gender equality in engineering through …

GENDER EQUALITY IN ENGINEERING

THROUGH COMMUNICATION AND COMMITMENT

(GEECCO)

WORK PACKAGE 10: Monitoring and Evaluation

FINAL EVALUATION REPORT

Project Acronym GEECCO

Grant Agreement Number 741128

Project Start Date 01-05-2017

Project Duration 48 months

Contact Person Anke Lipinsky

Organization GESIS

E-Mail [email protected]

“This project has received funding from the

European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and

innovation under grant agreement No 741128. This

deliverable release reflects the views only of the

authors, and the Commission cannot be held

responsible for any use which may be made of the

information contained therein.”

D10.6 Final Evaluation Report

Final Version GEECCO of 109

Citation:

Lipinsky, Anke; Schredl, Claudia: Final Evaluation Report. GEECCO. Gender

Equality in Engineering through Communication and Commitment (a H2020

project). Available online at https://www.tuwien.at/tu-wien/organisation/zentrale-

bereiche/genderkompetenz/gender-in-der-forschung/geecco-resultate, checked

on 8/13/2021.

https://www.tuwien.at/tu-wien/organisation/zentrale-bereiche/genderkompetenz/gender-in-der-forschung/geecco-resultate




GEECCO – GENDER EQUALITY IN ENGINEERING THROUGH

COMMUNICATION AND COMMITMENT. IN A NUTSHELL

Scientific and technological innovations are increasingly important in our

knowledge-based economies. Today STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics) is literally everywhere; it shapes our everyday experiences. With

technologies we choose e.g. structures that influence over a very long time how

people are going to work, communicate, travel, consume, and so forth. It is thus

both a question of competitiveness and justice, to achieve gender equity within

science and technology institutions, including policy and decision-making bodies.

GEECCO with its project lifetime from May 2017 to April 2021 aimed to establish

tailor-made Gender Equality Plans (GEPs) in 4 European RPOs and to implement

the gender dimension in 2 RFOs (funding schemes, programmes and review

processes). All participating RPOs were located in the STEM (Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Mathematics) field, where gender equality is still a serious

problem and whose innovations are increasingly important in the knowledge-based

economies.

GEECCO pursued the following objectives in order to enhance systemic institutional

change towards gender equality in the STEM-field:

(i) Setting up change framework and a tailor-made GEP for each

participating RPO;

(ii) Implementing gender criteria in the activities of RFOs;

(iii) Setting up a self-reflective learning environment in and between all

RPOs und RFOs to participate from existing experiences and match

them with their specific needs and circumstances.

(iv) Evaluate GEP implementation within the participating RPOs and RFOs

with a quantitative evaluation using monitoring indicators and a

qualitative monitoring to enhance and fine-tune implemented actions

over the course of the project.

http://www.geecco-project.eu/

https://www.tuwien.at/tu-wien/organisation/zentrale-

bereiche/genderkompetenz/gender-in-der-forschung/geecco-resultate

http://www.geecco-project.eu/





FURTHER RESOURCES DEVELOPED BY THE GEECCO-PROJECT

CONSORTIUM

All public deliverables, resources and additional material can be downloaded on

this website:



Public deliverables (in order of the related work packages)

• Postorino, Maria Nadia; Marino, Concettina; Suraci, Federica; Enzenhofer,

Bettina; Lusa, Amaia; Costa, Carme Martínez; Pulawska-Obiedowska, Sabina

(2018): Gender Analysis of Decision-Making Processes and Bodies. GEECCO.

Gender Equality in Engineering through Communication and Commitment (a

H2020 project).

• Postorino, Maria Nadia; Marino, Concettina; Suraci, Federica; Enzenhofer,

Bettina; Lusa, Amaia; Costa, Carme Martínez; Pulawska-Obiedowska, Sabina

(2018): Overview on Improvements and Procedures. GEECCO. Gender Equality

in Engineering through Communication and Commitment (a H2020 project).

• Bryniarska, Zofia; Żakowska, Lidia; Enzenhofer, Bettina; Postorino, Maria

Nadia; Marino, Concettina; Lusa García, Amaia (2018): Current Status of

Women Career Development. GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering through

Communication and Commitment (a H2020 project).

• Enzenhofer, Bettina; Lusa García, Amaia; Sarnè, Giuseppe; Żakowska, Lidia

(2020): Overview on How to Increase Female Visibility. GEECCO. Gender


project).

• Knoll, Bente; Renkin, Agnes (2018): Analysis of Current Data on Gender in

Research and Teaching. GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering through


• Ratzer, Brigitte; Burtscher, Sabrina; Lehmann, Tobias; Mort, Harrie; Pillinger,

Anna (2020): Enhanced Gender Knowledge and New Content. GEECCO. Gender


project).

• Ratzer, Brigitte; Enzenhofer, Bettina (2019): Integrating Gender Dimensions in

the Content of Research and Innovation. An Exhibition. GEECCO. Gender


project).





• Lasinger, Donia; Nagl, Elisabeth; Dvořáčková, Jana; Kraus, Marcel (2019): Best

Practice Examples of Gender Mainstreaming in Research Funding

Organizations. GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering through


• Dvořáčková, Jana; Navrátilová, Jolana; Nagl, Elisabeth; Lasinger, Donia

(2020): Guideline for Jury Members, Reviewers and Research Funding

Organizations’ Employees. GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering through


• Lasinger, Donia; Nagl, Elisabeth; Dvořáčková, Jana; Kraus, Marcel (2020):

Overview and Assessment of Gender Criteria for Funding Programmes.

GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering through Communication and

Commitment (a H2020 project).

• Kraus, Marcel; Dvořáčková, Jana; Lasinger, Donia (2021): List of Principles of

Communication of Gender Criteria. GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering

through Communication and Commitment (a H2020 project).

• Mergaert, Lut; Allori, Agostina; Ratzer, Brigitte; Enzenhofer, Bettina; Lusa

García, Amaia; Marino, Concettina; Zakowska, Lidia; Bryniarska, Zofia (2020):

Tailor-made Gender Equality Plans (GEP version 3.0). GEECCO. Gender Equality

in Engineering through Communication and Commitment (a H2020 project).

• Knoll, Bente (2021): Dos and Don’ts while Degendering the STEM Field.

Learning Experiences of Four European Universities and Two European

Research Funding Organisations. GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering

through Communication and Commitment (a H2020 project).

• Mergaert, Lut; Knoll, Bente; Renkin, Agnes (2021): Final Report on Supporting

Activities. GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering through Communication

and Commitment (a H2020 project).

• Jorge, Irene (2021): Implementation of Dissemination Activities. GEECCO.


H2020 project).

• Jorge, Irene (2021): Engagement Activities. GEECCO. Gender Equality in

Engineering through Communication and Commitment (a H2020 project).

• Lipinsky, Anke; Schredl, Claudia: Final Evaluation Report. GEECCO. Gender


project).



Additional resources and literature reviews

• Knoll, Bente; Renkin, Agnes; Mergaert, Lut (2020): Additional resources (living

document). GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering through Communication

and Commitment (a H2020 project).

• Burtscher, Sabrina (2019): Literature Review: Gender Research in Human

Computer Interaction. GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering through


• Pillinger, Anna (2019): Literature Review: Gender and Robotics. GEECCO.


H2020 project).

• Mort, Harrie (2019): A Review of Energy and Gender Research in the Global

North. GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering through Communication and

Commitment (a H2020 project).

• Lehmann, Tobias (2020): Literature Review: Gender and Mobility. GEECCO.


H2020 project).

Explanatory videos (available on Youtube)

• Ratzer, Brigitte; Enzenhofer, Bettina (2019): Humans & Computers. Video

produced under GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering through

Communication and Commitment (a H2020 project). Available online at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrWx91RdmGo, checked on 4/30/2021.

• Ratzer, Brigitte; Enzenhofer, Bettina (2019): Robots in our society. Video

produced under GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering through

Communication and Commitment (a H2020 project). Available online at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfXr29VAuwU, checked on 4/30/2021.

• Ratzer, Brigitte; Enzenhofer, Bettina (2020): Energy for all. Video produced

under GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering through Communication and

Commitment (a H2020 project). Available online at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIwrgsNVfW8, checked on 4/30/2021.

• Ratzer, Brigitte; Enzenhofer, Bettina (2021): Mobility for all. Video produced

under GEECCO. Gender Equality in Engineering through Communication and

Commitment (a H2020 project). Available online at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMIfoI5-14M, checked on 4/30/2021.

• Ratzer, Brigitte; Enzenhofer, Bettina (2021): Inclusive design – why

intersectionality matters. Video produced under GEECCO. Gender Equality in

Engineering through Communication and Commitment (a H2020 project).

Available online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4eRb1NM21A,

checked on 4/30/2021.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrWx91RdmGo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfXr29VAuwU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIwrgsNVfW8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMIfoI5-14M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4eRb1NM21A



Evaluation and monitoring tutorials

Anke Lipinski and Claudia Schredl, both from GESIS, developed five online

evaluation and monitoring tutorials.

1. GEECCO Data Monitoring Tool

2. GEECCO Infographic: Gender Equality Approaches and Their Impact on

GEP Implementation

3. GEECCO Infographic: SMART Gender Equality Objectives

4. GEECCO Explainer Video: Gender Equality Plans in Technical Universities

and the Use of Logic Models

5. GEECCO Log Journal

These tutorials can be downloaded on this website:







Table of Content

GEECCO – Gender Equality in Engineering through Communication and Commitment. In a Nutshell .. 3

Further resources developed by the GEECCO-project consortium ......................................................... 4

Final Evaluation Report for Politechnika Krakowska (PK) ..................................................................... 11

1 PK – The Aim and Context of the Final Evaluation Report ............................................................ 13

2 PK – About the GEECCO Project .................................................................................................... 14

3 PK – Methods and Data ................................................................................................................. 15

3.1 PK – Brief Description of Instrument and Collection – Monitoring Data .............................. 15

3.2 PK – Brief Description of Instrument and Data Collection – Survey ..................................... 16

3.3 PK – Brief Description of Instrument and Data Collection – Logic Models ........................... 18

4 PK – What Worked and What Did Not Work at Politechnika Krakowska (PK) .............................. 19

4.1 PK – Portfolio of Gender Equality Activities .......................................................................... 19

4.2 PK – Decision-Making Processes and Bodies ......................................................................... 20

4.3 PK – Recruitment, Career Development of Female Researchers and Female Staff .............. 22

4.3.1 PK – Indicators on Gender Awareness and Sexism ....................................................... 22

4.3.2 PK – Indicators on Gender Representation at Different Career Levels ......................... 27

4.4 PK – Gender Dimension in Research and Teaching ............................................................... 31

5 Pk – Key Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 33

5.1 PK – Decision-Making Processes and Bodies ......................................................................... 33

5.2 PK – Recruitment, Career Development of Female Researchers and Female Staff .............. 33

5.3 PK – Gender Dimension in Research and Teaching ............................................................... 34

6 PK – References ............................................................................................................................. 35

Final Evaluation Report for Technische Universität Wien (TUW) ........................................................ 36

8 TUW – The Aim and Context of the Final Evaluation Report ........................................................ 38

9 TUW – About the GEECCO Project ................................................................................................ 39

10 TUW – Methods and Data ............................................................................................................. 40

10.1 TUW – Brief Description of Instrument and Data Collection – Monitoring Data .................. 40

10.2 TUW – Brief Description of Instrument and Data Collection – Logic Models ....................... 41

11 TUW – What Worked and What Did Not Work at Technische Universität Wien (TUW) .............. 42

11.1 TUW - Portfolio of Gender Equality Activities ....................................................................... 42

11.2 TUW – Decision-Making Processes and Bodies ..................................................................... 44

11.3 TUW – Recruitment, Career Development of Female Researchers and Female Staff .......... 46

11.3.1 TUW – Gender Balance Among Staff Members ............................................................ 47

11.3.2 TUW – Gender Balance Among Bachelor and Master Graduates ................................. 50



11.3.3 TUW – Gender Balance Among PhD Students and PhD Graduates .............................. 50

11.3.4 TUW – Academic Staff by Form of Employment and Working Time ............................ 51

11.4 TUW – Gender Dimension in Research and Teaching ........................................................... 52

12 TUW – Key Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................. 54

12.1 TUW – Decision-Making Processes and Bodies ..................................................................... 54

12.2 TUW – Recruitment, Career Development of Female Researchers and Female Staff .......... 54

12.3 TUW – Gender Dimension in Research and Teaching ........................................................... 55

13 TUW – References ......................................................................................................................... 56

Final Evaluation Report for University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria (UNIRC) .............................. 57

14 UNIRC – The Aim and Context of the Final Evaluation Report ...................................................... 59

15 UNIRC – About the GEECCO Project .............................................................................................. 60

16 UNIRC – Methods and Data ........................................................................................................... 61

16.1 UNIRC – Brief Description of Instrument and Data Collection – Monitoring Data ............... 61

16.2 UNIRC – Brief Description of Instrument and Data Collection – Survey Data ....................... 62

16.3 UNIRC – Brief Description of Instrument and Data Collection – Logic Models ..................... 64

17 UNIRC – What Worked and What Did Not Work at University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria

(UNIRC) .................................................................................................................................................. 65

17.1 UNIRC – Portfolio of Gender Equality Activities .................................................................... 65

17.2 UNIRC – Decision-Making Processes and Bodies .................................................................. 66

17.3 UNIRC – Recruitment, Career Development of Female Researchers and Female Staff ....... 68

17.3.1 UNIRC – Gender Balance Among Staff Members .......................................................... 69

17.3.2 UNIRC – Gender Balance Among Bachelor and Master Graduates .............................. 71

17.3.3 UNIRC – Gender Balance Among PhD Students and PhD Graduates ............................ 72

17.3.4 UNIRC – Staff by Form of Employment and Working Time ........................................... 73

17.4 UNRIC – Gender Dimension in Research and Teaching ........................................................ 74

17.5 UNIRC – Gender Culture ........................................................................................................ 75

18 UNIRC – Key Findings and Recommendations .............................................................................. 77

18.1 UNIRC – Decision-Making Processes and Bodies .................................................................. 77

18.2 UNIRC – Recruitment, Career Development of Female Researchers and Female Staff ....... 77

18.3 UNIRC – Gender Dimension in Research and Teaching ........................................................ 78

18.4 UNIRC – Gender Culture ........................................................................................................ 78

19 UNIRC - References ....................................................................................................................... 79

Final Evaluation Report for Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) .............................................. 80

20 UPC – The Aim and Context of the Final Evaluation Report ......................................................... 82

21 UPC – About the GEECCO Project .................................................................................................. 83



22 UPC – Methods and Data .............................................................................................................. 84

22.1 UPC – Brief Description of Instrument and Data Collection – Monitoring Data ................... 84

22.2 UPC – Brief Description of Instrument and Data Collection – Survey Data .......................... 85

22.3 UPC – Brief Description of Instrument and Data Collection – Logic Models......................... 86

23 UPC – What Worked and What Did Not Work at Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)..... 88

23.1 UPC – Portfolio of Gender Equality Activities........................................................................ 88

23.2 UPC – Decision-Making Processes and Bodies ...................................................................... 89

23.3 UPC – Recruitment, Career Development of Female Researchers and Female Staff ........... 92

23.3.1 UPC – Indicators on Gender Representation at Different Career Levels ...................... 93

23.3.2 UPC – Indicator on Perception of Sexual Harassment ................................................ 100

23.4 UPC – Gender Dimension in Research and Teaching .......................................................... 102

23.5 UPC – Communication, Monitoring and Sustainability ....................................................... 102

24 UPC – Key Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................ 104

24.1 UPC – Decision-Making Processes and Bodies .................................................................... 104

24.2 UPC – Recruitment, Career Development of Female Researchers and Female Staff ......... 104

24.3 UPC – Gender Dimension in Research and Teaching .......................................................... 105

24.4 UPC – Communication, Monitoring and Sustainability ....................................................... 105

25 UPC – References ........................................................................................................................ 106

26 Co-Creation of a Monitoring Tool for RFOs – the Log Journal .................................................... 107

27 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 109

28 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 109



Final Evaluation Report for

POLITECHNIKA KRAKOWSKA (PK)

Project GEECCO Grant Agreement 741128 Acronym Number

Project 01-05-2017 Project Duration 48 month Start Date

Document V1.0 Deliverable No. 10.6 Version

Contact Person Anke Lipinsky Organization GESIS Phone + 49 221 47694 E-Mail 259 [email protected]

Due date: April 30, 2021 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 741128.

The opinions expressed in this document reflect only the authors’ views and in no way reflect the European

Commission’s opinions. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the

information it contains.



Document Versions

Version No. Date Change Author

0.1 18.03.2021 First Draft Dr. Anke Lipinsky,

Claudia Schredl (GESIS)

0.2 09.04.2021 Second Draft Dr. Anke Lipinsky,


0.3 23.04.2021 Third Draft Dr. Anke Lipinsky,


25.04.2021 Review Dr. Marjo Rauhala

(TUW)

1.0 30.04.2021 Final Version Dr. Anke Lipinsky,


List of Contributors

- Dr. Anke Lipinsky

- Claudia Schredl



1 PK – THE AIM AND CONTEXT OF THE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT

This Final Evaluation Report marks the end point of the independent, external monitoring and

evaluation of the design and implementation of an institutional gender equality plan (GEP) at

Politechnika Krakowska (PK) by the GESIS evaluation team. The report is based on quantitative

indicators for the summative evaluation of gender equality achievements and impacts. Thus, the

present evaluation is a meaningful complement to the formative evaluation, which was based on the

analysis of qualitative data. At the same time, it concludes the evaluation process in the context of the

project “Gender Equality in Engineering through Communication and Commitment” (GEECCO).

As the summative evaluation focuses less on providing direct developmental support for the

implementation of the GEP than on assessing its outcomes and impacts, the present Final Evaluation

Report should be considered as an overall assessment of verifiable changes based on tangible evidence

that is informed by monitoring and survey data collected during the evaluation tasks carried out within

the framework of GEECCO’s Work Package 10. Chapter 3 presents further details on the methods and

data used for the assessment. Each of the evaluated research performing organizations (RPOs)

represents an evaluation case study. The different starting conditions on the ground, taking into

account different legal frameworks and understandings of the relevance and objectives of gender

equality policies in RPOs, greatly influenced the overall capacity building processes for institutional

changes at each RPO over the four years, including the design and development of gender equality

objectives and measures. As gender and evaluation experts, we have accompanied these processes to

the best of our ability, and have made appropriate suggestions to enable the local partners to

quantitatively self-assess their accomplishments in the future, based, for example, on comparisons of

time series (pre–post comparison) and benchmarking with national cross-sectional data, and also by

using validated survey instruments and data. Therefore, when reading this report, attention should be

paid not only to the documented results and recommendations but also to the indicators and methods

described.

