
t
b
e
t
t
e
r
d
e
a
l
s
o
n
e
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
s
o
o
n
.
I
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
a
l
l
y
l
i
k
e
t
o
e
x
t
e
n
d
t
h
e
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
t
o
t
h
e
w
h
o
l
e
o
f
E
u
r
o
p
e
!
B
u
t
w
h
a
t
i
f
s
o
m
e
o
n
e
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
p
s
e
u
d
o
G
e
n
d
e
r
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
N
o
2
.
H
o
w
t
o
c
h
o
o
s
e
t
h
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
o
n
e
?
H
o
w
d
o
w
e
k
n
o
w
t
h
a
t
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
i
s
s
k
i
l
l
e
d
?
First, it's a lot
of work to
establish and
run a network.
Second I think
that a bad one
will have a
hard time
surviving.
There will
always be
consultants
that is not
skilled. But
they wont
survive if
more of us are
skilled. I don't
see any
problem with
competition as
long as I am
good. We
shouldn't be
afraid, we
shall be better.
A gender equality
Issue or a gender issue sho
uld never turn into a buisn
ess.
I think this is the wrong w
ay to go.
Explain more, I am not sure I understand.
I think gender
is ought to be implemented in the society in a natural
way of trust
humanity and awareness among the citizens. Therefore
I believe that the word
"buisness" might give the wrong signals at the start.
But it is a business. I make my living on helping companies and
municipalities be more gender equal. Do you believe that it is wrong
paying for my knowledge? Or am I not understanding what you mean?
How do you see gender equality spreading without training?
I understand what you mean and this is not wrong to make a living to create a c
hange. I am just saying that the word "buisness" is wrong.
It is such a big Issue that courses should be free of charge funded by goverments.
Much more is needed to create awarness among the society.
I think that it will be hard to raise the status of GE if it is statefinanced. And also hard to
get private sector to see the possibilities with GE if it is interpreted as a political thing
only. There are many upsides for a company that actively work with GE.
96. Benedetta Magri | 18/09/2013, 15:52 EEST (+03:00)
I am not sure I understand the debate about "gender being a business" as I suppose all
professionals who offer their services to train or help organisations improve their gender
sensitivity and capacity to address and prevent discrimination need to live and therefore
get paid for their time. Of course advocacy movements and women's (or other) groups
who fight for their own rights may have a different perspective (and different livelihoods
choices), but then the whole debate about gender training we are having here should be
reframed and we should talk about organising for gender equality, workers' rights and
other topics.
Since Cristina mentioned the costs of the training course we offer I feel I must clarify that
the ITC-ILO is a non-profit institution.
Although being a UN specialised agency, fixed contributions from Member States cover
a minimal part of our running costs so we are obliged - like most public education
institutions in the EU by the way - to ask to pay for our courses. Normally we are able to
mobilise funds from donors so that we can at least waive tuition fees to nationals from
ODA countries. Unfortunately these funds cannot be used to fund participation of EU or
other high-income countries. Please be assured that we are trying our best to make our
services as affordable as possible through various means (projects, on-line, training of
consultants etc.). Let me also clarify that the Euro 2,000 per week cover full board and
lodging in the ITC-ILO Campus.
I will contribute on our experience in quality certification later.
All the best and thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this important issue.
97. Edīte Kalniņa | 18/09/2013, 15:56 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
My biggest issue with certification of the consultants is who will hand them out? Who
can get it?
In Sweden we have people that have been working with gender equality for so long that
Gender studies did not exist on the university. So do we need to force them back to
school or should education not be one of the criteria to get the certificate? How do you
measure knowledge?
I am also sceptical to involve money, since start up companies don't have a lot of money
it seems like a way to brake rather than help people make a career out of their knowledge
and skills in gender equality, diversity and such.
This is exactly my question- how to measure the experience. I personally had an issue to
prove that I am a gender expert. Should I issue a certificate myself saying that I have
been training on gender mainstreaming for x days x people group. Will a certificate of the
NGO will be sufficient evidence to get certified?
98. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 16:03 EEST (+03:00)
I must now leave and I cannot participate tomorrow because I have a client, gender
training for a region in Sweden. I just want to thank you for today and hope to discuss
more in the future!
Thanks to the organisers and to you all participating.
Have a nice day!
99. INDERA Gender Consultancy | 18/09/2013, 16:03 EEST (+03:00)
It looks like we slowed down a bit, everybody is out for lunch!!!