Chapter 3 provides a detailed insight into the methods and data that underpin the assessment,

including specific methods for assessing mechanisms of action. Chapter 4 presents and discusses the

results of the data collections and comparisons. It explains what changes can be demonstrated in the

respective thematic areas, and where few or no intended changes are tangible. The assessment and

resulting recommendations in Chapter 5 are based on the objectives specified by the university, which

were either already formulated in the GEECCO project application or within the framework of the GEP.

The recommendations presented in Chapter 5 take into account the objectives from the three to four

specific thematic areas to advance gender equality, and also point to important preconditions that

would bring the realization of specific objectives for the university within the realm of achievability in

the medium term after the financial support from the European project GEECCO ends.



2 PK – ABOUT THE GEECCO PROJECT

The project “Gender Equality in Engineering through Communication and Commitment” (GEECCO)

aims to establish tailor-made gender equality plans (GEPs) at four European universities (research

performing organizations, RPOs) and to integrate the gender dimension into the funding schemes,

programs, and review processes of two research funding organizations (RFOs). All partner universities

are located in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields, where gender

equality is still a serious problem and whose innovations are increasingly important in knowledge-

based economies. The achievement of gender equity within STEM institutions, including their policy-

and decision-making bodies, is thus a question of excellence, competitiveness, and justice. Concerning

the gender dimension in research programs, research funding organizations are the key to substantial

changes, and are thus a crucial part of the aspired transformation.1

Objective 1: The first objective is the development and implementation of GEPs by the four

implementing RPOs. However, these GEPs have to be more than mere policy statements. To this end,

they shall be tailor-designed in order to enfold maximum efficiency and impact, especially in terms of

the following three specific requirements:

• Increase awareness and knowledge on gender equality issues and stipulate an intense

communication process within and beyond implementing institutions (all stakeholder levels,

e.g., top and middle management, researchers, students, administrative staff).

• Enhance gender equality in human resource management (e.g., career development, staff

retention and training) and decision-making processes (specific to the situation of each RPO).

• Support gender equality in teaching and research activities, introduce sex and gender analysis

in research (i.e., content of research and lectures, research management, and day-to-day

research and teaching activities in the classrooms and research facilities).

Objective 2: The second objective is to provide the participating RFOs (two partners and five members

in the observer group) with knowledge and tools for enhancing the gender dimension in their programs

and services.

Objective 3: The third objective is to set up an open and self-reflective learning environment in and

between all participating RPOs and RFOs.

Objective 4: The fourth objective is to monitor and externally assess the process, efficiency, and

impacts of implementing GEPs in each implementing RPO and implementing gender equality in

programs and services in the participating RFOs, and to develop tailor-made trainings and evaluation

tutorials to boost assessment competencies at the implementing partner institutions in order to

advance their self-steering capacities during and after the project.2

1 Please see http://www.geecco-project.eu/home/. 2 Extract from the description of the action (DoA, Part B) pp. 4–5

http://www.geecco-project.eu/home/



3 PK – METHODS AND DATA

With regard to the evaluation tasks, the GESIS evaluation team used a mixed-methods approach that

included (a) the analysis of qualitative data from interviews with individuals and from group

discussions, (b) the analysis of reports submitted by RPO partners as project deliverables, and (c) the

analysis of quantitative data from the data monitoring task and the GEECCO Evaluation Survey Waves

I and II. Within the framework of the present summative final evaluation, the focus is on the

assessment of quantitative data.

This chapter describes the data collection procedure and analyses, the field phases, and the thematic

focus areas of the data monitoring task and the GEECCO Evaluation Survey. A detailed explanation of

research ethics was presented in the reports D10.1, D10.3, D2.3, and D1.1 & 1.2. The evaluative value

of the quantitative data lies in the comparative analysis of the monitoring data and survey data

collected at the beginning and the end of the implementation of the GEP.

The data assessed for this report originated from two rounds of monitoring data collection that took

place in July 2018 and July 2020 and from two online surveys implemented at PK in November 2018

and October 2020.

3.1 PK – BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT AND COLLECTION – MONITORING DATA

The monitoring data provide systematic evidence on the implementation progress and the outcomes

of the GEP (Poister, 2010; Stockmann & Meyer, 2014; Wroblewski, 2016). For the data monitoring task,

a data monitoring template was tailor-made and co-produced by PK and GESIS (for more details on the

data monitoring template, see Deliverable D10.2). The key objective of the data monitoring task was

to provide a consistent database containing sex-disaggregated data on the three thematic areas of

gender equality actions at PK – namely, decision-making processes and bodies; recruitment and career

development of female researchers and female staff members; and the gender dimension in research

and teaching.

Within the framework of the GEECCO project, the monitoring data were collected for the first time

between May and July 2018 and for the second time between May and July 2020. By collecting the

monitoring data during two time periods, the GESIS evaluation team was able to assess a set of

indicators from the beginning of the implementation of the GEECCO GEP at PK and to compare them

with indicators showing the state of play after two years of implementation. In addition to this pre–

post analysis of the outcomes and effects of PK’s gender equality measures, counterfactuals were

formed for selected indicators on the basis of national data from relevant fields of science (following

the Frascati Manual; OECD, 2015). The purpose of forming counterfactuals in impact evaluations is to

gain a better understanding of the relation between causes and effects – that is, how the effects relate

to the intervention activities and to the inputs used to develop these activities (Donaldson et al., 2009;

Legewie, 2012; Morgan & Winship, 2015).

The focus of the summative final evaluation is on whether impacts of the project can be identified.

Because the GEECCO project started in May 2017, the GESIS evaluation team compared the data from

2016 (situation without project-funded gender equality measures) with those from 2020 (after/at the

end of the implementation of project-funded measures). In many cases, no major differences in

quantitative indicators were likely to be observed within this short project period. However, it is

interesting to see whether general trends, in one direction or the other, can be observed.



Regarding methodology, it should be noted that most indicators in the monitoring data only count

heads and do not indicate what processes led to the changes in the proportion of women in the various

positions. In addition, due to the small numbers in some subgroups in the monitoring data, the relative

range of decreases and increases in the shares of women and men appears disproportionately wide

for some indicators. For this reason, these specific cases are referred to throughout the report in order

to properly classify the results on the progress of the indicators in question.

In addition to a consistent database containing sex-disaggregated data on the three thematic areas of

gender equality actions, Monitoring Data I and II also provide indicators on the GEP implementation

process. Performance on these indicators is also taken into consideration in the outcome analysis of

each thematic area presented in Chapter 4.

3.2 PK – BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT AND DATA COLLECTION – SURVEY

The GEECCO Evaluation Survey was conducted among PK staff and students in 2018 and in 2020. The

aim of the online survey was to produce evidence of changes in the PK members’ attitudes toward

gender stereotypes and perceptions of sexual harassment that were induced by the implementation

of the GEP in the course of the GEECCO project.

As part of the GEECCO project, the GESIS evaluation team collected survey data from PK staff and

students at two points in time: GEECCO Evaluation Survey Wave I (ESW I) took place at PK between

November 13 and November 27, 2018; GEECCO Evaluation Survey Wave II (ESW II) was conducted

from October 13 to October 27, 2020. The GEECCO Evaluation Survey was made available to

respondents in Polish and English. To facilitate the comparative analysis of the data from the two

waves, the ESW I and ESW II questionnaires were identical. Thus, the results of ESW I represent the

baseline scenario of PK respondents’ attitudes toward gender stereotypes and sexual harassment.

Potential changes in attitudes and perceptions over the GEECCO project period are assessed by

comparing the baseline survey data from 2018 with the survey data from 2020. In combination with

the monitoring data, the results of ESW I and ESW II are used for the assessment of PK’s gender equality

actions aimed at improving gender awareness and knowledge on gender and/or preventing sexual

harassment in the three thematic areas.

To allow for this comparison between the two survey waves, and to reduce nonresponse bias, the

samples of ESW I and ESW II were weighted based on the known marginal distributions of key variables

in the organizational administrative data (adjustment weighting) that the GESIS evaluation team

gathered during the second round of monitoring data collection (July 2020). The adjustment weighting

was conducted using a raking procedure – namely, the iterative proportional fitting algorithm

suggested by Deming and Stephan (1940) – that adjusted the marginal distribution of gender and

faculty membership within the survey and wave to the distribution at PK. By weighting the samples,

nonresponse bias in the samples can be reduced and more reliable, generalizable conclusions can be

drawn about the attitudes toward and perceptions of sexual harassment and gender stereotypes at

PK.

The target population of the GEECCO Evaluation Survey comprised all PK staff (academic and non-

academic) as well as enrolled students at the time of the data collection in November 2018. In 2018, a

total of 2,055 people were employed at PK, of whom 1,166 were classified as academic staff (GEECCO



Monitoring Data I, PK, July 2018). The total number of enrolled students was 14,535 in 20163 (GEP 1.0,

D3.4).

To recruit survey respondents, the GESIS evaluation team provided a link to the GEECCO Evaluation

Survey Waves I and II, which was distributed via different channels by the PK Core GEP team. After the

first week of the two-week survey field period, email reminders were sent by the PK Core GEP team.

Ultimately, target persons decided themselves whether to participate in the online survey. Due to this

self-selection, there are limitations to the representativeness of the sample for all PK staff and

students. These limitations were reduced by the above-mentioned weighting procedure.

A total of 318 respondents participated in ESW I, of whom 169 self-identified as women and 146 as

men; three respondents self-identified as other. Sixty-eight percent of ESW I respondents were

students; 32% were employees. A total of 374 respondents participated in ESW II, of whom 194 self-

identified as women, 177 as men, and three as other. Eighty-three percent of the ESW II respondents

were students; 17% were employees.

In ESW I and ESW II, the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999) was applied to

measure hostile and benevolent prejudices and stereotypes about men. The individual items are

measured on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). A “don’t

know” option was also provided. The concept of ambivalent sexism recognizes sexism as being marked

by a deep ambivalence and consisting of two forms of sexist attitudes: hostile sexism and benevolent

sexism. The Hostility toward Men subscale of the AMI measures the respondents’ hostility toward male

dominance and gender stereotypes that display men as being superior to women. The Benevolence

toward Men subscale measures positive attitudes toward men that are rooted in admiration for their

role as providers and protectors (Glick & Fiske, 1999). A short version of the AMI (Rollero et al., 2014)

was administered in ESW I and II. It comprised six items for hostile sexism and six items for benevolent

sexism. The short version of the AMI was applied to reduce the required response time.

To measure the gender bias experienced by female students, a scale developed by Robnett (2016) to

assess girls’ and women’s experiences with different forms of academic gender bias was used in ESW

I and ESW II. Gender bias occurs when people treat women unfairly due to their gender. Respondents

were asked to rate how frequently male peers, female peers, male supervisors, and female supervisors

behaved in the eight gender-biased ways. Frequency was measured on a 4-point scale ranging from 1

(never) to 4 (many times). In addition to demonstrating the prevalence of gender bias and the extent

to which the aforementioned persons displayed gender bias in their behavior, this measure also

identifies the explicit forms of gender bias experienced by women aspiring to careers in STEM.

To measure the perception of male sexual harassment of women among staff members at PK, the

Illinois Sexual Harassment Myth Acceptance (ISHMA) Scale (Lonsway et al., 2008) was applied in ESW I

and II. The ISHMA scale measures the acceptance of sexual harassment mythology. It consists of a set

of 20 critical items, distributed over four subscales (Fabrication/Exaggeration, Ulterior Motives,

Natural Heterosexuality, and Woman´s Responsibility). The respondents were asked to rate each item

on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A “don’t know” option

was also provided.

3 Monitoring Data I and II include only the total number of Bachelor and Master graduates, not enrolled students. The most recent data available on enrolled students are from 2016.



3.3 PK – BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT AND DATA COLLECTION – LOGIC MODELS

Logic model analysis was conducted at PK within the framework of the baseline evaluation (October

2018). The logic models were developed by the GESIS evaluation team based on quantitative and

qualitative data collected within the framework of Monitoring Data I (May–July 2018; see Section 3.1

above) and on a document analysis.

Logic models help identify inconsistencies in the areas in which the GEP is supposed to create effects.

They can be used to retrospectively assess whether the GEP has worked as intended, and offer a

simplified visualization of linear cause–effect relationships of the GEP. Logic models visualize which

measures are expected to bring about which results. Thus, they can be used to gain a better

understanding of cause–effect relationships between implemented gender equality measures and

their impacts.

In contrast to inputs, activities, and outputs, which demonstrate the planned approach to bringing

about the changes to be achieved by the GEP, outcomes and impacts describe these changes.

Outcomes are the short-term changes in the behavior, knowledge, or skills of target group members.

In the present context, impacts are long-term and fundamental changes in institutions, communities,

or systems that are triggered by the gender equality activities (Besharov & Call, 2016). For example,

the outcome of gender bias training at RPOs could be increased gender bias awareness on the part of

training participants, and the impact could be a reduction of gender bias in the institutional

recruitment processes and the career development of female researchers.

Whereas the aim of the Baseline Evaluation Report was to establish an ex ante understanding of the

relationships between the intended results and the implemented activities, the aim of the Final

Evaluation Report is to demonstrate the achieved outcomes and impacts resulting from the

implemented activities. Therefore, for the final evaluation, the possible outcomes and impacts of PK’s

gender equality measures outlined in the logic model analysis conducted within the framework of the

baseline evaluation are contrasted with the quantitative indicators and reported outcomes in

Monitoring Data II.



4 PK – WHAT WORKED AND WHAT DID NOT WORK AT POLITECHNIKA

KRAKOWSKA (PK)

The present chapter analyzes the gender equality activities implemented within the framework of the

GEECCO GEP at PK in each thematic area and the outcomes of these activities – to the extent that

indicators measuring these outcomes were available. The aim is to show with regard to the

implementation of the GEECCO GEP at PK what worked and what did not work.

As outlined in Chapter 3, the analysis of the outcomes of the GEP activities is based on quantitative

indicators from Monitoring Data I and II and the GEECCO Evaluation Survey Waves I and II. In addition,

the present Final Evaluation Report refers to the logic model analysis conducted within the framework

of the baseline evaluation. Following a brief overview of the gender equality activities and focus areas

of PK’s GEP, this chapter presents the outcome analysis for each thematic area. In so doing, reference

is made to the aforementioned logic model analysis and quantitative indicators.

4.1 PK – PORTFOLIO OF GENDER EQUALITY ACTIVITIES

The PK Core GEP team added several new activities to the gender equality plan in 2020 across all

thematic areas, though there is still a strong focus on the thematic area "decision-making processes

and bodies" and awareness-raising activities. Figure 1 shows this vast increase in the number of

planned gender equality activities across all three thematic areas of PK’s gender equality plan in course

of the GEECCO project period. In Monitoring Data II (2020), the PK Core GEP team added in total 25

new activities in comparison to the listed activities in Monitoring Data I (July 2018). Although, the

quantity of GEP actions should not be directly interpreted as an indicator for the level of impact, as the

GEP activities differ in size and reach, it demonstrates the efforts to achieve the set objectives.

Overall, most objectives of the GEP activities in Monitoring Data II continue to be formulated in a

general manner and lack operational objectives. Formulating more specific and measurable objectives

0

5

10

15

20

Decision-MakingProcesses and Bodies

Recruitment andCareer Development

of Female Researchersand Female Staff

Members

Gender Dimension inResearch and

Teaching

Planned Activities - MD I Planned Activities - MD II

Note. MD I = Monitoring Data I; MD II = Monitoring Data II. Source: Monitoring Data I (July 2018) and Monitoring Data II

(July 2020), Politechnika Krakowska (PK).

Source: Monitoring Data I (July 2018) and Monitoring Data II (July 2020), Politechnika Krakowska (PK).

Figure 1. Portfolio of Planned Gender Equality Activities, PK, 2018 and 2020



would help to implement actions with more tangible effects beyond the project lifetime. However, in

comparison to Monitoring Data I, and given the outlined objectives and future gender equality

activities in GEP 3.0, a learning curve in in terms of specification level, strategic approach, activities,

and objective can be observed at PK over the project lifetime.

4.2 PK – DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND BODIES

Regarding the thematic area “decision-making processes and bodies”, the PK Core GEP team aimed at

achieving more transparent decision-making processes, increasing the share of women in decision-

making bodies, and raising knowledge and awareness on gender equality among decision-makers at

PK. The planned activities (Monitoring Data II, 2020) for achieving these objectives included inter alia

(a) the identification of current decision-making processes, (b) internal communication of EU and

international good practices regarding gender equality, (c) participation in the review process of the

new PK Statute and information provision to decision-makers about the current status of gender

equality at PK, (d) trainings on gender issues in academia, and (e) building up alliances with other PK

units.

As demonstrated in Figure 2, the overall share of women in decision-making positions at faculty level

increased substantially from 19.2% in 2018 to 27.0% in 2020. This change is based on a significant

increase in the number of women among the heads of institutes / directors. In 2018, six out of 39 heads

of institutes / directors were women. By 2020, the total number of heads of institutes / directors at PK

rose from 39 to 102, and the number of women among heads of institutes / directors to 29. This is an

increase in the proportion of women of 13 percentage points between 2018 and 2020.

By contrast, no significant changes in the gender balance among decision-making bodies at central

level of PK can be observed. For example, the senate, disciplinary commissions, and university

commissions, did not change fundamentally between 2016 and 2020. The proportion of women on

disciplinary commissions even fell significantly from 48.1% in 2016 to 30.8% in 2020. Only the

proportion of women on university commissions increased significantly from 31.5% to 43.2%.

The gender balance in decision-making bodies at rectorate level had hardly changed over the four-year

period. In 2016, there was not a single woman represented at rectorate level. By 2020, one position

was held by a woman, so that the total proportion of women had risen to 14.3% due to the low number

of total numbers (N = 7) in this area.

Overall, the share of women in decision-making bodies and positions at PK had not significantly

improved since 2016 – except at faculty level.

.



Figure 2. Proportion of Women and Men in Decision-Making Bodies and Positions Over Time, PK, 2016 – 2020

23,3%

22,2%

27,0%

23,9%

48,1%

30,8%

no data available

20,0%

24,6%

31,5%

43,2%

50,0%

29,6%

29,6%

no data available

15,4%

28,4%

76,7%

77,8%

73,0%

76,1%

51,9%

69,2%

80,0%

75,4%

68,5%

56,8%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

50,0%

100,0%

100,0%

70,4%

70,4%

84,6%

71,6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2018

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2018

2020

Sen

ate

Sen

ate

Co

mm

issi

on

sD

isci

plin

ary

Co

mm

issi

on

sR

ecto

rC

om

mis

sio

ns

Un

iver

sity

Co

mm

issi

on

sR

ecto

rV

ice

Re

cto

rs

Ch

ance

llor

and

Qu

aest

or

Facu

lty

Dea

ns

Facu

lty

vice

de

ans

Hea

ds

of

Inst

itu

tes

/ D

ire

cto

rs

CEN

TRA

L LE

VEL

REC

TOR

ATE

LEV

ELFA

CU

LTY

LEV

EL

f %

m %

Note. Members of decision-making bodies in total, 2016: N = 364 (103 women, 261 men); 2018: N = 403 (109 women,

294 men); 2020: N = 495 (139 women, 356 men). For two decision-making bodies (rector commissions and heads of

institutes / directors) data was available only from the year 2018 onward. Source: Monitoring Data I (July 2018) and

Monitoring Data II (July 2020), Politechnika Krakowska (PK).