Thats a very important aspect also, I always include it in gender training: How much self-
care do you practice during the day??
The ITC/ILO gender marker and the GEMTrEx Quality Standards for Gender Trainers
are good materials to give an orientation where to go. There are also the 7 Quality
Standards for Gender Trainings developed from the "Gender Diversity Fachverband" in
Germany. There is also much written from huge practical experience and shared in
different spaces from the Heinrich Böll Stiftung (Gunda Werner Institut) in Berlin.
The document you provided last night gives also a good overview about where to look,
what is important, what works, etc.
But the same happens with Gender Training Material, there is so much out there and
really good materials.
I don't have the feeling there is a lack of material and information, but more that it is
important to look at quality assurance in a way that is more open and flexible and
promotes reflexivity through a Community of Practices.
We have to refer to the term "doing gender" and the constant process of change. We
cannot create a blue print to follow, because then gender training stagnates.
Reflexivity means to identify reflexive practices, the "doings" that create the openings or
entry points for making a difference.
Gender training deals with the complex relations of power and its practices of oppressive
realities and it should always expose those practices and at the same time offer a space to
learn about alternative ways.
So quality assurance, from my standpoint cannot be a certificate, because a certificate is
not flexible its not cyclic its lineal and not open to processes.
I would very much like EIGE to look at the possibility to open up and support a CoP on
Gender Training, but with a true commitment of the people and a working program based
on reflexivity. Being a member of this CoP can also represent a quality assurance on
international level and the quality is based on constant peer-review and the committment
of the people.
100. Dennis Lucy Aviles Irahola | 18/09/2013, 16:08 EEST (+03:00)
I participated in the ILO second version for Participatory Gender Audit facilitators and
have to say that the level was very good in terms of "basic" theory and practical
exercises. I did so even when I have more than 8 years of experience mainstreaming
gender and working on women's rights because, as in every thing in life, one must get
updated and learn from others. It is not a question to force people back to university, but
to work on gender equality doesn't make us good trainers, and to be good trainers doesn't
make us gender advocates. Again, I advocate here for a balance between theory and
practice.
101. Indre Mackeviciute | 18/09/2013, 16:11 EEST (+03:00)
Thanks a lot to all of your contributions! Highly interesting.
As for the question of definitions, very often I get the feeling that some of the definitions
are basically impossible. At EIGE, what we meant when we started to work on gender
training was the training that was provided to the policy makers and administrators to
improve their knowledge and skills on gender equality and gender mainstreaming.
Gender mainstreaming is afterall the responsibility of the state and it is the public
servants in the first place that need to know how to do it. Also it is the primary role of
EIGE to support the EU member states in their efforts to mainstream gender.
Again, it very much depends on them how far are the companies encouraged to explore
the gender equality benefits and to see how this perspective can help the business
flourish.
On the notion of quality, it really is difficult to define. And I suppose this is something
that we are trying to do with this kind of discussions. In our understanding the basic
determinant of the quality is the potential of gender training to bring about change, that is
the transformative nature of training. It may sound simple, but it is not as EIGE's in-depth
study on gender training found out - gender training to be effective needs to meet certain
preconditions. For example, those who attend training need to be supported in their
attempts to apply the new knowledge in practice, institutions need to aim at making their
whole working environments more gender aware and sensitive, as well as many other
different factors. Please read more about it here:
http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/documents/investing-gender-competence.
On the question of certificates and certification - different definitions might be possible.
And it is through this discussion that we'd like to get a better understanding of what the
experts think could hide behind the word certificate. And how to make it functional if at
all? There've been efforts to introduce certification and other quality assurance systems.
Some things work, some don't.
102. Indre Mackeviciute | 18/09/2013, 16:13 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
I must now leave and I cannot participate tomorrow because I have a client, gender
training for a region in Sweden. I just want to thank you for today and hope to discuss
more in the future!
Thanks to the organisers and to you all participating.
Have a nice day!
Dear Jenny!
thanks a lot for your input! And good luck in your work.
Indre
103. INDERA Gender Consultancy | 18/09/2013, 16:13 EEST (+03:00)
Add Gender AB wrote:
Jenny Birchall wrote:
Moving into this afternoon's topic, it would be good to draw out people's
experiences and ideas on quality assurance mechanisms. Already today
people have talked about certification, 'quality labels', communities of
practice, EU standards for gender training, a gender trainers database, the
potential for 'bottom up' mechanisms, professional associations and gender
business networks.