No quantitative indicators were available to evaluate whether there had been progress toward the

other two objectives in the thematic area “decision-making processes and bodies” – namely, to make

decision-making processes more transparent, and to raise knowledge and awareness on gender

equality among decision-makers. In the context of the evaluation, it was not feasible to collect data on

the processes of decision-making and potential gender biases therein. However, the Core GEP team

reported several outcomes in Monitoring Data II which indicate some progress toward increased

gender awareness among decision-makers, for example, the inclusion of references to anti-

discrimination into the revised university statutes.

The logic model of the baseline evaluation also entails the increased gender awareness and gender

competence of decision-making bodies as additional possible outcomes in the thematic area “decision-

making bodies and processes”. The continuing gender imbalances in decision-making bodies at PK

suggest that low commitment of decision-makers and strong hierarchical structuring remain hindering

factors at PK – as described in the Interim Evaluation Report in more detail.

For this reason, it is of utmost necessity that members of decision-making bodies at PK increase their

gender awareness significantly and recognize the importance of achieving more gender equality at PK.

Otherwise, institutional barriers and prevailing traditional gender stereotypes will limit the effect of

future gender equality measures. This would lead to a continued lack of transparency in decision-

making processes, and ultimately, to the persistence of pronounced gender imbalances in decision-

making bodies at PK.

The GESIS evaluation team considers the establishment of institutional decision-making structures on

gender equality issues, and the building of alliances between the PK Core GEP team and other units at

PK to be a promising step toward an increased gender awareness and a reduction of discrimination.

4.3 PK – RECRUITMENT, CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF FEMALE RESEARCHERS AND FEMALE STAFF

The main objectives concerning the thematic area ‘recruitment, career development of female

researchers and female staff members’ were to raise knowledge and awareness on gender equality,

to increase the share of women at different career levels, to increase the visibility of existing female

role-models, and to change prevailing stereotypes at PK. To achieve these objectives the implemented

actions included (a) trainings for researchers at different career levels, (b) publications, and

information campaigns to make female role models more visible, and (c) the set-up of a specific

monitoring scheme for collecting gender-sensitive data. Above all, the activities in this thematic area

focused on awareness-raising measures aimed at reducing gender bias in recruitment and increasing

the share of women at different career levels.

To evaluate the outcome of the implemented awareness-raising measures, the GESIS evaluation team

drew on the results of the GEECCO Evaluation Survey Wave I and II. The survey data provide

information on changes in attitudes toward gender stereotypes and perceptions of sexual harassment

at PK.

4.3.1 PK – INDICATORS ON GENDER AWARENESS AND SEXISM

To measure the attitudes toward gender stereotypes among staff and students at PK, the Ambivalence

toward Men Inventory (AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999) was applied to measure hostile and benevolent

prejudices and stereotypes about men. As outlined in Section 3.2, the concept of ambivalent sexism



recognizes sexism as being marked by a deep ambivalence and consisting of two forms of sexist

attitudes: hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. The individual items were measured on a 6-point

Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The comparative analysis of the

GEECCO Evaluation Survey Wave I (ESW I) and Wave II (ESW II) points to a continuing presence of

strong gender stereotypes and existence of ambivalent sexism among PK members. In ESW I, the

results show that female respondents (M = 3.4, SD = .15) disagree significantly more strongly with

statements promoting male dominance and gender stereotypes that display men as being superior to

women than male respondents (M = 2.5, SD =.25).4

This observation regarding the Hostile Sexism subscale of AMI is in line with previous studies from the

U.S. and Europe (Glick & Fiske, 1999; Rollero et al., 2014). In ESW I (2018), male respondents (M = 3.1,

SD = .20) also agreed significantly more strongly with gender stereotypes describing men in their role

as providers and protectors than female respondents (M = 2.4, SD = .10).5 In other studies no significant

gender differences were reported in this regard (Glick & Fiske, 1999; Rollero et al., 2014). The

significant gender difference on the Hostile Sexism subscale of AMI (i.e. statements promoting male

dominance) can also be observed in ESW II (Men: M = 2.2, SD = .22; Women: M = 3.4, SD =.20).6 These

results suggest that men at PK agree more strongly to patriarchal values than women.

Overall, the results of the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI) indicate a working environment

at PK that is characterized by ambivalent sexism between women and men, leading to simplistic

generalizations about gender attributes of women and men, that is, prevailing gender stereotypes.

Gender stereotypes create certain gender role expectations which influence people’s behavior and

determine how people are treated in professional or private situations due to their gender. The

comparative analysis of ESW I and ESW II does not suggest any notable changes in attitudes toward

gender stereotypes at PK between 2018 and 2020. The implemented awareness-raising measures that

focused on making female role models visible had therefore not initiated a cultural change at PK over

the GEECCO project period.

When people evaluate objective information based on existing gender stereotypes, gender bias occurs.

To measure the gender bias experienced by female students at PK, a scale developed by Robnett (2016)

to assess girls’ and women’s experiences with different forms of academic gender bias was used in

ESW I and ESW II (see Section 3.2). Gender bias occurs when people treat women unfairly due to their

gender. With regard to the experiences of female students with gender bias at PK7, the findings of ESW

I (2018) show that the main source of gender bias are male supervisors, followed by male peers. The

five forms of academic bias that were experienced most regularly (i.e. several or many times) over the

past year, by female students at PK are listed in Table 1.

Comparing the findings of ESW I and ESW II with regard to female students’ experiences with gender

bias, the main source of gender bias continued to be male supervisors. “Made negative comments

about women’s science abilities” was still the form of gender bias that female students experienced

most at PK. Twenty-eight percent of female students reported that they had experienced this form of

gender bias from male supervisors several or many times over the past year (2019–2020). Fourteen

percent of them also regularly experienced this form of gender bias from male peers.

4 ESW I, 2018: Hostile Sexism subscale, t(69) = 10.19 , p < .05. 5 ESW I, 2018: Benevolent Sexism subscale, t(75) = 9.57, p < .05. 6 ESW II, 2020: Hostile Sexism subscale, t(46) = 17.17, p < .001. 7 The item battery on experiences with gender bias addresses only experiences of female students. In ESW I (2018), 102 female students reported their experiences with gender bias at PK; in ESW II (2020), 151 female students reported their experiences in this regard.



Overall, there were only slight differences in the reported gender bias experiences of female students

between ESW I and ESW II. However, as shown in Table 1, a decrease in experienced gender bias can

be observed in two forms of gender bias by male supervisors: “Made negative comments about

women’s science abilities” and “Made negative comments about your ability in STEM of your gender.”

Because the ESW I and ESW II samples were not identical, this decrease in reported experiences should

be interpreted with caution. However, it indicates a promising trend at PK. The measurement on

experienced gender bias at PK also indicates that the awareness-raising measures focusing on making

female role models more visible are not enough to initiate a cultural change at PK.

Table 1. Experiences With Gender Bias: Relative Frequency of the Five Forms of Gender Bias Most Regularly Experienced by Female Students, From Male Supervisors and Male Peers, PK, 2018 and 2020

To evaluate the perception of sexual harassment, the GESIS evaluation team drew on data collected

within the framework of the GEECCO Evaluation Survey. To measure the attitudes toward and the

perception of male sexual harassment of women among PK members, the Illinois Sexual Harassment

Myth Acceptance (ISHMA) Scale (Lonsway et al., 2008) was administered in Evaluation Survey Wave

(ESW) I and II. As outlined in Section 3.2 above, the ISHMA scale measures the acceptance of sexual

harassment mythology. Respondents were asked to rate each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The ESW I (2018) survey results of the ISHMA

scale show a relatively low level of overall acceptance of sexual harassment among staff members at

PK, but clear gender differences between respondents. Male employees (M = 3.5, SD = .25) at PK

demonstrate a significantly higher acceptance of sexual harassment than female employees (M = 2.4,

SD = .24)8 in ESW I (2018). By contrast, the survey results of ESW II (2020) do not show any significant

gender differences in the mean scores on the ISHMA scale. This suggests that the perception of sexual

harassment among male employees had changed, and that they rejected myths on sexual harassment

8 ESW I, 2018: ISHMA scale, t(31) = 3,30 , p < .05.

Form of Gender Bias ESW I (2018) ESW II (2020)

Male

Supervisors Male Peers

Male

Supervisors

Male

Peers

Made negative comments about women’s

science abilities. 34.3% 12.8% 28.5% 13.9%

Made negative comments about your ability in

STEM because of your gender. 25.5% 4.9% 17.9% 6.6%

Made you feel like your gender will make it

difficult for you to succeed in STEM. 21.6% 6.9% 22.5% 9.2%

Expected less of you academically or

professionally because of your gender. 18.6% 8.8% 18.5% 6.6%

Made you feel like you had to work harder than

male students to be taken seriously. 16.7% 3.9% 21.85% 8.0%

Note. Female students, ESW I (2018): N = 102; ESW II (2020): N = 151. Source: GEECCO ESW I (2018) and GEECCO ESW II (2020), Politechnika Krakowska (PK).



more strongly in 2020 than in 2018. This finding may be indicative of the fact that the gender equality

work conducted during the GEECCO project period has led to increased gender awareness among PK

male employees.

Nonetheless, as the results of ESW II show, in 2020, male employees (M = 2.9, SD = .31) at PK continued

to have a higher threshold in the acceptance of sexual harassment than female employees (M = 2.6,

SD = .13). These gender differences in the perception and acceptance of sexual harassment should be

tackled by further gender equality actions.

Taking a closer look at the different dimensions of the ISHMA Scale, a clear pattern emerges that

provides useful insights for developing future activities (see Table 2). In 2018 and 2020, the items with

the highest acceptance belonged to two of the four dimensions of ISHMA: ulterior motives and

woman’s responsibility. The ISHMA dimension “ulterior motives” includes items suggesting that

women have ulterior motives for filing sexual harassment claims, such as extorting money from their

employer. Items of the “woman’s responsibility” dimension include beliefs suggesting that the

responsibility for preventing sexual harassment rests with the women being victimized, and that it is

their own fault for not discouraging men’s advances (Lonsway et al., 2008). This means that the existing

acceptance of sexual harassment at PK continues to be rooted in the beliefs that women have

concealed motives for claiming sexual harassment had taken place, and that it is the women’s own

responsibility to protect themselves from being sexually harassed.



Table 2. Illinois Sexual Harassment Myth Acceptance Scale, Mean Scores of the Five Items With the Strongest Agreement, by Total Employees (total), Male Employees (m), and Female Employees (f), PK, 2018 and 2020

ISHMA

Dimension Item ESW I (2018) ESW II (2020)

Mean

(total)

Mean

(m)

Mean

(f)

Mean

(total)

Mean

(m)

Mean

(f)

Woman’s

Responsibility

Women can usually stop unwanted

sexual attention from a co-worker

by telling their supervisor about it.

4.2 4.8 3.8 3.8 4.2 3.4

Woman’s

Responsibility


sexual attention by simply telling

the man that his behavior is not

appreciated.

4.2 5.0 3.6 4.4 4.6 4.2

Ulterior Motives

A woman can easily ruin her

supervisor’s career by claiming that

he “came on” to her.

4.4 5.6 3.5 4.1 5.1 3.2

Ulterior Motives

Women who are caught having an

affair with their supervisor

sometimes claim that it was sexual

harassment.

3.8 4.6 3.3 3.5 3.8 3.3

Ulterior Motives

Sometimes women make up

allegations of sexual harassment to

extort money from their employer.

3.4 4.3 2.8 - - -

Sometimes a woman has a

"fantasy" relationship with her

boss and then claims that he

sexually harassed her.*

- - - 3.6 4.3 2.8

Note. ESW I (2018): N = 99 (67 female employees, 32 male employees); ESW II (2020): N = 62 (43 female employees, 19 male employees). ISHMA: 7-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). *In ESW I and ESW II, two different statements about the "ulterior motive" dimension were among the five statements with the strongest agreement. Source: GEECCO Evaluation Survey Wave I (2018) and GEECCO Evaluation Survey Wave II (2020), Politechnika Krakowska (PK).

To sum up, the results of GEECCO Evaluation Survey Waves I and II indicate sexist attitudes and

prevailing gender bias among PK staff members and students. However, the results of ESW II (2020)

suggest an increased awareness and less acceptance of sexual harassment of women among male

employees. Moreover, in 2020, fewer female students reported experiences with gender bias than in

2018. It is likely that awareness-raising measures of the GEECCO GEP contributed to these positive

developments, but also that contextual factors, such as the protests by the women’s movement in

2020 against increased restrictions on access to legal abortion, had an impact on the changes. The

survey data show a positive trend toward more gender awareness and less acceptance of sexual

harassment of women. These results are in line with the expected possible outcomes and impacts

outlined in the logic model analysis conducted within the framework of the baseline evaluation.



More detailed information on the GEECCO Evaluation Survey Waves I and II, as well as on the scales

used to measure the attitudes toward gender stereotypes and the perceptions of sexual harassment

can be found in Section 3.2.

4.3.2 PK – INDICATORS ON GENDER REPRESENTATION AT DIFFERENT CAREER LEVELS

The monitoring data were used to evaluate whether there has been progress toward a more gender-

equal representation of women in different undergraduate, graduate, and career levels at PK over the

four years from 2016 to 2020. Following a comprehensive overview of the gender representation along

the academic study and career path at PK, this section takes a closer look at the gender balance among

staff members, Bachelor and Master graduates, and PhD graduates. Finally, the gender representation

in different forms of employment will be analyzed.

In the She Figures produced by the European Commission, the levels of seniority of academic staff are

denoted, in descending order, by the grades A, B, C, and D. In Poland, grade A comprises full professors,

grade B comprises researchers with habilitation, grade C comprises PhD graduates. Grade D, the lowest

seniority level, comprises master's graduates (European Commission, 2019, p.190).

Figure 3 illustrates the significant gender differences in the opportunities of career development at PK.

Although about half of the Bachelor, Master, and PhD graduates were women in 2016 and 2020,

women’s academic career path in the post-doctoral level is characterized by a significant decline in the

share of women among full professors. In 2020, women represented 35.7% of grade C staff and 12.5%

of grade A staff. This strong vertical segregation in a typical academic career of women and men at PK

remained completely stable over the four years from 2016 to 2020.



Figure 3. Proportion of Women and Men at Different Undergraduate, Graduate, and Career Levels, PK, 2016 and 2020

PK – GENDER BALANCE AMONG STAFF MEMBERS

In 2020, 1,958 staff members (1,101 academic and 857 non-academic) worked at PK. Over the four

years of the project implementation, the total number of staff slightly decreased from 2,110 in 2016

to 1,958 staff members in 2020.

The proportion of women among the total (i.e., academic and non-academic) staff at PK changed only

minimally between 2016 and 2020. In both years, the ratio of women to men was balanced, with

women accounting for 49.3% in 2016 and 50.5% in 2020. Among the eight faculties at PK, it is

noticeable that the ratio of women to men at the Faculties of Architecture, Chemical Engineering and

Technology, Environmental Engineering, and Materials Engineering and Physics was the most

balanced, with women accounting for between 44.3% and 54.3% of staff in 2020. Between 2016 and

2020 the gender balance among total staff at these faculties was stable – except for the Faculty of

Environmental Engineering, where the share of women rose from 47.3% in 2016 to 51.1% in 2020.

At the Faculty of Civil Engineering, the proportion of women decreased from 40.5% to 38.9% between

2016 and 2020. A similar development can be observed at the Faculty of Physics, Mathematics and

Computer Science. Whereas the fall in the share of women in total staff at the Faculty of Civil

Engineering indicates that fewer women than men have been newly hired, as the number of men in

total staff stayed the same over the four years, the decrease in the share of women at the Faculty of

Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science is related rather to the overall decrease in total staff

between 2016 and 2020. The faculty with the largest gender imbalance in total staff is the Faculty of

Note. Bachelor Graduates, 2016: N = 2,194 (1,042 women, 1,152 men); 2020: N = 1,633 (749 women, 884 men). Master Graduates, 2016: N

= 1,476 (733 women, 743 men); 2020: N = 1,231 (656 women, 575 men). PhD Graduates, 2016: N = 27 (13 women, 14 men); 2020: N = 28

(15 women, 13 men). Grade C, 2016: N = 608 (209 women, 399 men); 2020: N = 546 (195 women, 351 men). Grade B, 2016: N = 182 (48

women, 134 men); 2020: N = 220 (70 women, 150 men). Grade A, 2016: N = 89 (11 women, 78 men), 2020: N = 72 (9 women, 63 men).

Source: GEECCO Monitoring Data I (July 2018) and GEECCO Monitoring Data II (July 2020), Politechnika Krakowska (PK).

45,9%

53,3% 53,6%

35,7% 31,8%

12,5%

47,5% 49,7% 48,1%

34,4%

26,4%

12,4%

54%

47% 46%

64%68%

88%

52,5% 50,3% 51,9%

65,6%

73,6%

87,6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Bachelor Graduates Master Graduates PhD Graduates Grade C Grade B Grade A

Women 2020 Women 2016 Men 2020 Men 2016



Electrical and Computer Engineering. In 2016, the proportion of women was 23.7%, by 2020 it had

risen only to 25.3%.

The ratio of women to men among total (i.e., academic and non-academic) staff at PK overall is very

balanced. However, the apparent gender balance among total staff is due mainly to the high

proportion of women in non-academic staff. As can be seen from the next indicator, the ratio of

women to men is more imbalanced when only academic staff are considered.

Staff by Seniority Level, Institutional and National Level

A look at the proportion of women in the various academic seniority grades at the individual faculties

at PK reveals a pronounced imbalanced ratio of women to men on the highest rung of the academic

career ladder, grade A, at PK. The ratios of women to men in grade D, grade C, and grade D differ

among the individual faculties but the barriers that women encounter before reaching a grade A

position seem to be particularly high at all faculties.