It would be very interesting to hear about these or others, including any
reflections you have on examples in the paper from Marianne Dauvellier
and Thera van Osch - for example, the ITC/ILO gender marker,
GEMTrEx (quality standards for gender workers/trainers) and
Pro(e)Quality standards for gender equality. Can anyone tell us more
about these and how they work practically in different countries and
contexts?
Jenny and Hazel
I love these open discussions and ope questions but I sometimes miss a definition of what
we are discussing. And I also see that we have different approaches depending on from
which perspective we are talking. It's interesting but hard to disucss so openly when you
are not sure everyone means the same with "quality", "certificate", "gender training" or
even "gender equality" for that matter.
Could you maybe help summarise even more? And in terms of how people seem to
interprete the topics? Or is that going to lead to misunderstandings?
Very interesting people here!
Very good point!
We face the same aspect in gender training, that you have people with different
backgrounds coming together and sometimes you end up clarifying and defining words.
We have also much experience in virtual gender training, through our e-learning platform
and we found it a very helpful tool to get people to a similar starting point.
For example, we offer an e-learning course on the basics of gender, the course goes more
or less 3 month with a weekly implication of 5 hours max, easy to do for people working,
etc. We get institutions and organizations to committ that before starting gender training
workshops that the people do this e-learning course so they learn basics about gender and
also have the posibility to have little online discussions and get more familiar with the
topic. The institutional committment is that people participate during working hours in
the course, which guarantees more participation and also shows the people the
committment to gender equality form their organization/institution.
After we offer more specialized workshops on work related topics of each
institution/organization.
Its very efficient as you can go much deeper with the people and really look at their
particular concerns and how to approach them from a gender perspective.
104. INDERA Gender Consultancy | 18/09/2013, 16:20 EEST (+03:00)
Indre Mackeviciute wrote:
Thanks a lot to all of your contributions! Highly interesting.
As for the question of definitions, very often I get the feeling that some of the definitions
are basically impossible. At EIGE, what we meant when we started to work on gender
training was the training that was provided to the policy makers and administrators to
improve their knowledge and skills on gender equality and gender mainstreaming.
Gender mainstreaming is afterall the responsibility of the state and it is the public
servants in the first place that need to know how to do it. Also it is the primary role of
EIGE to support the EU member states in their efforts to mainstream gender.
Again, it very much depends on them how far are the companies encouraged to explore
the gender equality benefits and to see how this perspective can help the business
flourish.
On the notion of quality, it really is difficult to define. And I suppose this is something
that we are trying to do with this kind of discussions. In our understanding the basic
determinant of the quality is the potential of gender training to bring about change, that is
the transformative nature of training. It may sound simple, but it is not as EIGE's in-depth
study on gender training found out - gender training to be effective needs to meet certain
preconditions. For example, those who attend training need to be supported in their
attempts to apply the new knowledge in practice, institutions need to aim at making their
whole working environments more gender aware and sensitive, as well as many other
different factors. Please read more about it here:
http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/documents/investing-gender-competence.
On the question of certificates and certification - different definitions might be possible.
And it is through this discussion that we'd like to get a better understanding of what the
experts think could hide behind the word certificate. And how to make it functional if at
all? There've been efforts to introduce certification and other quality assurance systems.
Some things work, some don't.
Very important point and what this study shows clearly is that gender training needs to be
in an overall context of Organizational Development.
105. Edīte Kalniņa | 18/09/2013, 16:22 EEST (+03:00)
Dennis Lucy Aviles Irahola wrote:
I participated in the ILO second version for Participatory Gender Audit facilitators and
have to say that the level was very good in terms of "basic" theory and practical
exercises. I did so even when I have more than 8 years of experience mainstreaming
gender and working on women's rights because, as in every thing in life, one must get
updated and learn from others. It is not a question to force people back to university, but
to work on gender equality doesn't make us good trainers, and to be good trainers doesn't
make us gender advocates. Again, I advocate here for a balance between theory and
practice.
I just wonder how many gender trainers (esp one-woman consultancy companies) can
participate in such ILO training for that fee? I do not doubt the quality of ILO course but
accesibility . And how to measure - do I need it? I gad my Train the Trainer in gender
mainstreaming/ gender analysis by UN consultant Astrida Neimanis. Am I worse trainer
if I have no ILO training? Am I better? How to compare, how to measure
106. Edīte Kalniņa | 18/09/2013, 16:27 EEST (+03:00)
Benedetta Magri wrote:
I am not sure I understand the debate about "gender being a business" as I suppose all
professionals who offer their services to train or help organisations improve their gender
sensitivity and capacity to address and prevent discrimination need to live and therefore
get paid for their time. Of course advocacy movements and women's (or other) groups
who fight for their own rights may have a different perspective (and different livelihoods
choices), but then the whole debate about gender training we are having here should be
reframed and we should talk about organising for gender equality, workers' rights and
other topics.