At the Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Technology there was not a single woman represented at

the highest seniority level, grade A, in 2016. The proportion of women in grade B was 19%, and in grade

C 61.1%. In the lowest seniority grade, grade D, women were even in the majority with a share of 77.8%

in 2016. This pattern had changed only minimally by 2020. Although the proportion of women in grade

B increased to 32.0%, there was still not a single woman represented in grade A positions by 2020. The

higher the seniority level, the lower the proportion of women at the Faculty of Chemical Engineering

and Technology. This points to a clear pattern of preferential treatment of men in the promotion to

full professor.

The relation between gender and academic seniority level is also apparent at the Faculties of

Mechanical Engineering, Environmental Engineering, and Civil Engineering: In the lower seniority

grades, C and D, the ratio of women to men is relatively balanced, and in some cases female

researchers are even in the majority. But then, in the higher seniority grades, grade A and grade B,

hardly any women are represented. Monitoring Data I and II on the Faculty of Electrical and Computer

Engineering were also striking, with only four women out of 60 academic staff (two of whom were in

seniority grades C and D) in 2016. Between 2016 and 2020, there were hardly any changes in the ratio

of women to men among academic staff at this faculty.

In contrast, the Faculty of Architecture stands out positively, with a very balanced ratio of women to

men across all academic seniority levels. In 2020, the proportion of women among grade A staff

amounted to 42.9%, among grade B staff it was 56.5%, and among grade C staff 41.8%. As the gender-

equal representation at all seniority levels at the Faculty of Architecture can be also observed in 2016,

it is not the result of gender equality work conducted during the GEECCO project period. In 2016, 36.8%

of grade A positions were filled by women. It remains unclear whether this development toward a

more gender-equal representation of women in the highest career grade was triggered by the GEECCO

GEP or by other institutional factors.

Looking at the rates of growth in the share of women in grade A positions, the monitoring data indicate

that the negative growth rate of –11.4% across all faculties at PK before the start of the project (2014–

2016) slowed down to –5.1% during the GEECCO project implementation (2018–2020). In contrast to

this positive development across all faculties, the proportion of women in grade A positions at the

Faculty of Environmental Engineering fell by 18.4% between 2014 and 2016. During the period of the

project implementation, the proportion of women in grade A positions dropped further, resulting in a

growth rate of –29.3% in. This proportional decrease is significant even when considering the low



numbers in grade A positions in total academic staff – 7% of the total academic staff of PK hold a grade

A position. With regard to the other faculties at PK, the monitoring data indicate a stable but very low

proportion of women in grade A positions – before the start of the project (2014–2016) and during the

project term (2018–2020).

The indicator on the ratio of women to men by seniority level and by faculty provides a better

understanding of the extent of structural barriers to women’s career progression. In case of PK, the

monitoring data show a pronounced gender imbalance in higher seniority levels at most faculties.

These results indicate preferential treatment of men and the existence of structural discrimination at

PK.

Glass Ceiling Index, Institutional and National Level

The Glass Ceiling Index (GCI) compares the proportion of women in all academic positions (grades A, B

and C) with the proportion of women in the highest academic positions (grade A). The GCI can range

from 0 to infinity. A value of 1 indicates that there is no difference in the career opportunities of men

and women in academia. If the value is greater than 1 a glass ceiling effect exists. This means that

women are less represented at the top career level (grade A) than among academic staff generally

(grades A, B and C). In other words, the higher the value of the GCI, the stronger the glass ceiling effect,

and the more difficult it is for women to move into a higher position (European Commission, 2019,

p.125).

The GCI at PK in 2016 was 2.47 and had increased further, to 2.62, by 2020. Thus, a strong glass ceiling

effect can be observed at PK. By comparison, the national GCI of all STEM universities in Poland was

2.15 in 2016 and had fallen to 2.10 by 2019. This indicates a positive trend toward a more gender-

equal representation of women in the highest academic positions at STEM universities in Poland over

the three years from 2016 to 2019, and a significantly higher glass ceiling effect at PK compared with

STEM universities in Poland generally.

The GCI illustrates the existence of invisible barriers to women reaching the highest career level (grade

A). However, what specific processes and mechanisms underlie the restriction of access to the highest

scientific positions for women remains an open question.

PK – GENDER BALANCE AMONG BACHELOR AND MASTER GRADUATES

Overall, the monitoring data show a slight decrease in the proportion of female Bachelor graduates

from 47.5% in 2016 to 45.9% in 2020 and an increase in the proportion of female Master graduates

from 49.7% in 2016 to 53.3% in 2020.

The faculty at PK with the highest proportion of female Bachelor and Master graduates was the Faculty

of Chemical Engineering and Technology. 83% of Bachelor graduates and 82.5% of Master graduates

were female in 2020. Compared with 2016, there was an increase of 2.2 percentage points in the share

of female Bachelor graduates and an increase of 1.4 percentage points in the share of female Master

graduates. The share of female Bachelor and Master graduates was also high at the Faculty of Civil

Engineering and the Faculty of Environmental Engineering in 2016 and 2020. Women accounted for

43.8% and 47.6% of the Bachelor's and Master's degrees at the Faculty of Civil Engineering in 2020,

respectively. At the Faculty of Environmental Engineering, 56.5% of Bachelor graduates and 64.9% of

Master graduates were female in 2020.



The faculty at PK with the lowest proportion of female graduates was the Faculty of Electrical and

Computer Engineering, with a proportion of 8.7% women among Bachelor graduates and 9.5% among

Master graduates in 2020.

In national comparison, the ratio of women to men among Bachelor graduates was slightly more

balanced at PK (47.5% women) than at STEM universities in Poland (45.8% women) in 2016. By 2020,

the proportion of women among Bachelor graduates in the STEM fields in Poland had fallen minimally

to 44.4%; however, the proportion of women at PK had also fallen, to 45.9%. Looking at the proportion

of women among Master graduates, the monitoring data show that the share of female Master

graduates was lower at PK (49.7%) than at national level (51.75) in 2016. By 2020, however, the

proportion of women Master graduates at PK had increased to 53.3%. In Poland, the proportion of

female master graduates at STEM universities remained stable at 51.1% in 2020.

PK – GENDER BALANCE AMONG PHD STUDENTS AND PHD GRADUATES

Overall, the proportion of women among PhD students at PK remained stable at 51.0% in 2016 and

52.5% in 2020. The faculty at PK with the highest proportion of female PhD students was the Faculty

of Chemical Engineering and Technology, with 61.3% women in 2016 and 67.3% women in 2020. A

positive development in the gender balance among PhD students at PK took also place at the Faculty

of Civil Engineering. In 2016, 40.0% of PhD students were women and by 2020, the share of female

PhD students rose to 59.3%.

The proportion of women among PhD graduates at PK overall amounted 48.1% in 2016 and rose to

53.6% by 2020. The development of the gender balance among PhD graduates at the individual

faculties is difficult to interpret, as the number of cases is very small (maximum 11 graduates per

faculty).

PK – ACADEMIC STAFF BY FORM OF EMPLOYMENT

Overall, 72.8% of academic staff at PK were employed in tenured positions and 27.2% in fixed-term

positions in 2016. By 2020, a trend toward more tenured positions (86.5%) and fewer fixed-term

positions (13.5%) could be observed. The ratio of women to men among tenured positions was

balanced in 2016 and 2020 (51.6% and 50.0% female academic staff, respectively). The monitoring

data do not indicate that men are more likely to hold a tenured position than women, but rather that

the extent of the gender (im)balance at the different career levels does not relate to the form of

employment.

To sum up, the monitoring data show no significant progress toward a more gender-equal

representation of women at different career levels at PK over the four years from 2016 to 2020. Hence,

the second possible impact described in the logic model analysis conducted within the framework of

the baseline evaluation could not be met within the GEECCO project period. To achieve this long-term

impact, further activities in this thematic area are needed and should address the barriers that women

face at PK once they decide to pursue an academic career.

4.4 PK – GENDER DIMENSION IN RESEARCH AND TEACHING

In the thematic area “gender dimension in research and teaching”, a development can observed in the

number and the extent of the implemented gender equality activities from the beginning to the end

of the project period. The main aim was to increase the gender dimension in research and teaching.



Activities in Monitoring Data I included reviewing of curricula at faculties, workshops for academic

staff, and an information campaign for researchers. According to Monitoring Data II, these activities

were expanded in 2020 by sharing teaching material on introducing gender issues with teachers at PK,

developing tutorials for all PK courses, and organizing an exhibition on how to include the gender

dimension in research. The teaching and exhibition materials were developed by GEECCO partner

institutions. However, most activities were in their initial phase at the time of collection of Monitoring

Data II. For this reason, the outcome analysis on this thematic area was limited to one quantitative

indicator in Monitoring Data I and II.

To measure the increase of the gender dimension in research at PK, the GESIS evaluation team decided

to analyze the share of publications in the PK literature database containing words from a pre-defined

list of gender-related vocabulary items. The indicator therefore measures the extent to which the

gender dimension is considered in the PK literature database and in the research of PK staff. Based on

this indicator, it is possible to measure the inclusion of the gender dimension in research, but not

whether the awareness of the importance of including the gender dimension in research increased at

PK over the two years from 2018 to 2020.

The share of titles in the PK literature database that included a gender dimension increased from 1.8%

in 2018 to 4% in 2020. The proportion of staff-authored titles in the PK literature database that

contained words from the fixed list of vocabulary items was 6.6% in 2018 and 6% in 2020.

The proportion of staff-authored publications with a gender dimension was highest at the Faculty of

Architecture. However, between 2018 and 2020, the proportion almost halved, from 21.5% to 12.9%.

The proportion of publications with a gender dimension also decreased at the other faculties over the

two years from 2018 to 2020. In 2020, the share of staff-authored titles from the various faculties in

the PK literature database that contained words from the vocabulary list ranged between 1.0% and

6.5%.

These results suggest the need for taking further actions to integrate the gender dimension in research

and teaching. The possible outcomes outlined in the logic model analysis within the framework of the

baseline evaluation, such as the inclusion of a gender perspective in research, were not met. It also

remains unclear whether the awareness on this topic has increased at PK over GEECCO project period.

Providing information on how to include the gender dimension in teaching and research is a good first

step. However, concrete next steps need to be taken to ensure the sustainable uptake of the provided

information, ultimately bringing about an increased inclusion of the gender dimension in research and

teaching beyond the GEECCO project lifetime. The planned future activities outlined in GEP 3.0 have a

high potential to address these necessary next steps to promote the integration of gender in research

and teaching at PK.



5 PK – KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 PK – DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND BODIES

It can be acknowledged that a number of important recommendations made by the GESIS evaluation

team in the Interim Evaluation Report in 2019 have been successfully followed up by PK management

and local GEP coordinators alike. For example, new institutional structures for decision-making on

gender equality issues have been established, and the PK Core GEP team has liaised with other units

at PK to join forces in working groups aimed at combatting discrimination and advancing women at

the university. A number of structures have been established on the initiative of the rector of PK. How

and to what extent the structures and collaborations support the promising changes initiated by the

GEECCO-funded GEP team, and which units at the university will be mandated to implement actual

actions that have been developed and proposed for the period between 2021 and 2024, remains

unclear and cannot be assessed at this point.

These new institutional structures and working groups would clearly not have come about without the

project initiatives implemented by the local GEECCO partners at PK and the constant invitations to

decision-makers and other staff members to become involved in strategic initiatives in the areas of

decision-making and communication activities.

However, in order to proactively manage resistance against gender equality, we recommend that the

problem of the multiple resistances to this topic specified in the Interim Evaluation Report be actively

addressed in future GEP activities.

Compared with 2016, visible and significant changes in the thematic area of decision-making took place

at PK over the course of the GEP implementation period. At faculty level, the share of women among

heads of institutes and directors increased significantly in only two years to 27.0% in 2020. In contrast,

no significant changes were observed in the representation of women in the highest central decision-

making positions at the university.

In the context of the evaluation, the collection of data on decision-making processes and on potential

gender biases in decision-making processes was not feasible.

We recommend that this work on structures and processes be continued, as it serves not least to

ensure the sustainable institutionalization of gender equality structures at PK. In the future, it will be

necessary to pay more attention to detail so that this work can contribute to bringing about effective

cultural change and advancing gender equality in decision-making.

5.2 PK – RECRUITMENT, CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF FEMALE RESEARCHERS AND FEMALE STAFF

Impacts of the set of activities in the area of the career development of female researchers can only

tentatively be established in this evaluation report on the basis of the monitoring data provided by PK.

GEP measures – for example, trainings, an information campaign, and a monitoring scheme – lacked

specific objectives and compliance with potential needs of the target groups, which severely limited

their potential to bring about intended and gender-supportive impacts.

The results of the online Evaluation Survey of PK staff and students conducted by the GESIS evaluation

team indicate significant sexist attitudes among students and employees. The results of the second

wave (ESW II) indicate increased gender awareness among male employees. This was a positive

development over the two years from 2018 to 2020. Whether and to what extent the extensive and

numerous communication measures carried out by the GEP team at PK and beyond contributed to this



development remains unclear. However, these measures are likely to have played a role. In addition,

the societal context in Poland – for example, recent protests against essentializing the role of women

and reducing it to motherhood – may also have played a role in the positive changes in gender

awareness observed in the data from the second wave of the online survey. Another positive

development relates to the results of the scale measuring attitudes toward sexual harassment that

was administered to employees who participated in ESW I and II: The data indicate a change in the

perception of sexual harassment among male employees and show that they rejected myths about

sexual harassment more strongly in 2020 than in 2018.

The survey results also point to areas that still need attention. Persisting gender stereotypes continue

to inform gender role expectations. The communication and training measures implemented at PK

over the three years from 2017 to 2020 did not show effects in the larger university community.

However, the indicator on experiences of gender bias – the differential and non-supportive behavior

that women students experience at PK – decreased slightly. Women students who participated in the

survey reported fewer negative comments about women in science in 2020 than in 2018.

All in all, the survey results show intended changes that the GEP team at PK addressed intentionally,

whereas specific trainings and career support measures seem to have had little impact.

We recommend that the work to combat the essentializing of the role of women in academic and

professional life be continued, and that efforts be made in the future to connect this work with

objectives relating to the integration of the gender dimension in research and teaching content.

5.3 PK – GENDER DIMENSION IN RESEARCH AND TEACHING

At the beginning of the project, only a few activities were implemented that were directly aimed at

achieving changes in teaching or research conduct at PK. Hence, no significant changes or

improvements in the integration of the gender dimension in research and teaching at the university

have been identified yet. The activities of the PK Core GEP team in that area – for example, the

development of training and information materials – have satisfied the requirements of the project

collaboration. However, these activities did not spur significant interest among academic staff outside

the GEECCO working group at PK.

The GESIS evaluation results show promising growth toward the objectives relating to the integration

of the gender dimension in research and teaching in GEP 3.0, which includes additional activities in this

thematic area and has come about through the GEECCO project cooperation. A fundamental

prerequisite for creating interest, activity, and impacts in this field of action is the acknowledgement

that gender differs from biological sex, for example, by taking gendered social interactions into account

when developing technology. Without further massive incentives, for example, EU project

collaborations or requirements for publishing in international journals, this is unlikely to happen at PK

in the near future. Application scenarios for gender knowledge in STEM research and teaching should

be developed, and further incentives should be created. The new institutional structures and working

groups mentioned in Section 5.1 above should assist in developing possible incentives and advise the

rector accordingly.



6 PK – REFERENCES

Besharov, D. J., & Call, D. M. (2016). Using logic models to strengthen performance measurement. University of

Maryland, School of Public Policy.

Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the

expected marginal totals are known. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11(4), 427–444.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2235722

Donaldson, S. I., Christie, C. A., & Mark, M. M. (Eds.). (2009). What counts as credible evidence in applied

research and evaluation practice? Sage.

European Commission. (2019). She figures 2018: Gender in research and innovation. Publications Office of the

European Union. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9540ffa1-4478-11e9-

a8ed-01aa75ed71a1/language-en https://doi.org/10.2777/936

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The Ambivalence toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent

beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-

6402.1999.tb00379.x

Legewie, J. (2012). Die Schätzung von kausalen Effekten: Überlegungen zu Methoden der Kausalanalyse anhand

von Kontexteffekten in der Schule. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 64(1), 123–153.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-012-0158-5

Lonsway, K. A., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Sexual harassment mythology: Definition,

conceptualization, and measurement. Sex Roles, 58(9-10), 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-

9367-1

Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2015). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social

research (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107587991

OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015. Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental

development. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/publications/frascati-manual-2015-9789264239012-

en.htm

Poister, T. H. (2010). Performance measurement: Monitoring program outcomes. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, &

K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 98–125). Jossey-Bass.

Robnett, R. D. (2016). Gender bias in STEM fields: Variation in prevalence and links to STEM self-concept.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315596162

Rollero, C., Glick, P., & Tartaglia, S. (2014). Psychometric properties of short versions of the Ambivalent Sexism

Inventory and Ambivalence toward Men Inventory. TPM, 21(2), 1–11.

Stockmann, R., & Meyer, W. (2014). Evaluation: Eine Einführung (2nd ed.). Verlag Barbara Budrich.

http://www.utb-studi-e-book.de/9783838585536

Wroblewski, A. (2016). Gender-Indikatoren in der Wissensbilanz – Grundlage für ein Gleichstellungsmonitoring

oder Datenfriedhof? In A. Wroblewski, U. Kelle, & F. Reith (Eds.), Gleichstellung messbar machen:

Grundlagen und Anwendungen von Gender- und Gleichstellungsindikatoren (pp. 171–189). Springer VS.



FINAL EVALUATION REPORT FOR

TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT WIEN

(TUW)











Document Versions







(TUW)




- Dr. Anke Lipinsky

- Claudia Schredl



8 TUW – THE AIM AND CONTEXT OF THE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT



Technische Universität Wien (TUW) by the GESIS evaluation team. The report is based on quantitative

indicators for the summative evaluation of gender equality achievements and impacts. Thus, the

present evaluation is a meaningful complement to the formative evaluation, which was based on the

analysis of qualitative data. At the same time, it concludes the evaluation process in the context of the

project “Gender Equality in Engineering through Communication and Commitment” (GEECCO).




that is informed by monitoring data collected during the evaluation tasks carried out within the

framework of GEECCO’s Work Package 10. The implementation of an online survey at the TUW at two

points in time was considered but not approved due to conflicting plans of other planned surveys at

the university. Chapter 3 presents further details on the methods and data used for the assessment.

Each of the evaluated research performing organizations (RPOs) represents an evaluation case study.

The different starting conditions on the ground, taking into account different legal frameworks and

understandings of the relevance and objectives of gender equality policies in RPOs, greatly influenced

the overall capacity building processes for institutional changes at each RPO over the four years,

including the design and development of gender equality objectives and measures. As gender and

evaluation experts, we have accompanied these processes to the best of our ability, and have made

appropriate suggestions to enable the local partners to quantitatively self-assess their

accomplishments in the future, based, for example, on comparisons of time series (pre–post

comparison) and benchmarking with national cross-sectional data. Therefore, when reading this

report, attention should be paid not only to the documented results and recommendations but also to

the indicators and methods described.













9 TUW – ABOUT THE GEECCO PROJECT

























and services.












10 TUW – METHODS AND DATA




analysis of quantitative data from the data monitoring task. Within the framework of the present

summative final evaluation, the focus is on the assessment of quantitative data.


focus areas of the data monitoring task. A detailed explanation of research ethics was presented in the

reports D10.1, D10.3, D2.3, and D1.1 & 1.2. The evaluative value of the quantitative data lies in the

comparative analysis of the monitoring data collected at the beginning and the end of the

implementation of the GEP.


place at TUW in July 2018 and July 2020.

10.1 TUW – BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT AND DATA COLLECTION – MONITORING DATA



a data monitoring template was tailor-made and co-produced by TUW and GESIS (for more details on

the data monitoring template, see Deliverable D10.2). The key objective of the data monitoring task

was to provide a consistent database containing sex-disaggregated data on the three thematic areas

of gender equality actions at TUW – namely, decision-making processes and bodies; recruitment and

career development of female researchers and female staff members; and the gender dimension in

research and teaching.




indicators from the beginning of the implementation of the GEECCO GEP at TUW and to compare them


post analysis of the outcomes and effects of TUW’s gender equality measures, counterfactuals were

formed for selected indicators on the basis of national data from relevant fields of science (following



















In addition to a consistent database containing sex-disaggregated data on the three thematic areas of




10.2 TUW – BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT AND DATA COLLECTION – LOGIC MODELS

Logic model analysis was conducted at TUW within the framework of the baseline evaluation (October


qualitative data collected within the framework of Monitoring Data I (May–July 2018) and on a

document analysis.






their impacts.












implemented activities. Therefore, for the final evaluation, the possible outcomes and impacts of

TUW’s gender equality measures outlined in the logic model analysis conducted within the framework

of the baseline evaluation are contrasted with the quantitative indicators and reported outcomes in

Monitoring Data II.



11 TUW – WHAT WORKED AND WHAT DID NOT WORK AT TECHNISCHE

UNIVERSITÄT WIEN (TUW)

The present chapter analyzes the gender equality activities implemented within the framework of the

GEECCO GEP at TUW in each thematic area and the outcomes of those activities for which indicators

were available. The aim of the analyses is to show what aspects of the implementation of the GEECCO

GEP at TUW worked and what did not.

As outlined in Chapter 10, the outcome analysis of the GEP activities is based on quantitative indicators

drawn from Monitoring Data I and II. In addition, the present Final Evaluation Report refers to the logic

model analysis conducted within the framework of the baseline evaluation. Following a brief overview

of the gender equality activities and focus areas of TUW’s GEECCO GEP, this chapter continues by

presenting the outcome analysis for each thematic area. In doing so, reference will be made to the

aforementioned quantitative indicators from the monitoring data and the logic model analysis

conducted in the course of the baseline evaluation.

11.1 TUW - PORTFOLIO OF GENDER EQUALITY ACTIVITIES

At TUW, the GEECCO GEP exists and is implemented alongside the institutional “Career Advancement

Plan for Women at TU Wien” and “Equal Opportunities Plan.” For this reason, the GEECCO GEP is not

subject to the formal requirements of institutional guidelines, and is used by the GEECCO GEP Team as

a flexible "planning document." As there are interactions between the GEECCO GEP measures and

those of the “Career Advancement Plan for Women at TU Wien” and the “Equal Opportunities Plan,”

the effectiveness of the GEECCO GEP measures in all three thematic areas cannot be considered in

isolation.

In terms of content, the strong focus of the GEECCO GEP measures on the thematic area “gender

dimension in research and teaching” differentiates it from the two aforementioned institutional plans,

which have been in operation since 2017. The Career Advancement Plan for Women at TU Wien

focuses on women's and gender issues, whereas the focus of the Equal Opportunities Plan is on the

recognition of intersectionality, multiple discrimination, and non-discrimination.

Figure 4 shows the development in the number of planned gender equality activities across all thematic

areas at TUW from 2018 to 2020. An increase can be observed in the number of gender equality

activities in the two thematic areas “decision-making processes and bodies” and “recruitment and

career development of female researchers and female staff members.” By contrast, there was a minor

decrease in activities fostering the integration of the gender dimension in research and teaching in

2020, as one of the planned activities could not be implemented due to the COVID-19 crisis. In addition

to the three aforementioned thematic areas, a cross-cutting thematic area was introduced from

GEECCO GEP 2.0 onward that included several awareness-raising activities targeting all members of

TUW.

As outlined in GEECCO GEP 3.0, TUW has seen the GEECCO project as an opportunity to implement

gender equality activities in thematic areas that have received less attention to date in the two

aforementioned institutional plans. As only a few of the activities outlined in GEECCO GEP 3.0 extend

beyond the project period, it remains unclear at the time of the present final summative evaluation

whether more gender equality activities in the thematic area of the gender dimension in research and



teaching will be incorporated into future versions of the Career Advancement Plan for Women at TU

Wien and/or the Equal Opportunities Plan.

According to Monitoring Data II, only a few gender equality activities were ongoing at the end of the

GEECCO project. By July 2020, only five of a total of 30 activities had a degree of completion of less

than 90%. This raises the question of whether the GEECCO project will continue to have a lasting impact

on the existing institutional gender equality structures at TUW. In this regard, it will be essential that

TUW utilize the knowledge gained and the materials produced within the framework of the GEECCO

project. This requires further activities focusing on the exploitation of the results of the completed

GEECCO GEP activities.

Although the Interim Evaluation Report recommended capacity-building and decentralized knowledge

transfer of the existing gender competence at the university’s Gender Competence Service

Department, the implemented activities continue to have a strong focus on awareness-raising,

providing information, and conducting research on prevailing barriers to gender equality at TUW.

However, the GESIS evaluation team sees a promising development in this regard in GEECCO GEP 3.0,

which outlines knowledge building on gender and the services of the Gender Competence Service

Department throughout the university as one of the future goals in the thematic area of decision-

making processes and bodies.

Figure 4. Portfolio of Planned Gender Equality Activities, TUW, 2018 and 2020


(July 2020), Technische Universität Wien (TUW).

0

5

10

15

20


Recruitment and CareerDevelopment of FemaleResearchers and Female

Staff Members

Gender Dimension inResearch and Teaching

Cross-Cutting Issues




11.2 TUW – DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND BODIES

Regarding the thematic area “decision-making processes and bodies,” the TUW GEP team aimed to

enhance knowledge and raise awareness of gender equality on the part of all members of decision-

making bodies. It further aimed to obtain insights into the challenges that women face at TUW, in

particular the overburdening of women professors with committee work because the statutory

women’s quota requires that at least 50% of members of collegial bodies be women (2015 Amendment

to the Austrian Universities Act). The planned activities (Monitoring Data II, 2020) for achieving these

goals included inter alia (a) conducting qualitative research on the women’s quota and disseminating

the research results; (b) developing and disseminating training materials for decision-making bodies;

and (c) providing trainings for appointment committees.

Taking a closer look at the available quantitative indicators in Monitoring Data I and II (see Figure 5),

one sees that the gender balance in decision-making bodies at the central level at TUW changed hardly

or not at all between 2016 and 2020. The proportion of female members in the Senate, was 42.3%

both in 2016 and 2020. The proportion of women on the habilitation (authorization to teach)

committees increased from 22.4% in 2016 to 23.5% in 2020. The proportion of women on the

appointment committees also remained almost unchanged (31.1% in 2016 and 30.1% in 2020). Only

in the University Council did the proportion of women increase significantly – from 42.9% in 2016 to

57.1% in 2020.

At TUW, women are underrepresented in decision-making positions at rectorate and faculty level. This

underrepresentation remained constant between 2016 and 2020 – except for one significant change.

At the beginning of 2020, a woman was appointed to a position as dean, which suggests a positive

trend toward more gender-equal representation of women in decision-making positions at TUW.

Before that, all dean positions had been filled by men. Due to the cut-off date for Monitoring Data II,

this change is not included in Figure 5. There were no other significant changes in the gender balance

in decision-making positions at rectorate and faculty level at TUW over the four years from 2016 to

2020. TUW has had a female rector and one female vice-rector since 2014. The proportion of women

on the curriculum committees at TUW decreased from 31% in 2016 to 26.9% in 2020, whereas the

proportion of women on the faculty councils increased slightly from 33.3% to 34% during this period.

The proportion of women in decision-making positions at institute level at TUW was already very low

in 2016 (5.8%), and by 2020 it had decreased even further, to 3.7%. Only two of the 54 institute heads

are women. Hence, at TUW the underrepresentation of women is particularly pronounced at

rectorate, institute, and faculty level.



Note. Members of decision-making bodies in total, 2016: N = 806 (221 women, 585 men); 2020: N = 1,034 (274 women, 760

men). A significant change in the proportion of women in decision-making positions, which is not included in this figure due

to the cut-off dates of the monitoring data, is that there has been one female dean since the beginning of 2020. Source:

Monitoring Data I (July 2018, cut-off date December 31, 2017) and Monitoring Data II (July 2020, cut-off date December 31,

2019), Technische Universität Wien (TUW).

42,9%

57,1%

42,3%

42,3%

22,4%

23,5%

31,1%

30,1%

100,0%

100,0%

25,0%

25,0%

7,1%

6,7%

31,0%

26,9%

33,3%

34,0%

5,8%

3,7%

57,1%

42,9%

57,7%

57,7%

77,6%

76,5%

68,9%

69,9%

75,0%

75,0%

100,0%

100,0%

92,9%

93,3%

69,0%

73,1%

66,7%

66,0%

94,2%

96,3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

Un

iver

sity

Co

un

cil

Sen

ate

Hab

ilita

tio

nC

om

mit

tee

sA

pp

oin

tme

nt

Co

mm

itte

es

Rec

tor

Vic

e-R

ect

ors

Dea

ns

Dea

ns

of

Stu

die

sC

urr

icu

lum

Co

mm

itte

es

Facu

lty

Co

un

cils

Hea

ds

of

Inst

itu

tes

Cen

tral

Lev

elR

ecto

rate

Le

vel

Facu

lty

Leve

lIn

stit

ute

Leve

l

f %

m %

Figure 5. Proportion of Women and Men in Decision-Making Bodies and Positions Over Time, TUW, 2016 and 2020



No quantitative indicators were available to evaluate whether there had been progress toward the

two objectives in the thematic area “decision-making processes and bodies” – namely, to raise gender

awareness among members of decision-making bodies and to obtain increased insights into the

challenges that women face at TUW. In the context of the evaluation, it was not feasible to collect data

on the increase in gender awareness on the part of members of decision-making bodies. However,

reported outcomes of the qualitative study – outlined in Monitoring Data II – include scientific

dissemination of the research results, discussion of the results with the university’s Equal

Opportunities Committee (EOC), and a better understanding of the dynamics that lead to the

overburdening of women with committee work. Women continue to be underrepresented in

leadership positions at TUW (only 14% of full professors are women). According to the qualitative study

conducted by TUW’s GEECCO GEP team, the existing statutory women’s quota, which aims to increase

the proportion of women in decision-making bodies to at least 50%, has led to a situation where the

few female professors at TUW are overburdened with committee work as they have to sit on many

committees. As a result, compared with their male colleagues, they have less time to devote to

research work.

These empirical findings support what has also been pointed out in the logic model analysis conducted

within the framework of the baseline evaluation: A higher level of gender equality in decision-making

processes and bodies will not be reached in the long term by focusing only on the proportion of women

in decision-making bodies. It is of utmost importance that more members of decision-making bodies

acquire gender competence, for example, by participating in gender awareness trainings. As the

existing women’s quota has not yet led to the desired changes, TUW needs to more strongly promote

an institutional culture that takes the issue of gender bias in decision-making processes and bodies

seriously. The findings of the qualitative study should be used to develop further measures – in

addition to the existing reduction of teaching load – to relieve the burden of additional committee

work shouldered by women.

The GESIS evaluation team considers the planned gender bias and social competence trainings for

members of appointment committees to be a promising step toward increased gender awareness and

eliminating gender bias in decision-making processes. Outlined in GEP 3.0, these trainings will be

coordinated by the Human Resources Department and the Gender Competence Service Department

and are scheduled to start in 2021.

11.3 TUW – RECRUITMENT, CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF FEMALE RESEARCHERS AND FEMALE STAFF

The main objectives relating to the thematic area “recruitment, career development of female

researchers and female staff members” were to increase the percentage of women professors, to

increase female visibility, and to improve gender equality in recruitment. The measures implemented

to achieve these objectives included (a) the documentation of a recruitment tool that leads to a high

proportion of female doctoral students without the introduction of a gender quota; (b) the revision of

the monitoring report on careers of female scientists and enrollment figures of female students for

study programs at TUW; (c) awareness-raising activities, such as the event "100 Years of Women at TU

Vienna"; (d) and the creation of two training concepts, one aimed at persons involved in recruitment

processes and the other aimed at junior female scientists. In addition, (e), an online mentoring

program for female first-year students was established, and (f) the content of an existing TUW web

page aimed at making successful female scientists at TUW visible was updated.

The GESIS evaluation team drew on the results of GEECCO Monitoring Data I and II to evaluate whether

there has been progress toward more gender-equal representation of women in different career



grades at TUW over the four years from 2016 to 2020. After a comprehensive overview of the gender

representation along the academic career path at TUW, the present section takes a closer look at the

gender balance among staff members and Bachelor, Master, and PhD graduates. Finally, the gender

representation in different forms of employment will be analyzed.


denoted, in descending order, by the grades A, B, C, and D. In Austria, the highest seniority level, grade

A, comprises full professors; grade B comprises associate professors; grade C comprises assistant

professors and senior scientists (post-doc); and grade D comprises other teaching staff (PhD students

or research staff without a PhD) (European Commission, 2019, p.190).

As shown in Figure 6, women made up only 30.3% of Bachelor graduates, 32.6% of Master graduates,

and 24.2% of PhD graduates of TUW in 2020, and these numbers had not changed significantly since

2016. The gap between women and men widened even further in higher career grades, with 14% of

grade A academic staff (i.e., full professors) being women. Although this severe gender gap at the

highest academic seniority level persisted at TUW, the proportion of female full professors increased

by three percentage points over the four years from 2016 to 2020, which suggests a positive trend

toward more gender-equal representation.

Figure 6. Proportion of Women and Men at Different Undergraduate, Graduate, and Career Levels, TUW, 2016 and 2020

11.3.1 TUW – GENDER BALANCE AMONG STAFF MEMBERS

The share of women among total (i.e., academic and non-academic) staff at TUW remained virtually

unchanged between 2016 (30.2%) and 2020 (31%). At faculty level, the ratio of women to men was

most balanced at the Faculty of Architecture and Planning, where the proportion of female employees

increased from 42.5% in 2016 to 44.7% in 2020. At all other TUW faculties, women were in the minority

30,3%32,6%

24,2% 20,2%

13,3% 14,2%28,6%

29,8%

21,3% 20,6%

11,8% 11,2%

69,7% 69,3%

75,8%79,8%

86,7% 85,8%71,4% 70,2%

78,7% 79,4%

88,2% 88,8%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

BachelorGraduates

MasterGraduates

PhD Graduates Grade C Grade B Grade A


Note. Bachelor graduates, 2016: N = 1,502 (430 women, 1,072 men); 2020: N = 1,484 (449 women, 1,035 men). Master graduates, 2016:

N = 1,097 (327 women, 770 men); 2020: N = 1,158 (355 women, 803 men).PhD graduates, 2016: N = 314 (67 women, 247 men); 2020: N =

281 (68 women, 213 men). Grade C, 2016: N = 622 (128 women, 494 men); 2020: N = 605 (122 women, 483 men). Grade B, 2016: N = 255

(30 women, 225 men); 2020: N = 248 (33 women, 215 men). Grade A, 2016: N = 152 (17 women, 135 men), 2020: N = 169 (24 women, 145

men). Source: Monitoring Data I (July 2018) and Monitoring Data II (July 2020), Technische Universität Wien (TUW).



among the academic and non-academic staff. Between 2016 and 2020, there were no major changes

in the ratio of women to men at any of the faculties. The largest increase in the proportion of women

was at the Faculty of Mathematics and Geoinformation, where the share of female employees

increased from 28.4% in 2016 to 30.7% in 2020. The Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information

Technology performed particularly poorly regarding the gender balance among academic and non-

academic staff, with only 17.9% (2016) and 17.4% (2020) of employees being female. Despite the

variance among the faculties, this indicator shows that, overall, the ratio of women to men among

academic and non-academic staff is very imbalanced at TUW. When only academic staff are

considered, the underrepresentation is even more pronounced.

TUW – ACADEMIC STAFF BY SENIORITY LEVEL – INSTITUTIONAL AND NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The TUW faculty with the most balanced ratio of women to men among academic staff is the Faculty

of Architecture and Planning, with a total female share of 40.2% in 2016 and 40.6% in 2020. What is

striking when looking at the gender balance in the different seniority grades at this faculty in 2020 is

that the ratio of women to men in grade D positions is perfectly balanced, with a female share of 50%,

but that the female share decreases steadily the higher the seniority level is (37.7% women in grade C,

30.4% women in grade B, and 21.4% women in grade A). Thus, women are strongly underrepresented

at the highest seniority level, grade A, indicating strong vertical segregation even in the faculty with

the most gender-equal representation of women among academic staff.

The proportion of women among the academic staff was particularly low at the Faculty of Electrical

Engineering and Information Technology and the Faculty of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering

(11.4% and 11.1%, respectively, in 2020). The proportion of women fell slightly at both faculties

between 2016 and 2020. The female share at the highest seniority level, grade A, was particularly low

at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology (4.8%) and the Faculty of

Mechanical and Industrial Engineering (8.7%).

At the Faculty of Informatics, the total female share was 19.4% both in 2016 and 2020. However, the

share of women in different career grades was significantly more balanced than at most of the other

faculties. The proportion of women in grade A positions at this faculty was 30.0% in 2016 and 27.3% in

2020.

Another positive development was observed at the Faculty of Civil Engineering, which had a total

female share of 25.7% and no women in grade A positions in 2016. By 2020, the total share of women

had risen to 28.2%, and the proportion of women in grade A positions had increased substantially to

15.8%. At the faculty of Mathematics and Geoinformation, the total share of women also increased –

from 19.6% in 2016 to 21.4% in 2020 – and the female share of grade A positions rose from 9.5% to

13%.