Since Cristina mentioned the costs of the training course we offer I feel I must clarify that
the ITC-ILO is a non-profit institution.
Although being a UN specialised agency, fixed contributions from Member States cover
a minimal part of our running costs so we are obliged - like most public education
institutions in the EU by the way - to ask to pay for our courses. Normally we are able to
mobilise funds from donors so that we can at least waive tuition fees to nationals from
ODA countries. Unfortunately these funds cannot be used to fund participation of EU or
other high-income countries. Please be assured that we are trying our best to make our
services as affordable as possible through various means (projects, on-line, training of
consultants etc.). Let me also clarify that the Euro 2,000 per week cover full board and
lodging in the ITC-ILO Campus.
I will contribute on our experience in quality certification later.
All the best and thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this important issue.
Dear Benedetta, thank you for your explanation on ILO. To be honest EUR 2000 is a big
big money for a small country gender expert. Not only NGO but as well private sector
(with EUR 500 average base salary (gross) in our country. It is a dream to attend. Do not
see any grant programme in Latvia which would support participation. I think
government as well has no resources to send their staff
107. Hazel Reeves | 18/09/2013, 16:32 EEST (+03:00)
Indre asks us to consider what hides behind the word certificate. Rachel (INDERA) states
that quality assurance from her standpoint “cannot be a certificate, because a certificate is
not flexible its not cyclic its lineal and not open to processes”. What do you think?
Jenny and Hazel
108. Benedetta Magri | 18/09/2013, 16:36 EEST (+03:00)
Again I support INDERA’s idea of CoPs and self-reflective exercises as an excellent way
not only to assure quality but create a culture of “gender eQuality” as we called it in 2000
when we started to look into this issue.
Certification or quality assurance in the “ISO” approach mainly looks at processes and it
is very hard to make sure that checklists and process monitoring integrate substantive
issues like the ones we are working on and struggling for.
Let me start from the “quality checks” that can be applied to “any” training irrespective
of the subject
The ITC/ILO Gender Marker is a very simple check list we have developed
for/together with our training mangers/colleagues to guide them when they design, plan,
deliver and evaluate their (non-gender specific) training courses, with the aim to making
them gender-sensitive. The check list of just a little part of the story because we have
trained all our colleagues in their use through an organisation-wide “Participatory Self-
Assessment” where each training unit was actively involved in a self-reflection exercise.
We provide them with technical assistance (gender analysis of topics, names of experts,
resources, revision of training material) and direct inputs in their courses when required.
The Gender Marker is used as a self-assessment tool but we monitor the scoring to make
sure that no one uses it inappropriately. The scores are integrated in our result-based
Gender Action Plan, which was also developed in a highly participatory way because
each unit was asked to set their gender performance indicators (E.g. the ratio male/female
participants, sessions or courses explicitly tackling the gender dimensions of a particular
topic etc.).
The open ecbcheck methodology works in a similar way in that you can submit an only
training course or programme to peer review by filling in a quite extensive questionnaire
(supported by evidence). Then you are peer reviewed by other professionals from the
network of ecbcheck learning institutions on the basis of a set of quality criteria. I have
gone through the process and had a programme certified just a couple of months ago. The
exercise was very useful as it obliged me to think of how I came to that particular course
design or how I can improve my interaction with participants etc. However the quality
framework itself is to a large degree “neutral” so it being ecb-certified just means that
you have followed the main state-of-the- art professional rules (but you could have done
it forgetting to include women!)
In Learn4Dev - Gender Expert Group (which I am currently co-chairing) we have made
a reflection on this and asked Thera to produce an assessment of various certification
systems (many of the results are re-proposed in the report prepared for EIGE naturally) –
The result was the Learn4Dev Quality Scorecard which is a much more detailed and
comprehensive version of the ITC-ILO marker. We are now lobbying and
advocating with training units in bilateral and multilateral donors so that it can be
applied to any learning programme they run. Our idea is that gender-sensitivity (or more)
is an important element for overall quality of any training done in the field of
development cooperation. . It is not an easy task and we meet a lot of resistance but we
have managed to work and apply it in two quite important “mainstream” courses.