This positive trend also becomes apparent in the comparison of the rates of growth in the proportion

of women in grade A positions at TUW before the start of the GEECCO project (2014–2016) and during

the GEECCO project (2018–2020). Whereas the overall proportion of women in grade A positions at

TUW rose by 6.5% between 2014 and 2016, it increased by 12.4% between 2018 and 2020. However,

because the increase in the share of women in grade A positions had already taken place at some of

the faculties in the two years before the start of the GEECCO project (2014–2016), it remains unclear

whether this development toward a more gender-equal representation of women in the highest career

grades was triggered by the GEECCO GEP or by other institutional factors. At the Faculty of Informatics,

for example, the proportion of women in grade A positions grew by 41.4% between 2014 and 2016, so



that by 2016, six of the 20 full professors at the faculty were women. The number of women in grade

A positions at the faculty then remained constant between 2018 and 2020. In contrast, a similarly

substantial increase in the proportion of female staff in grade A positions took place at the Faculty of

Civil Engineering, where the number of women in grade A positions rose from zero to three during the

project period (2018–2020).

The indicator on the ratio of women to men by seniority level and faculty offers an opportunity to look

at the gender structures within the individual faculties in more detail. Thus, it can serve as a starting

point for investigating to what extent structural barriers to the career development of female

researchers lead to the imbalanced ratios of women to men in the different seniority grades. In the

case of TUW, this indicator shows severe gender imbalances in higher seniority grades at most

faculties, which suggests the existence of structural discrimination in female researchers’ career

development. However, the data also show that some faculties were able to significantly improve the

gender balance between 2016 and 2020.

TUW – GLASS CEILING INDEX, INSTITUTIONAL AND NATIONAL LEVEL

The Glass Ceiling Index (GCI) compares the proportion of women in all academic positions (grades A,

B, and C) with the proportion of women in the highest academic positions (grade A). The GCI can range


and women in academia. If the value is greater than 1, a glass ceiling effect exists. This means that

women are less represented at the highest seniority level (grade A) than in academia generally (grades

A, B, and C). In other words, the higher the value of the GCI, the stronger the glass ceiling effect and

the more difficult it is for women to move into a higher position (European Commission, 2019, p.125).

Between 2016 and 2020, the GCI at TUW decreased from 1.52 to 1.23. By comparison, the national

GCI of all Austrian STEM universities decreased from 2.52 to 2.16 over the same period. These numbers

indicate a positive trend toward a more gender-equal representation of women in the highest

academic positions at STEM universities in Austria over the four years from 2016 to 2020, and a

significantly lower glass ceiling effect at TUW compared with STEM universities in Austria generally.

The GCI illustrates in a single numerical value the existence of invisible barriers to women reaching the

highest seniority level (grade A). What specific processes and mechanisms underlie the restriction of

access to the highest scientific career positions for women remains an open question.



11.3.2 TUW – GENDER BALANCE AMONG BACHELOR AND MASTER GRADUATES

Overall, the proportion of women among TUW Bachelor and Master graduates increased slightly

between 2016 and 2020. However, with a female share of 30.3% among Bachelor graduates and 30.7%

among Master graduates, the ratio of women to men remained imbalanced in 2020. That said, TUW

performed slightly better compared with STEM universities in Austria overall, where the female share

among Bachelor and Master graduates in 2020 was 27.3% and 27.9%, respectively.

Taking a closer look at the faculty level at TUW, the ratio of women to men among Bachelor graduates

was most balanced at the Faculty of Civil Engineering, with a female share of 47.2% in 2016 and 52.0%

in 2020. The ratio of women to men among Master graduates of the Faculty of Civil Engineering was

also very balanced, with a share of female graduates of 48.5% in 2016 and 51.4% in 2020. The Faculty

of Technical Chemistry also performed well with regard to the gender balance among Bachelor and

Master graduates: The female share among Bachelor graduates increased from 38.5% in 2016 to 47.6%

in 2020; among Master graduates, it increased from 42.3% in 2016 to 43.6% in 2020.

Compared with TUW, the share of women among Bachelor graduates in the fields of civil engineering

(44.1%) and chemical science (40.9%) at national level in 2020 was slightly lower.

The ratio of women to men among Bachelor graduates at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and

Information Technology, and the Faculty Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at TUW was less

balanced: In 2016, these were the TUW faculties with the lowest share of women among Bachelor

graduates (9.3% and 11.9%, respectively). While the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information

Technology was able to increase the proportion of female Bachelor graduates from 9.3% in 2016 to

12.7% by 2020, the proportion of women among Bachelor graduates at the Faculty of Mechanical and

Industrial Engineering decreased to 10.2% in 2020. The ratio of women to men among Master

graduates of the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, and the Faculty of

Mechanical and Industrial Engineering in 2020 was similar to that among Bachelor graduates (9.2%

and 14.2%, respectively). As at TUW, the STEM fields with the lowest female share among Bachelor

graduates in Austria overall were also electrical engineering (4.8% in 2016 and 13.4% in 2020) and

mechanical engineering (7.3% in 2016 and 6.5% in 2020).

Overall, therefore, in terms of the gender balance among Bachelor and Master graduates, TUW

performed very similarly to the STEM universities in Austria generally.

11.3.3 TUW – GENDER BALANCE AMONG PHD STUDENTS AND PHD GRADUATES

Overall, the share of women among PhD students at TUW increased from 24.8% in 2016 to 27.6% in

2020. Among PhD graduates, the proportion of women increased from 21.3% in 2016 to 24.2% in 2020.

Despite these slight increases, women continued to be underrepresented among PhD students and

graduates of TUW in 2020.

A closer look at the individual faculties reveals that the ratio of women to men among PhD students

was most balanced at the Faculty of Architecture and Planning, with a female share of 53.5% in 2016,

rising to 58.0% by 2020. The monitoring data show that the share of female PhD students was lowest

at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology (13.9% in 2016 and 13.6% in 2020)

and the Faculty of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering (13.0% in 2016 and 14.9% in 2020).

While the gender balance among PhD students and PhD graduates remained constant at most of the

faculties over the four years from 2016 to 2020, a very positive development was observed at the



Faculty of Civil Engineering, where the share of female PhD students increased from 24.4% in 2016 to

34.7% in 2020, and the share of female PhD graduates grew from 36.7% in 2016 to 45.5% in 2020.

At national level, the female share of PhD students at STEM universities in Austria overall increased

from 23.4% in 2016 to 24.8% in 2020. Thus, the share of female PhD students at national level was

slightly lower than that at TUW (24.8% vs. 27.6% in 2020). In 2016, the share of female PhD graduates

of STEM universities in Austria overall (22.4%) was slightly larger than the share of female PhD

graduates of TUW (21.3%). By 2020, the situation had reversed, with the share of female PhD graduates

of STEM universities in Austria overall increasing to 23.4%, in contrast to 24.2% female PhD graduates

of TUW. However, the proportions of female PhD students and PhD graduates of TUW and of STEM

universities in Austria overall are very similar.

11.3.4 TUW – ACADEMIC STAFF BY FORM OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKING TIME

Overall, 25.1% of academic staff at TUW were employed in tenured positions, 23.2% in budget-funded

fixed-term positions, and 51.7% in third-party-funded fixed-term positions in 2016. By 2020, no

significant trend toward more tenured or fixed-term positions could be observed, with 24.8% of

academic staff TUW being employed in a tenured position.

Women were in the minority in both tenured and fixed-term academic positions at TUW in 2016 and

2020. Overall, the share of female academic staff at TUW was 20.6% in 2016. It is striking that the

female share was higher for budget-funded fixed-term academic positions (28.7%) and significantly

lower for tenured academic positions (12.8%). By 2020, the female share of budget-funded fixed-term

academic positions had decreased slightly, to 26.3%, and the female share of tenured academic

positions had increased to 15.4%, while the female share of third-party-funded fixed-term academic

positions remained constant at 20.8%.

In 2020, the academic staff at TUW comprised 1,331 full-time and 947 part-time employees.

Accordingly, there were slightly more full-time employees, but also a very high proportion of part-time

employees. As this ratio remained stable in both 2016 and 2020, there was no clear trend toward more

part-time or more full-time contracts at TUW. The share of women among academic staff overall was

20.6% in 2016. There were more male than female employees in both forms of employment in 2016:

28.2% of part-time academic positions and 15% of full-time academic positions were held by women.

The ratio of women to men in the two forms of employment at TUW did not change between 2016

and 2020.

Looking at the ratio of part-time and full-time employment for women and men separately, one can

see that 58.0% of female academic staff worked part-time in 2016, compared with 38.1% of male

academic staff. In 2020, the situation was similar, with 55.8% of female academic staff and 37.8% of

male academic staff working part-time. Thus, in contrast to their male colleagues, women were more

likely to have part-time contracts than full-time contracts.

To sum up, gender imbalances at the different career levels continue to be an issue at TUW. The

representation of women in the various academic career grades is very uneven across all faculties, and

the barriers that women encounter before reaching a grade A position seem to be particularly high.

However, with regard to the objective to raise the percentage of female professors, the monitoring

data show clear progress toward a more gender-equal representation of women in grade A positions

at TUW over the four years from 2016 to 2020.



No quantitative indicators were available for the other two objectives in this thematic area – that is,

to increase female visibility and to improve gender equality in recruitment. Outcomes of awareness-

raising and networking activities reported in Monitoring Data II included (a) a high level of satisfaction

on the part of mentors and mentees who participated in the mentoring program offered for female

first-year students, (b) increased visibility of female talents, and (c) a more positive image of women

in STEM. Thus, they indicate that the implemented activities led to the intended outcomes.

Nonetheless, awareness-raising and networking activities will not be sufficient to build on these

outcomes and to achieve potential long-term impacts (e.g., reduced gender bias in recruitment and

more awareness of gender stereotypes) in this thematic area beyond the GEECCO project period. To

achieve these long-term impacts, further activities in this thematic area are needed and should address

the barriers that women face at TUW – despite the existing gender quota. The chronic

underrepresentation of women in the higher academic career grades demonstrates that structural

discrimination against women in STEM persists. For this reason, TUW needs to embark on a consistent

strategy for cultural change and to implement further activities focusing on gender culture and the

transfer of gender competence at faculty level. As pointed out in the logic model analysis conducted

within the framework of the baseline evaluation, women’s work environment at TUW will improve if,

in addition to supporting activities that foster women’s career development, measures are taken to

increase participation in gender awareness trainings.

Finally, the GESIS evaluation team welcomes the initiative to include a sexual harassment prevention

activity in GEP 3.0. In this regard, the focus should be on implementing concrete measures to improve

the sexual harassment prevention and intervention mechanisms. One source for possible tools and

resources for prevention and intervention is the CEWS thematic page on gender-based and sexualized

violence.

11.4 TUW – GENDER DIMENSION IN RESEARCH AND TEACHING

The main focus of TUW's GEECCO GEP was to address the gender dimension in research and teaching.

Specifically, the aims were to include gender issues in all Bachelor's degree programs, to provide

information materials on gender in research, and to expand TUW’s knowledge base on gender in four

specific, innovative STEM fields. The gender equality activities to achieve these objectives included (a)

researching and developing resources for incorporating gender issues in STEM into teaching and

making them available to lecturers at TUW; (b) updating an existing TUW web page featuring

information on gender in research; (c) producing and disseminating four literature reviews and four

explainer videos on gender knowledge in various STEM fields; and (d) organizing various events in this

thematic area, for example, an exhibition on "Gender in Research," a symposium on human–machine

interaction from a feminist perspective, and a lecture series on "Technology for People."

One quantitative indicator was available in Monitoring Data I and II to evaluate the outcomes in terms

of the progress on including the gender dimension in teaching. The indicator counts the courses in

Bachelor and Master programs at TUW that include gender in their content and compares them with

those that do not. All courses that referred to gender in their title or description, or in the syllabus

were classified as study courses with a gender dimension.

Overall, 0.3% (4 out of 1,489) of the courses in Bachelor programs and 0.1% (5 out of 3,523) of the

courses in Master programs at TUW included a gender dimension in 2016. By 2020, the percentage of

courses with a gender dimension had increased to 1.2% in Bachelor programs and to 0.5% in Master

programs. Despite this increase, only a few Bachelor and Master programs at TUW had integrated the

gender dimension in their content by 2020.

https://www.gesis.org/en/cews/topics/gender-based-and-sexualized-violence-in-higher-education/tools-and-resources



A positive development in the proportion of courses in Bachelor programs with a gender dimension

could be identified at the Faculty of Physics, where none of the courses in the Bachelor programs had

taken gender into account in 2016. By 2020, the proportion of courses in Bachelor programs with a

gender dimension had increased to 4.8%. The Faculty of Physics thus became the TUW faculty with the

highest proportion of Bachelor courses with a gender dimension in 2020. However, none of the Master

courses at the Faculty of Physics had a gender dimension in 2016 or 2020. At the Faculty of Architecture

and Planning, the percentage of Bachelor courses considering gender in their content increased from

1.5% to 3% between 2016 and 2020, and the percentage of Master courses with a gender dimension

increased from 0.7% to 1.3% over this period. There was also a minimal increase in the proportion of

courses with a gender dimension at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology

(Bachelor programs), the Faculty of Informatics (Bachelor and Master programs), the Faculty of

Mathematics and Geoinformation (Bachelor programs), and the Faculty of Technical Chemistry

(Bachelor programs). However, with a maximum of 1.3%, the proportion of courses considering gender

in their content was still very low at all these faculties in 2020.

Overall, this indicator shows a positive trend toward the integration of the gender dimension in the

content of TUW’s Bachelor and Master programs. However, the indicator shows only the number of

courses that include a gender dimension in teaching content. It does not demonstrate the extent of

this inclusion or give an indication of its quality. Further mechanisms to monitor the process of

implementation and the quality of the integration of the gender dimension in the content of study

programs are recommended.

In Monitoring Data II (2020), TUW reported the successful implementation of all planned activities on

the integration of the gender dimension in research and teaching, as well as positive feedback on the

quality of the exhibition organized and the literature reviews and explainer videos produced. However,

based on the available quantitative indicator, it is not possible to assess the cause–effect relationship

– outlined in the logic model analysis conducted within the framework of the baseline evaluation –

between the implemented gender equality activities in this thematic area and their impact on the

increased number of courses that integrated the gender dimension in their content. Finally, the

indicator cannot be used to reliably evaluate how the information and teaching materials produced

will be exploited to foster the integration of the gender dimension in teaching and research at TUW.

The exploitation of the material will be the decisive step to ensure the uptake of the gender knowledge

across all TUW faculties in the long term.



12 TUW – KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1 TUW – DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND BODIES

TUW has a female rector. However, at rectorate and faculty level women are underrepresented in

decision-making positions, and this underrepresentation remained constant between 2016 and 2020.

In the period 2016–2020, only one of the four vice-rectors and one of the eight deans were female. In

the University Council, the proportion of women increased significantly from 42.9% in 2016 to 57.1%

in 2020. In other decision-making bodies and positions at central and faculty level, no indications of

significant change in the direction of greater gender balance over the four years from 2016 to 2020

can be reported.

Women are strongly underrepresented in professorships in the STEM fields at universities in Austria.

Although the share of women professors at TUW is well above the national average, it is still very low.

Because the statutory women’s quota requires that at least 50% of members of collegial bodies should

be women, the few women professors at TUW are overburdened with committee work. The situation

of women in leadership positions and on committees was the subject of a study conducted by TUW’s

GEECCO GEP team (2018-2019). After the findings of the study were presented to the TUW Equal

Opportunities Committee, supportive measures to relieve the burden on women professors were put

in place, including an extra allowance of dedicated time for research. The insights gained through the

study were used to push for changes that add value to the research output of women and of TUW. To

advance gender equality in decision-making, further action- and impact-oriented activities, including

activities to increase gender competencies among leadership staff in decision-making positions and

among members of committees, are recommended. It is a leadership task to ensure that gender

competence is increased among management staff, and that sanctions should follow, if necessary.

We strongly recommend that TUW adapt its recruitment mechanisms to significantly increase the

number of women in full professorships in the medium term. More resources should be invested in

the training of staff at all levels to increase gender competence and eliminate gender bias in

recruitment processes.

12.2 TUW – RECRUITMENT, CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF FEMALE RESEARCHERS AND FEMALE STAFF

Our analysis of gender imbalances by seniority grades sheds light not only on the horizontal but also

on the vertical segregation of women and men. The representation of women in the various academic

career grades is very uneven across faculties at TUW. The overall good representation of women in the

lower ranks of the academic hierarchy diminishes successively in the higher ranks. One promising sign

is that the overall Glass Ceiling Index (GCI) for women at TUW decreased significantly from 1.52 to 1.23

over the four years from 2016 to 2020.

However, only a few faculties have initiated this progress toward a more gender-equal representation

at the highest career grade. They include, for example, the Faculty of Civil Engineering, where the

proportion of women in grade A positions rose from 0% in 2016 to 15.8% in 2020. In contrast, at the

Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, the monitoring data even show a drop

in the proportion of women in full professorships between 2016 and 2020, which the faculty is not

counteracting: Whereas the gender imbalance in the lower career grades in 2020 (21.9% women

among PhD graduates and 13.6% women in grade C positions) was similar to that at most faculties, it

was much more pronounced at the highest grade, with a female share of 4.8% in grade A positions .

This is a substantial decline, and it suggests the existence of severe structural barriers to the career

progression of female researchers at that faculty. As the ratio of women to men in grade A positions



at the faculty has remained unchanged over the past four years, the situation can only be characterized

as displaying a distinct lack of awareness of the problem of inequality.

TUW structurally disadvantages women persistently. These inequalities are endemic in the processes

of promotion, including formal and informal support mechanisms. To change the masculinist culture,

which might be perceived as toxic by female staff and students, TUW needs to embark on a consistent

strategy for cultural change and to address the issues at hand. Outreach programs and active

recruitment or networking events at the level of PhD students and research assistants alone will not

remedy the situation.

In the most recent gender equality plan, which was developed at TUW within the framework of the

GEECCO project, further measures against sexual harassment were added to the field of action on

career and development. Although this topic area could not be systematically evaluated, because the

need for action was recognized only very recently, the GESIS evaluation team welcomes this expansion.

12.3 TUW – GENDER DIMENSION IN RESEARCH AND TEACHING

The field of activity comprising actions to push for the inclusion of sex and gender analysis in teaching

and research at TUW has been a top priority in all GEECCO-related activities at TUW. The literature

reviews and videos produced are highlights of good practices and have been well received among

gender equality practitioners and the international research community alike. The exhibition on

“Gender in Research” also effectively served the purpose of raising awareness. The focus must now

shift to the exploitation of the intermediate results.

Despite these notable achievements, a coordinated process of knowledge transfer to the TUW’s

departments is lacking. Above all, there is a lack of commitment when it comes to the uptake of gender

knowledge. The best-performing TUW faculty with regard to the integration of the gender dimension

in teaching content was the Faculty of Architecture and Planning, where the percentage of Bachelor

courses that included the gender dimension in their content increased from 1.5% to 3% between 2016

and 2020, and the percentage of Master courses with a gender dimension increased from 0.7% to

1.3%. At this faculty, and at all other TUW faculties, the uptake of sex and gender analysis should be

expanded.

The transfer of knowledge – especially gender knowledge – and expertise to relevant committees and

to the faculties has lacked a structured approach so far, and has thus proved to be less effective and

less sustainable. As a next step, further exploitation of the results of the completed GEECCO GEP

activities is needed. To create lasting impacts on the institution, the results and materials developed

in individual GEP measures need to be taken up by important interfaces and supported by quality

assurance monitoring and steering mechanisms.

To close the knowledge gaps, knowledge transfer needs to be steered and supported by additional

measures as well as by the clear assignment of the roles of central units and units within the

departments. The uptake of gender knowledge or action-related gender competence outside the

Gender Competence Service Department is one of the key challenges for the TUW that should be

addressed in the post-GEECCO period in order to be able to benefit actively and in the long term from

the knowledge and results acquired in the context of the project.

The mechanisms for knowledge transfer and quality management need more structuring and

commitment, so that the relevant target groups can be reached by the Gender Competence Service

Department to the necessary extent and in a structured manner.



13 TUW – REFERENCES

Besharov, D. J., & Call, D. M. (2016). Using logic models to strengthen performance measurement. University of Maryland, School of Public Policy.

Donaldson, S. I., Christie, C. A., & Mark, M. M. (Eds.). (2009). What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? Sage.

European Commission. (2019). She figures 2018: Gender in research and innovation. Publications Office of the European Union. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9540ffa1-4478-11e9-a8ed-01aa75ed71a1/language-en https://doi.org/10.2777/936

Legewie, J. (2012). Die Schätzung von kausalen Effekten: Überlegungen zu Methoden der Kausalanalyse anhand von Kontexteffekten in der Schule. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 64(1), 123–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-012-0158-5

Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2015). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107587991



en.htm

Poister, T. H. (2010). Performance measurement: Monitoring program outcomes. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 98–125). Jossey-Bass.

Stockmann, R., & Meyer, W. (2014). Evaluation: Eine Einführung (2nd ed.). Verlag Barbara Budrich. http://www.utb-studi-e-book.de/9783838585536

Wroblewski, A. (2016). Gender-Indikatoren in der Wissensbilanz – Grundlage für ein Gleichstellungsmonitoring oder Datenfriedhof? In A. Wroblewski, U. Kelle, & F. Reith (Eds.), Gleichstellung messbar machen: Grundlagen und Anwendungen von Gender- und Gleichstellungsindikatoren (pp. 171–189). Springer VS.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107587991




UNIVERSITY MEDITERRANEA OF

REGGIO CALABRIA (UNIRC)











Document Versions







(TUW)




- Dr. Anke Lipinsky

- Claudia Schredl



14 UNIRC – The Aim and Context of the Final Evaluation Report



University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria (UNIRC) by the GESIS evaluation team. The report is based

on quantitative indicators for the summative evaluation of gender equality achievements and impacts.

Thus, the present evaluation is a meaningful complement to the formative evaluation, which was

based on the analysis of qualitative data. At the same time, it concludes the evaluation process in the

context of the project “Gender Equality in Engineering through Communication and Commitment”

(GEECCO).

















described.













15 UNIRC – ABOUT THE GEECCO PROJECT

























and services.












16 UNIRC – METHODS AND DATA













place in July 2018 and July 2020 and from two online surveys implemented at UNIRC in November

2018 and October 2020.

16.1 UNIRC – BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT AND DATA COLLECTION – MONITORING DATA



a data monitoring template was tailor-made and co-produced by UNIRC and GESIS (for more details

on the data monitoring template, see Deliverable D10.2). The key objective of the data monitoring task

was to provide a consistent database containing sex-disaggregated data on the four thematic areas of

gender equality actions at UNIRC – namely, decision-making processes and bodies; recruitment and

career development of female researchers and female staff members; the gender dimension in

research and teaching; and gender culture.




indicators from the beginning of the implementation of the GEECCO GEP at UNIRC and to compare

them with indicators showing the state of play after two years of implementation. In addition to this

pre–post analysis of the outcomes and effects of UNIRC’s gender equality measures, counterfactuals

were formed for selected indicators on the basis of national data from relevant fields of science

(following the Frascati Manual; OECD, 2015). The purpose of forming counterfactuals in impact

evaluations is to gain a better understanding of the relation between causes and effects – that is, how

the effects relate to the intervention activities and to the inputs used to develop these activities

(Donaldson et al., 2009; Legewie, 2012; Morgan & Winship, 2015).















In addition to a consistent database containing sex-disaggregated data on the four thematic areas of




16.2 UNIRC – BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT AND DATA COLLECTION – SURVEY DATA

The GEECCO Evaluation Survey was conducted among UNIRC staff and students in 2018 and in 2020.

The aim of the online survey was to produce evidence of changes in the UNIRC members’ attitudes

toward gender stereotypes and experiences with gender bias that were induced by the

implementation of the GEP in the course of the GEECCO project.

As part of the GEECCO project, the GESIS evaluation team collected survey data from UNIRC staff and

students at two points in time: GEECCO Evaluation Survey Wave I (ESW I) took place at UNIRC between


from October 13 to October 27, 2020. The GEECCO Evaluation Survey was made available to

respondents in Italian and English. To facilitate the comparative analysis of the data from the two


baseline scenario of UNIRC respondents’ attitudes toward gender stereotypes and experiences with

gender bias. Potential changes in attitudes and experiences over the GEECCO project period are

assessed by comparing the baseline survey data from 2018 with the survey data from 2020. In

combination with the monitoring data, the results of ESW I and ESW II are used for the assessment of

UNIRC’s gender equality actions aimed at improving gender awareness and knowledge on gender in

the four thematic areas.

To allow for this comparison between the two survey waves, and to reduce nonresponse bias, the






faculty membership within the survey and wave to the distribution at UNIRC. By weighting the samples,


drawn about the attitudes toward gender stereotypes and experiences with gender bias at UNIRC.

The target population of the GEECCO Evaluation Survey comprised all UNIRC staff (academic and non-

academic) as well as enrolled students at the time of the data collection in November 2018. In 2018, a

total of 478 people were employed at UNIRC, of whom 285 were classified as academic staff (GEECCO



Monitoring Data I, UNIRC, July 2018). The total number of enrolled students was 6,024 in 201613 (GEP

1.0, D3.4).

To recruit survey respondents in ESW I, the GESIS evaluation team sent the invitation to participate to

the survey directly to staff and students via email lists that UNIRC provided. By contrast, the GESIS

evaluation team provided a link to the ESW II, and the invitation email to participate to ESW II was sent

by UNIRC management. After the first week of the two-week survey field period, email reminders were

sent. Ultimately, target persons decided themselves whether to participate in the online survey. Due

to this self-selection, there are limitations to the representativeness of the sample for all UNIRC staff

and students. These limitations were reduced by the above-mentioned weighting procedure.

A total of 80 respondents participated in ESW I, of whom 34 self-identified as women and 46 as men.

Forty-one percent of ESW I respondents were students; 59% were employees. A total of 667

respondents participated in ESW II, of whom 426 self-identified as women, 239 as men, and two as

other. Eighty-one percent of the ESW II respondents were students; 19% were employees.

In ESW I and ESW II, the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) and the Ambivalence

toward Men Inventory (AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999) were applied to measure hostile and benevolent

prejudices and stereotypes about women and men, respectively. The individual items were measured


was also provided. Both scales are based on the concept of ambivalent sexism, which recognizes sexism

as being marked by a deep ambivalence and consisting of two forms of sexist attitudes: hostile sexism

and benevolent sexism. The Hostility toward Women subscale of the ASI measures the respondents’

attitudes toward gender stereotypes that display women as inferior to men and as men’s adversaries.

The Benevolence toward Women subscale includes statements that portray men as women’s

protectors and that assign women restricted and stereotypical roles with lower social status (Glick &

Fiske, 1996). The Hostility toward Men subscale of the AMI measures the respondents’ hostility toward

male dominance and gender stereotypes that display men as being superior to women. The

Benevolence toward Men subscale measures positive attitudes toward men that are rooted in

admiration for their role as providers and protectors (Glick & Fiske, 1999). In comparison to other

instruments that conceptualize sexism only as a reflection of hostility toward women, the combined

analysis of ASI and AMI provides a more comprehensive picture of attitudes toward gender

stereotypes, because they also include benevolent aspects of prejudices about women and prejudices

about men. Short versions of the ASI and the AMI (Rollero et al., 2014) were administered in ESW I and

II. Both short versions comprised six items for hostile sexism and six items for benevolent sexism. The

short versions were applied to reduce the required response time in ESW I and II.

To measure the gender bias experienced by female students, a scale developed by Robnett (2016) to

assess girls’ and women’s experiences with different forms of academic gender bias was used in ESW

I and ESW II. Gender bias occurs when people treat women unfairly due to their gender. Respondents

were asked to rate how frequently male peers, female peers, male supervisors, and female supervisors

behaved in the eight gender-biased ways. Frequency was measured on a 4-point scale ranging from 1

(never) to 4 (many times). In addition to demonstrating the prevalence of gender bias and the extent

to which the aforementioned persons displayed gender bias in their behavior, this measure also

identifies the explicit forms of gender bias experienced by women aspiring to careers in STEM.

13 Monitoring Data I and II include only the total number of Bachelor and Master graduates, not enrolled students. The most recent data available on enrolled students are from 2016.



16.3 UNIRC – BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT AND DATA COLLECTION – LOGIC MODELS

Logic model analysis was conducted at UNIRC within the framework of the baseline evaluation

(October 2018). The logic models were developed by the GESIS evaluation team based on quantitative

and qualitative data collected within the framework of Monitoring Data I (May–July 2018; see Section

16.1 above) and on a document analysis.






their impacts.












implemented activities. Therefore, for the final evaluation, the possible outcomes and impacts of

UNIRC’s gender equality measures outlined in the logic model analysis conducted within the

framework of the baseline evaluation are contrasted with the quantitative indicators and reported

outcomes in Monitoring Data II.



17 UNIRC – WHAT WORKED AND WHAT DID NOT WORK AT UNIVERSITY

MEDITERRANEA OF REGGIO CALABRIA (UNIRC)

In this chapter, the gender equality activities implemented in each thematic area are presented and

the outcomes of these activities are analyzed – to the extent that indicators measuring these outcomes

were available. The aim is to show with regard to the implementation of the GEECCO gender equality

plan (GEP) at UNIRC what worked and what did not work.





of UNIRC’s GEP, this chapter presents the outcome analysis for each thematic area. In so doing,

reference is made to the aforementioned logic model analysis and quantitative indicators.

17.1 UNIRC – PORTFOLIO OF GENDER EQUALITY ACTIVITIES

UNIRC’s gender equality plan takes a balanced approach in terms of number of activities in the four

thematic areas “decision-making bodies and processes,” “recruitment and career development,”

“gender dimension in research and teaching,” and “gender culture.” The cross-cutting thematic area,

“gender culture,” covers aspects of communication and institutional culture. In Monitoring Data II

(2020), the UNIRC Operational GEECCO team added a total of 23 new activities to the GEP across all

thematic areas. Figure 7 shows this vast increase in the number of planned gender equality activities

of UNIRC’s GEP in course of the GEECCO project period. Although, the quantity of GEP actions should

not be directly interpreted as an indicator for the level of impact, as the GEP activities differ in size and

reach, it demonstrates the efforts to achieve the set objectives.

As pointed out in the course of the interim evaluation, the objective and the activities continue to be

formulated in a general manner and lack operational objectives. Formulating more specific and

measurable objectives would help to implement actions with more tangible effects beyond the project

lifetime. Moreover, the majority of new activities in Monitoring Data II still put a strong focus on

awareness-raising and providing guidelines. Nonetheless, in comparison to Monitoring Data I, and

taking into account the outlined goals and future gender equality activities in GEP 3.0, a learning curve

in terms of specification level, activities, and objectives can be observed at UNIRC over the project

lifetime.



17.2 UNIRC – DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND BODIES

Regarding the thematic area “decision-making processes and bodies,” the main objectives were to

reduce the gender imbalance in decision-making bodies, to create explicit support for gender equality

by UNIRC’s central leaders, as well as to enhance awareness among both women and men. To reach

these objectives the implemented actions included (a) analyzing the current procedures in decision-

making processes and bodies, (b) making women more visible in regular communications during

department committees as well as creating internal women networks, (c) providing a yearly report on

the gender balance at UNIRC, (d) disseminating best practices from other Italian universities on

increasing the gender balance at decision-making level, and (e) implementing of gender equality

structures.

As demonstrated in Figure 8 the gender balance in decision-making bodies at central level at UNIRC

shows only minimal changes between 2016 and 2020. In 2016, two out of 22 positions at central level

at UNIRC were filled by women. By 2020, the number of women in decision-making bodies at central

level of UNIRC rose to three out of a total of 22, which means that the proportion of women in decision-

making bodies increased slightly from 9.1% in 2016 to 13.6% in 2020.

The proportion of women in decision-making positions of the university at rectorate level at UNIRC

also rose slightly from 23.1% in 2016 to 26.3% in 2020. In 2016, three of the 13 vice-rectors of UNIRC

were female. By 2020, a further six vice-rectors were appointed, of whom two were female and four

male, so that in 2020 there were five female and 14 male vice-rectors in decision-making positions at

UNIRC.

0

5

10

15

20



Staff Members


Gender Culture


Figure 7. Portfolio of Planned Gender Equality Activities, UNIRC, 2018 and 2020


(July 2020). University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria (UNIRC).



At department level, the ratio of women to men is very imbalanced. In 2016, there was only one

woman among the six heads of department (16.7%). In 2020, none of the positions at department level

was filled by a woman, so the proportion of women dropped to 0%.

Overall, the monitoring data demonstrate that the gender imbalance in decision-making bodies could

not be reduced at UNIRC over the four years from 2016 to 2020. However, the implementation of the

“Office for Administrative and Organizational Support to Equal Opportunities Activities” in June 2020,

which is described as a structural body supporting the vice-rector for equal opportunities staffed by

one part-time employee, is a major achievement toward institutionalizing gender equality structures

at UNIRC. This promising development toward more explicit support of gender equality by UNIRC’s

central leaders should be reinforced by further activities to embed gender awareness in the

institutional structures of UNIRC – for example, in the form of regular trainings against implicit gender

bias for members of decision-making bodies.

Note. Due to the small total number of members of decision-making bodies, the absolute proportions of women and men

in decision-making bodies and positions are presented in this figure. Source: Monitoring Data I (July 2018) and Monitoring

Data II (July 2020), University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria (UNIRC).

1

1

1

2

3

5

1

11

11

9

8

1

1

1

1

8

12

5

6

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

Aca

dem

icSe

nat

eA

dm

inis

trat

ive

Bo

ard

Rec

tor

Dep

uty

Rec

tor

Vic

e R

ecto

rsH

ead

of

Dep

artm

ent

CEN

TRA

L LE

VEL

REC

TOR

ATE

LEV

ELD

EPA

RTM

ENT

LEV

EL

f

m

Figure 8. Absolute Proportion of Women and Men in Decision-Making Bodies and Positions Over Time, UNIRC, 2016 and 2020



17.3 UNIRC – RECRUITMENT, CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF FEMALE RESEARCHERS AND FEMALE STAFF

In this thematic area, UNIRC aimed at supporting women in their career development. The planned

activities for achieving this goal included (a) emphasizing the competencies of women staff and giving

them more visibility, (b) encouraging the application of women as leaders of relevant projects, (c)

creating women’s networks, (d) publishing regular statistical reports on female participation in

research projects at UNIRC, (e) making female staff more visible by using mass media, websites and

internal communication, (f) providing mentoring programs and trainings to early career researchers,

and (g) offering bias trainings to evaluation boards. Thus, the activities in this thematic area focused

above all on making women more visible and fostering their scientific and leadership skills.

The monitoring data do not include any indicators to evaluate whether the visibility of women

increased over the four years from 2016 to 2020, but they show whether there has been progress

toward a more gender-equal representation of women at different career levels at UNIRC. Starting

with a comprehensive overview of gender representation along the academic career path at UNIRC, a

closer look will be taken at the gender balance among staff members, Bachelor and Master graduates,

and PhD graduates. Finally, the gender representation in different forms of employment will be

analyzed.


denoted, in descending order, by the grades A, B, C, and D. In Italy, grade A comprises full professors,

grade B comprises associate professors, grade C comprises researchers with a PhD degree, and grade

D, the lowest seniority level, comprises temporary researcher fellows (European Commission, 2019,

p.190).

As shown in Figure 9, over the four years from 2016 to 2020, the academic career path at UNIRC was

characterized by a relatively stable gender balance until the post-doctoral phase, and was then marked

by a strong vertical segregation throughout women’s academic careers. In 2020, women represented

40.9% of Bachelor graduates, 54.8% of Master graduates, and 37.8% of PhD graduates, and these

numbers had not significantly changed since 2016.14 However, a gender gap continues to persist at the

entry point to the academic job market, with women representing only 37.8% of grade C academic

staff at UNIRC in 2020, having increased their presence by only 2.2 percentage points since 2016 and

still lagging behind men by 19.6 percentage points. In grade B positions, women at UNIRC also fell

behind by 39.8 percentage points in 2020, having increased their proportion at this level from 28.7%

in 2016 to 30.1% in 2020. The largest gap at UNIRC can be observed at the highest level of the academic

career ladder, where women represented 21.3% of grade A academic staff in 2020, leading to a 59.6

percentage point difference from men. Slow progress was made in the top positions between 2016

and 2020 (2.2 percentage point increase).

14 Due to the small numbers in the group of PhD graduates at UNIRC, the relative range of decrease/increase in the shares of women appears disproportionally wide.



Figure 9. Proportion of Women and Men at Different Undergraduate, Graduate, and Career Levels, UNIRC, 2016 and 2020

17.3.1 UNIRC – GENDER BALANCE AMONG STAFF MEMBERS

The ratio of women to men among the total (i.e., academic and non-academic) staff at UNIRC remained

relatively stable between 2016 and 2020: The proportion of total female staff members rose from

38.2% in 2016 to 38.9% in 2020.