In all cases what is clear is that : a checklist is useful but you need to accompany with a
self-reflection and capacity development process if you want to have good results. Also,
you need to present it as a tool to help enrich and improve the relevance of substance and
not as a straight- jacket or even worse to make people feel they are “wrong”. I do not
need to say how personal people get when it comes to discussing gender issues (or how
they react with denial – gender fatigue etc.)…..
More on certification of trainers / experts themselves later! Sorry for the long post.
109. Dennis Lucy Aviles Irahola | 18/09/2013, 16:49 EEST (+03:00)
Most people participating in the ILO certification course were from developing countries
(like me) and got considerable fee reductions. There are other kind of certifications, as
extensively described here, which are for sure the same good, it must not be an ILO
certification.
To Indre's question about certification, I think we have to give the concept the meaning it
deserves. A certification doesn't ensure anything else than a person having passed a test
(theoretical and practical) on certain issue. If I would hire a gender trainer, this would be
just another issue to consider, together with experience, association to women's or social
organizations, familiarity with the culture or core topic the client is working in, gender
studies, etc. The certification, in my view, is not cyclical or lineal, we are the ones who
build up experience and are open or not to new processes :-)
110. Veronika Šprincová | 18/09/2013, 17:12 EEST (+03:00)
Dear colleagues,
I'm sorry to leave you now. Thank you all for inspiring insights, experience and ideas.
I'm looking forward to meeting you here tomorrow!
Veronika
111. Jenny Birchall | 18/09/2013, 17:20 EEST (+03:00)
Thanks Benedetta for sharing the three examples of "quality checklists". Does anyone
else have experiences of these or others? It is an interesting point made by Benedetta
that "a checklist is useful but you need to accompany with a self-reflection and capacity
development process if you want to have good results." Do others have views on this or
examples to share?
112. Jenny Birchall | 18/09/2013, 17:30 EEST (+03:00)
Apologies, the post below from Benedetta was accidentally deleted. Here it is again:
Dear colleagues
Thank you for the points about ILO training courses, however I think we should maybe
dealt with them separately as in general our courses are directed to build organisational
rather than individual capacity. The PGA (advanced) course you are mentioning is the
only one that offers a Certification and therefore of great interest for individual
consultants. There I agree with you we must find ways to make them more accessible
while covering the costs. The reason for establishing the PGA Certification process was
exactly because the ILO (not only ITC-ILO but also ILO Geneva) had been training - in
short courses, often donor-supported - a large number of people who did not necessarily
have the depth of experience necessary to become a good quality gender audit facilitator
(which is a different professional profile from a trainer). We realised that we needed to be
able to guarantee that those we train are "entering" into institutions with due care and use
the methodology according to the ILO values, standards and methods the Certification
process was the only way we have to do it. Being ILO Certified does not mean you are a
better trainer or gender expert than a non-certified one. Expertise in gender analysis is an
entry requirement for the Certification process. Certification means that your gender
analysis skills and experience are recognised as appropriate to perform organisational
analysis and that you are able to use the PGA methodology, lead the participatory process
in an inclusive way, identify strong and weak points negotiate the results, prepare a good
quality report etc.
Again I totally agree it would be great if this type of certification of skills could be
managed in a way that is more accessible. Maybe we should look at how professional
associations in other fields certify their professionals?
113. Benedetta Magri | 18/09/2013, 17:31 EEST (+03:00)
Rachel thanks for the point about cyclic (or even sinusoid) rather than linear processes! I
am trying to link quality with change processes and participatory change monitoring born
from "positive deviance"... this is taking us a little aside far from the topic of discussion
but closer to where I think we can have some good result in organisational change.
I am sorry I have to leave the discussion. I look forward to tomorrow.
warm regards to everyone
114. Edīte Kalniņa | 18/09/2013, 17:41 EEST (+03:00)
Benedetta Magri wrote:
Dear colleagues
Thank you for the points about ILO training courses, however I think we should maybe
dealt with them separately as in general our courses are directed to build organisational
rather than individual capacity. The PGA (advanced) course you are mentioning is the
only one that offers a Certification and therefore of great interest for individual
consultants. There I agree with you we must find ways to make them more accessible
while covering the costs. The reason for establishing the PGA Certification process was
exactly because the ILO (not only ITC-ILO but also ILO Geneva) had been training - in
short courses, often donor-supported - a large number of people who did not necessarily
have the depth of experience necessary to become a good quality gender audit facilitator
(which is a different professional profile from a trainer). We realised that we needed to be
able to guarantee that those we train are "entering" into institutions with due care and use
the methodology according to the ILO values, standards and methods the Certification
process was the only way we have to do it. Being ILO Certified does not mean you are a
better trainer or gender expert than a non-certified one. Expertise in gender analysis is an
entry requirement for the Certification process. Certification means that your gender
analysis skills and experience are recognised as appropriate to perform organisational
analysis and that you are able to use the PGA methodology, lead the participatory process
in an inclusive way, identify strong and weak points negotiate the results, prepare a good
quality report etc.
Again I totally agree it would be great if this type of certification of skills could be
managed in a way that is more accessible. Maybe we should look at how professional
associations in other fields certify their professionals?
Thank you for your answer. Yes, I agree with you on looking at professional associations.
Earlier I mentioned example on how psychologists do certification through bodies at the
local level and stnadards set by European psyhcologists'a association
115. Indre Mackeviciute | 18/09/2013, 17:42 EEST (+03:00)
Dear All,
I am very sorry to leave you in a very interesting stage of the discussion, which I hope
will continue tomorrow at the same pace. There's lots of incredibly resourceful
experiences around us, which we should take into account when trying to create some
change.
As a PS, I wanted to share with you a Madrid Declaration on Gender+ Training:
http://www.quing.eu/files/madrid_declaration.pdf
The Declaration was proposed as a way forward by the QUING/OPERA team after it
became clear that establishing strict and wide-spread standards is really complicated.
Self-regulation could be an option. How far can it take us?
See you all tomorrow!
116. Edīte Kalniņa | 18/09/2013, 17:43 EEST (+03:00)
Thank you so much. I really liked the discussion. Now the end of business day, have to
leave the discussion
117. The Centre for Gender Equality - Iceland | 18/09/2013, 17:52 EEST (+03:00)
Jenny Birchall wrote:
Apologies, the post below from Benedetta was accidentally deleted. Here it is again:
Dear colleagues
Thank you for the points about ILO training courses, however I think we should maybe
dealt with them separately as in general our courses are directed to build organisational
rather than individual capacity. The PGA (advanced) course you are mentioning is the
only one that offers a Certification and therefore of great interest for individual
consultants. There I agree with you we must find ways to make them more accessible
while covering the costs. The reason for establishing the PGA Certification process was
exactly because the ILO (not only ITC-ILO but also ILO Geneva) had been training - in
short courses, often donor-supported - a large number of people who did not necessarily
have the depth of experience necessary to become a good quality gender audit facilitator
(which is a different professional profile from a trainer). We realised that we needed to be
able to guarantee that those we train are "entering" into institutions with due care and use
the methodology according to the ILO values, standards and methods the Certification
process was the only way we have to do it. Being ILO Certified does not mean you are a
better trainer or gender expert than a non-certified one. Expertise in gender analysis is an
entry requirement for the Certification process. Certification means that your gender
analysis skills and experience are recognised as appropriate to perform organisational
analysis and that you are able to use the PGA methodology, lead the participatory process
in an inclusive way, identify strong and weak points negotiate the results, prepare a good
quality report etc.
Again I totally agree it would be great if this type of certification of skills could be
managed in a way that is more accessible. Maybe we should look at how professional
associations in other fields certify their professionals?
I would like to thank you for the overview of Quality Assurance Systems and
Certification (Prepared by Marianne Dauvellier and Thera van Osch) - very interesting –
many examples I did not know of...
I will tell you, briefly, about the work being done in Iceland with regards to an equal pay
standard – that has already been published.
A special certification system has been developed with appropriate stakeholders to certify
the implementation of the policy of wage equality and gender equality. The equal pay
standard (ISO standard), was developed in cooperation with Icelandic Standards (IST),
the national standards body of Iceland. The project is led by the Ministry of Welfare
(ministry for gender equality) in cooperation with the Icelandic Confederation of Labour
and Confederation of Icelandic Employers . I sat on the board of the technical committee
issued the task of finding common ground – and writing the equal pay standard.
A lot of the work involved finding ways to work around the possibility of overlooking
gender dimension (power relation) – when analysing pay gaps.
This is all good and well – but now we are working in writing regulations determining the
qualification of those involved in accreditation of the standard (companies tasked with
determining if firms/organizations meet the requirements put forth in the standard) .
This work is under-way so I can not give you much info – but included in the “up-
coming” regulation are provisions on what accreditors should be capable of doing. This
includes:
0. Accreditors should comply with ISO 19011, an international standard that sets
forth guidelines for management systems auditing. (As well conforming with the
requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems
– the ISO/IEC 17021)
1. It follows that accreditors shall have taken a course provided by “government”
and that course functions as a type of diploma. The content of this course is
further described so as to secure a “gender studies” aspect - if you will.
This is of course rather problematic – but aims to provide legitimacy for the equal pay
standard – as well as to acknowledge the importance of look analytically into reasons for
pay-gaps rooted in the gendered system.
Regards, Tryggvi
118. UN Women Global Training Centre | 18/09/2013, 18:14 EEST (+03:00)
Good morning from our side of the world! This is UN Women Global Training Centre in
Santo Domingo joining the first day of the discussion. We are aware that the discussion
has moved forward and we apologize for any cross posting as we will be reading with
much interest all your comments. However, in order to move to the second part of the
discussion we will post our comments on the first question on why is there a need to
introduce quality assurance mechanism.
There is a lot of training being done of very diverse quality with very diverse results. For
UN Women GTC the quality of gender training is directly linked to tits desired end
result/impact: ie, gender equality. Therefore we refer to “Training for Gender
Equality” (TfGE).
For us, TfGE is a transformative process that aims to provide knowledge, techniques and
tools to develop skills and changes in attitudes and behaviors. We envisage it as a long
term continuous process that requires political will and commitment from all parties
involved (both decision makers and trainees) with the objective of creating an aware,
competent and gender equitable society.
Is the idea of standardisation of gender training relevant in your country or
context?
In the UN System, and in the countries where UN Women works there is wide diversity
of training in terms of content, quality and scope, not always with clear results. TfGE is
implemented in an incredible variety of socioeconomic and political contexts and
cultures. Standardizing represents therefore a major challenge. Rather than
standardization seen as one size fits all training, we foresee a minimal quality common
denominator. What does this mean? We propose identifying and defining minimal criteria
including:
· Response to international norms and agreements (starting with CEDAW, Beijing
Platform, regional agreements, resolutions, etc.).
· Relevant to the context and needs of the audience (content, examples and case
studies, trainers, language and methodology).
· State of the art knowledge on the specific topic.
· Learner centered, participatory and transformative methodologies.
· Competent, culturally sensitive trainers that can respond to the needs of the audience
and training objectives.
What is the problem that certification mechanisms would seek to address?
Certification mechanisms could respond to the need to ensure quality in diverse contexts.
At the same time diversity makes it very difficult to have a standardized certification.
Other challenges are the moral and technical authority/credibility of the certifier and the
recognition/acceptance of the certification by other institutions and trainees.
Who or what should be ‘standardised’? For example gender trainers, gender
training courses, gender training organisations?
We understand that certifying trainers would be the easiest. For UN Women Global
Training Centre the ideal authority to standardize trainers would be a pool of renowned
institutions working in TfGE that commonly develops minimal criteria for that purpose.
Without overlooking other already mentioned important factors for quality training, the
trainer plays a key role in ensuring the quality of the training and the impact on the
trainee.
Do you think standardisation or quality assurance could increase the provision of
gender training?
Quality assurance could increase the provision of gender training because it will
acknowledge the relevance of TfGE, improve the quality of all trainings and therefore
create a virtuous circle where the impact of TfGE will stimulate trainers, trainees and
decision makers to continue working towards gender equality. It is a continuous
reinforcing loop.
Finally, we recognize the complexity of implementing these ideas but we are optimistic
about this collective work in progress. Gender issues have never been easy to address and
TfGE is no exception. We will address on some of the challenges in later comments in
this discussion.
Looking forward to your comments,
UN Women Global Training Centre.
119. Christina Andersson | 18/09/2013, 18:16 EEST (+03:00)
Benedetta Magri wrote:
I am not sure I understand the debate about "gender being a business" as I suppose all
professionals who offer their services to train or help organisations improve their gender
sensitivity and capacity to address and prevent discrimination need to live and therefore
get paid for their time. Of course advocacy movements and women's (or other) groups
who fight for their own rights may have a different perspective (and different livelihoods
choices), but then the whole debate about gender training we are having here should be
reframed and we should talk about organising for gender equality, workers' rights and
other topics.
Since Cristina mentioned the costs of the training course we offer I feel I must clarify that
the ITC-ILO is a non-profit institution.
Although being a UN specialised agency, fixed contributions from Member States cover
a minimal part of our running costs so we are obliged - like most public education
institutions in the EU by the way - to ask to pay for our courses. Normally we are able to
mobilise funds from donors so that we can at least waive tuition fees to nationals from
ODA countries. Unfortunately these funds cannot be used to fund participation of EU or
other high-income countries. Please be assured that we are trying our best to make our
services as affordable as possible through various means (projects, on-line, training of
consultants etc.). Let me also clarify that the Euro 2,000 per week cover full board and
lodging in the ITC-ILO Campus.
I will contribute on our experience in quality certification later.
All the best and thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this important issue.
Thank you for telling me this to clearify this Issue. I am sure your are doing
a great job!
120. Jenny Birchall | 18/09/2013, 20:40 EEST (+03:00)
Hello all
During today’s exciting vibrant discussion, it was very useful to hear perspectives of
people approaching the topic from different angles. Below is a summary of some of the
main points we felt emerged.
In the morning we explored why quality assurance mechanisms are needed (and we had
interesting additions to this topic later in the day when UN Women joined us).
There was some recognition that training is currently of diverse quality with diverse
results. A range of possible reasons emerged for the development of quality assurance
mechanisms, the overarching one being about improving gender equality outcomes,
focusing on transformative behaviour change.
We also heard that quality assurance mechanisms could be of benefit to trainers in their
negotiations with those commissioning training, and in turn, assist those commissioning
training to understand more about quality training and the outcomes it could achieve. A
focus on quality assurance also has the potential to increase and enhance the provision of
gender training.
However, questions were raised about what quality actually means and how it relates to
effectiveness. Quality should mean not just ticking boxes around process; training should
be transformative, embedded in organisational learning, and result in better gender
equality outcomes. Further, participants noted that we shouldn’t just discuss what quality
means, but who defines it, who sets the standards, monitors and evaluates it.
There was discussion around what standardisation means in both principle and practice
and a resistance to any idea that standardisation might cause training to become fixed and
inflexible, limiting the ability to tailor training for different contexts. There is no “one
size fits all” training method, content etc.
During the afternoon we moved to discussing the quality assurance mechanisms for
gender training - those already in place and potential models. Several examples were
raised, ranging from: quality checklists for training in institutional settings; the creation
of standards and/or minimum criteria for gender training and competencies for gender
trainers, for example as set by institutions or groups of institutions, or gender trainers
themselves; certification (of trainers and/or training); databases of selected trainers who
meet certain criteria; and spaces and networks for reflection and learning among trainers.
Out of this discussion came a number of questions and dilemmas, including how to
embed the idea that quality assurance is about more than just certification. It needs to be
part of a learning and organisational development process. Participants began to consider
the desirability of approaches that are “bottom up” as opposed to “top down”.
When considering different approaches to quality assurance, questions were also raised
around the options that are currently regarded as legitimate by commissioners of training,
and those which may not be seen as sufficient. Which quality assurance mechanisms
would serve skilled gender trainers, the participants and gender equality outcomes?
Tomorrow we’ll move on to look at some of these mechanisms in more detail, and with
your help, assess their advantages and disadvantages. However, it’s not too late to share
your concrete examples with us, and we look forward to hearing more of these tomorrow,
when we'll start at 9am Central European Time.
Jenny and Hazel
121. UN Women Global Training Centre | 19/09/2013, 00:33 EEST (+03:00)
Regarding concrete mechanisms for quality assurance, the UN Women Global Training
Centre has developed a participatory quality assurance methodology for the course
design. Through this methodology a group of experts and practitioners (and sometimes
end users as well) is involved in the definition and development of content from a very
early stage, revising and giving feedback in the definition of the topics and the design of
the course content. They accompany the whole process ensuring collective learning and
bringing in the different perspectives.
This methodology takes the form of Expert Group Meetings, Peer reviews (online or face
to face) and Expert Group Readings that contribute in different stages of the process
(concept note, outline, first draft, final draft, etc.). The participatory nature is crucial for
UN Women in order to ensure that diversity in terms of contexts, development levels,
gender equalities realities (legislations, roles, participation, etc.) is factored into the
courses. It is time consuming, requires negotiations and may involve additional costs.
From our perspective this approach is coherent with the fundamental principles of gender
equality. We aim to “walk the talk” in all our activities.
We look forward to continuing this interesting discussion tomorrow with more details.