Different developments toward a greater gender balance can be recognized at the following UNIRC

faculties: The data show an increase of several percentage points in the proportion of women among

total staff at the Faculty of Civil, Energy, Environmental and Material Engineering (from 29,8% in 2016

to 35,1% in 2020) and at the Faculty of Information Engineering, Infrastructures and Sustainable Energy

(from 32,7% in 2016 to 35,4% in 2020). At the Faculty of Heritage, Architecture and Urbanism, the

proportion of women was 44.1% in 2016 and 44.4% in 2020, and had therefore hardly changed over

the four-year period. In contrast, the proportion of women among the academic and non-academic

staff at the Faculty of Agriculture fell significantly. The proportion of women among total staff at the

Faculty of Agriculture was 30.6% in 2016, but by 2020 it had fallen to 22.7%. Thus, the Faculty of

Agriculture was the faculty with the lowest proportion of women among total staff in 2020. With a

female share of 50.9% in 2020, the ratio of women to men among academic and non-academic staff

was most balanced at the Faculty of Architecture.

41%

55%

41% 38%40%

30%

21%

39%

50%47%

51%

38%

29%

19%

59%

45%

59%62%

60%

70%

79%

61%

50%53%

49%

62%

71%

81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

BachelorGraduates

Master Graduates PhD Students PhD Graduates Grade C Grade B Grade A


Note. Bachelor graduates, 2016: N = 441 (170 women, 271 men); 2020: N = 301 (123 women, 178 men). Master graduates, 2016: N = 550

(276 women, 274 men); 2020: N = 451 (247 women, 204 men). PhD students, 2016: N = 116 (54 women, 62 men); 2020: N = 120 (49 women,

71 men). PhD graduates, 2016: N = 39 (20 women, 19 men); 2020: N = 37 (14 women, 23 men). Grade C, 2016: N = 121 (46 women, 75 men);

2020: N = 117 (47 women, 70 men). Grade B, 2016: N = 87 (25 women, 62 men); 2020: N = 83 (25 women, 58 men). Grade A, 2016: N = 47 (9

women, 38 men), 2020: N = 47 (10 women, 37 men). Source: GEECCO Monitoring Data I (July 2018) and GEECCO Monitoring Data II (July

2020), University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria (UNIRC).



UNIRC – STAFF BY SENIORITY LEVEL, INSTITUTIONAL AND NATIONAL LEVEL

At the UNIRC faculties, there are significant differences in the gender balance across the seniority

grades. The ratio of women to men at the Faculty of Information Engineering, Infrastructures and

Sustainable Energy is striking: 50% of grade D positions in this faculty were held by women in 2020,

and in grades C and B the proportion of women was 33.3% and 44.4%, respectively, but there was not

a single woman at the highest seniority level, grade A. At the Faculty of Information Engineering,

Infrastructures and Sustainable Energy, it is apparent that women and men are equally represented in

the lowest seniority grade, but the higher the seniority grade, the lower the proportion of women.

Although the proportion of women at the Faculty of Information Engineering, Infrastructures and

Sustainable Energy increased from 26.3% to 35.4% between 2016 and 2020, this increase took place

primarily in seniority grade D.

The data on the ratio of women to men in the different seniority grades at the Faculty of Civil, Energy,

Environmental and Material Engineering demonstrate a similar structure. The ratio of women to men

in grade D positions is balanced, with a female share of 56.3% in 2020. Women were also quite strongly

represented in grade C positions, with a female share of 38.9%. In the higher seniority grades, A and

B, however, the female share at the Faculty of Civil, Energy, Environmental and Material Engineering

in 2020 was only 12.5% and 20.0%, respectively. Although there was an increase in the proportion of

women among the total academic staff at the Faculty of Civil, Energy, Environmental and Material

Engineering between 2016 and 2020 (from 24.4% to 35.1%), the female share among grade A and B

positions fell by several percentage points during this period.

The monitoring data also show this imbalanced ratio of women to men among the academic staff at

the Faculty of Agriculture, Law, Economics and Human Science: the higher the seniority grade, the

lower the proportion of women.

A very balanced ratio of women to men among grade A positions is apparent at the Faculty of

Architecture and the Faculty of Heritage, Architecture and Urbanism, where 55.6% and 66.7% of the

grade A positions, respectively, were held by women in 2020. Both faculties increased the proportion

of women in grade A positions by several percentage points between 2016 and 2020.

In total, the share of women among academic staff increased by 4.6% between 2014 and 2016 (before

the project started) and by 10.3% between 2018 and 2020 (during the project term). However, the

rate of increase in women in grade A positions at UNIRC overall was negative: Before the project

started it was 5.1%, and it remained stable during the project term, with ten of the 47 grade A positions

being held by women. The last increase in the proportion of women in grade A positions at UNIRC took

place between 2016 and 2018.

The indicator “ratio of women to men by seniority grade and faculty” offers the opportunity to look at

the ratios of women to men within the individual faculties in more detail. Thus, it can serve as a starting

point to investigate to what extent structural barriers to female researchers’ career development lead

to an imbalanced ratio of women to men among the seniority grades. At UNIRC, the indicator shows

gender imbalance in higher seniority grades at various faculties, which suggests evidence for structural

discrimination in female researchers’ career development.

UNIRC – GLASS CEILING INDEX, INSTITUTIONAL AND NATIONAL LEVEL

The Glass Ceiling Index (GCI) compares the proportion of women in all academic positions (grades A, B

and C) with the proportion of women in the highest academic positions (grade A). The GCI can range




and women in academia. If the value is greater than 1 a glass ceiling effect exists. This means that


(grades A, B and C). In other words, the higher the value of the GCI, the stronger the glass ceiling effect


p.125).

The GCI at UNIRC dropped from 1.64 to 1.56 between 2016 and 2020. Therefore, the glass ceiling effect

at UNIRC decreased slightly over the four years under review.

In Italy, the GCI of all STEM universities in 2016 was 1.68, and thus slightly higher than UNIRC’s GCI. In

2018, the GCI of all STEM universities in Italy further decreased to 1.60. The GCI at UNIRC was 1.62 in

2018, and thus minimally higher than the GCI for Italy overall. In both 2016 and 2018, the differences

in the GCI between UNIRC and all STEM universities in Italy were very small.


A) in one numerical value. However, what specific processes and mechanisms underlie the restriction

of access to the highest scientific positions for women remains an open question.

17.3.2 UNIRC – GENDER BALANCE AMONG BACHELOR AND MASTER GRADUATES

The ratio of women to men among the Bachelor and Master graduates overall at UNIRC improved

toward gender balance between 2016 and 2020. The female share increased from 38.5% to 40.9%

among Bachelor graduates and from 50.2% to 54.8% among Master graduates. Thus, the ratio of

women to men was very balanced among Bachelor and Master graduates at UNIRC.

The Faculty of Information Engineering, Infrastructures and Sustainable Energy is the one with the

largest gender gap among Bachelor graduates at UNIRC. In 2016, only 14.3% of the Bachelor graduates

of this faculty were female, but the proportion of women increased to 38.5% by 2020. The proportion

of women among Master graduates of the faculty also increased – from 29.7% in 2016 to 31.6% in

2020. The monitoring data show that the proportion of female Bachelor graduates at the Faculty of

Heritage, Architecture and Urbanism also increased – from 38.3% in 2016 to 60% in 2020. Among the

Master graduates at this faculty, the proportion of women remained quite constant (35% in 2016 and

33.3% in 2020).

The ratio of women to men at the Faculty of Law, Economics & Human Science is most balanced, with

women making up 55.1% and 45.5% of Bachelor graduates in 2016 and 2020, respectively. Women

were also well represented among Master graduates of the Faculty of Law, Economics & Human

Science, with a share of 63.9% in 2016. By 2020, the proportion of women among Master graduates of

this faculty had increased further, to 67.7%.

Comparing the ratio of women to men among the Bachelor graduates at UNIRC and STEM universities

in Italy overall, it is striking that the Faculty of Architecture – with a proportion of women of 66.7% in

2016 and 63.6% in 2018 – was significantly above the national average of 41% in 2016 and 47.3% in

2018. Among the Master graduates in this field, the proportion of women at STEM universities in Italy

overall was 56.7% in 2018, while at the Faculty of Architecture only 47.6% of Master graduates were

female in 2016. Women are therefore better represented among Bachelor graduates of this faculty,

than the national average. By contrast, they are less well represented among Master graduates of this

faculty than among Master graduates of Italian universities in the STEM fields generally.



In the field of heritage, architecture and urbanism, the percentage of women among Bachelor

graduates of STEM universities in Italy remained constant at 52.6% (2016) and 55.3% (2018). At UNIRC,

the Faculty of Heritage, Architecture and Urbanism shows a different trend: While the proportion of

female Bachelor graduates was still 38.3% in 2016, and thus below the national average, it had risen

to 70.6% by 2018, which was significantly higher than the value for Italian STEM universities overall.

The ratio of women to men among the Master graduates at the Faculty of Heritage, Architecture and

Urbanism of UNIRC was less balanced both in 2016 and 2018 than at STEM universities in Italy

generally. The female share of Bachelor and Master graduates in the field of information engineering,

infrastructures and sustainable energy at STEM universities in Italy overall was slightly lower (23.4%

and 16.4%, respectively, in 2018) than the proportion of women Bachelor and Master Graduates of

the Faculty of Information Engineering, Infrastructures and Sustainable Energy at UNIRC (24.0% among

Bachelor and 20.0% Master graduates in 2018). With a female share of 41.8% among Bachelor

graduates and 41.7% among Master graduates in 2018, the Faculty of Civil, Energy, Environmental and

Material Engineering at UNIRC performed significantly better in terms of gender balance than the

national average (female share of 30.9% among Bachelor graduates and 32.5% among Master

graduates at STEM universities in Italy overall).

Overall, there is no clear trend toward a higher or lower share of female Bachelor and Master

graduates at UNIRC compared with female Bachelor and Master graduates of STEM universities in Italy

overall, but rather different developments depending on the faculty in question.

17.3.3 UNIRC – GENDER BALANCE AMONG PHD STUDENTS AND PHD GRADUATES

Overall, the proportion of female PhD students at UNIRC decreased from 46.6% in 2016 to 40.8% in

2020, with different developments in the ratios of women to men at faculty level.

At the Faculty of Information Engineering, Infrastructures and Sustainable Energy the proportion of

women among PhD students was only 18.8% in 2016, but it had increased to 47.4% by 2020. A similar

development can be observed at the Faculty of Agriculture: In 2016, only 20% of the PhD students

were female, but in 2020 the ratio of women to men was balanced, with 50% of the students being

female.

The development of the ratio of women to men among PhD students at the Faculty of Law, Economics

and Human Science and the Faculty of Architecture was different. Between 2016 to 2020, the

proportion of women dropped from 62.5% (Faculty of Law, Economics and Human Science) and 76%

(Faculty of Architecture) to 32.1% and 40%, respectively.

The development of the gender balance among PhD graduates at the individual faculties is difficult to

interpret, as the number of cases is very small (maximum 10 graduates per faculty).

Comparing the data of the PhD students at UNIRC with national data on STEM universities in Italy

overall, the Faculty of Agriculture stands out, with a female share of 20% in 2016, which was

significantly lower than the share of female students among all PhD students in this field at STEM

universities in Italy (59%). However, as described above, the faculty was able to adjust the ratio of

women to men over time, bringing it closer to the national average. The Faculty of Law, Economics and

Human Science, with 62.5% (2016) and 67.9% (2018) female PhD students, was well above the national

average, which was 52.5% (2016) and 50.9% (2018).

The data show that the female share of PhD students in the field of engineering, manufacturing and

construction at STEM universities in Italy overall was 36.2% in 2018, and thus significantly lower than



the female share at the Faculty of Civil, Energy, Environmental and Material Engineering at UNIRC

(45.8% in 2018). On the other hand, the female share of PhD students at the Faculty of Information

Engineering, Infrastructures and Sustainable Energy was only 16.7% in 2018, and thus clearly below

the national average of 36.2%. However, the ratio of women to men among PhD students at the Faculty

of Information Engineering, Infrastructures and Sustainable Energy is very dynamic due to the low

number of overall PhD students: In 2020, the female share was already 47.4%, and thus above the

proportion of female PhD students at Italian universities in the STEM fields in 2020 (36.5%).

With a female share of 51.3% in 2016 and 55.3% in 2018, the ratio of women to men among PhD

graduates of UNIRC was slightly more balanced, than among PhD graduates of Italian universities in

the STEM fields overall, where the female share was 44.6% in 2016 and 42.4% in 2018.

17.3.4 UNIRC – STAFF BY FORM OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKING TIME

At UNIRC, women were in a minority among staff with fixed-term contracts (32.9% females) and

tenured contracts (38.5% females) in 2020. This is explained by the general underrepresentation of

women at UNIRC. Overall, most academics are employed in tenured positions (95.0% in 2016 and

94.7% in 2020), and there are no significant gender differences in the form of employment. About

92.3% of academic staff worked full-time at UNIRC in 2020, and this proportion did not change

significantly over the four years under review – it was 95.6% in 2016. Thus, the monitoring data on

form of employment and working time do not indicate that men are more likely to hold full time or

tenured positions than women or vice versa, but rather that the extent of the gender (im)balance at

the different career levels does not relate to the form of employment or working time.

To sum up, gender inequalities at all stages of women’s academic careers prevail at UNIRC. The

monitoring data show no significant progress toward a more gender-equal representation of women

at different career levels at UNIRC between 2016 and 2020. The largest gap can be observed on the

highest rung of the academic career ladder at UNIRC. Women accounted for 21.3% of grade A academic

staff in 2020, leading to a 57.4 percentage point difference between the male and female share of

these positions. Slow progress was made in the top positions between 2016 and 2020 (2.2 percentage

point increase in the female share). This is underlined by a drop in the GCI at UNIRC from 1.64 to 1.56

between 2016 and 2020. In 2016 and in 2018, the differences between UNIRC’s GCI and that of STEM

universities in Italy overall were very small. The monitoring data also show a similar increase of about

two percentage points in the share of women in grade C and grade B positions between 2016 and

2020.

As already argued in the logic model analysis conducted within the framework of the baseline

evaluation, supporting women in their career development by making them more visible and self-

confident in their scientific skills will not tackle the barriers to women’s career development at UNIRC.

To support women in their career development at UNIRC in the long term, further activities are needed

that do not focus on “fixing the women” but rather on “fixing the system.” This entails, for example,

measures to reduce gender bias in recruitment mechanisms and to address prevailing gender

stereotypes (for more on this, see Section 17.5). Supporting early career researchers through

mentoring programs and workshops aimed at strengthening their scientific and leadership skills is a

good start to foster women’s individual career development. However, the share of female graduates



and early career researchers is already very high compared with other STEM universities in Italy. Thus,

to achieve long-term impacts, further activities are needed that address structural barriers that women

face once they decide to pursue an academic career.

17.4 UNRIC – GENDER DIMENSION IN RESEARCH AND TEACHING

Regarding the thematic area “gender dimension in research and teaching,” the Operational GEP team

aimed to introduce the culture of “gender perspectives” in STEM courses, to include gender topics in

STEM courses, and to encourage reflection on the meaning of the gender perspective in STEM research

(see GEP 2.0 in D8.3). In order to achieve these three goals, the following activities had been

implemented by July 2020: (a) trainings on relevant gender issues in STEM courses, (b) conducting

research on the approach of Italian universities to including the gender dimension in research, (c)

informing UNIRC members about potentially relevant gender issues in STEM courses through internal

communication platforms, and (d) developing guidelines for taking the gender dimension into account

in research and teaching.

There are no quantitative indicators available in the monitoring or survey data for evaluating the

outcomes in this thematic area of UNIRC’s GEP.

As pointed out in the logic model analysis conducted within the framework of the baseline evaluation

of UNIRC’s GEP, to induce organizational change toward stronger inclusion of the gender perspective

in research and teaching at UNIRC it will be necessary to offer regular trainings for researchers and

teachers, as well as STEM courses with a gender component. To achieve this, the lack of knowledge

and expertise on how to include the gender dimension in research and teaching at UNIRC needs to be

addressed.

Providing information on how to include the gender dimension in teaching and research is a good first

step. However, concrete next steps need to be taken to ensure the sustainable uptake of the

information provided, thereby ultimately bringing about an increased inclusion of the gender

dimension in research and teaching beyond the GEECCO project. In this process, it will be essential to

demonstrate how including the gender dimension increases excellence in research and teaching. The

planned training in applying the "Guidelines on Teaching & Research", which was outlined in GEP 3.0,

should be accompanied by further capacity-building measures at UNIRC.



17.5 UNIRC – GENDER CULTURE

The objective of UNIRC’s fourth thematic area, “gender culture,” was to create a more friendly

environment for women in STEM areas. The planned activities for achieving this objective included

among others the development and approval of the guideline for gender-sensitive language, the

development of a database to monitor the ratio of women to men on the various academic

committees, and the adoption of a “gender agenda,” which included several activities, such as

communication activities to increase the number of female students, and the creation of women

networks. Among the outcomes reported in Monitoring Data II (2020), the major achievement in this

thematic area at UNIRC remains the approval of the guideline for gender-sensitive language by the

Academic Senate.

To evaluate whether a change toward a more friendly work environment for women had taken place

over the project period, the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) (Glick & Fiske, 1996) and the

Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI) (Glick & Fiske, 1999) were applied in GEECCO Evaluation

Survey Waves I and II to measure hostile and benevolent prejudices and stereotypes about women

and men. The concept of ambivalent sexism recognizes sexism as being marked by a deep ambivalence

and consisting of two forms of sexist attitudes: hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. The individual

items were measured on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

Whereas there were no significant gender differences in the mean scores on ASI in 2018, there were

significant differences between female and male employees on the hostile sexism subscale of ASI in

2020. Male employees (M = 2.81, SD = .18) agreed significantly more strongly with statements

describing women as inferior to men than female employees (M = 2.28, SD = .12).15 This indicates a

negative trend toward stronger ambivalent sexism at UNIRC over the two years from 2018 to 2020.

The results of the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI) in ESW I (2018) and ESW II (2020) show

that, compared with men, women disagreed significantly more strongly with statements promoting

male dominance and gender stereotypes that display men as being superior to women both in 2018

and in 2020.16 These observations regarding ASI and AMI are in line with previous studies from the U.S.

and Europe (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Glick & Fiske, 1999; Rollero et al., 2014) Finally, in 2020, the

Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI) data also demonstrated that men (M = 2.50, SD = .08) agreed

significantly more with gender stereotypes describing men in their role as providers and protectors

than women (M = 2.06, SD = .04).17 This result suggests that men at UNIRC agree more strongly with

patriarchal values than women.

With regard to the target groups, no significant differences in scores on the Hostile Sexism and

Benevolent Sexism subscales of AMI can be observed.

Overall, the results of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and the Ambivalence toward Men

Inventory (AMI) indicate a working environment at UNIRC that is characterized by ambivalent sexism

between women and men in 2020, leading to simplistic generalizations about gender attributes of

women and men, that is, prevailing gender stereotypes. These attitudes toward sexism and gender

differences became more, not less, entrenched over the years from 2018 and 2020. This may indicate

resistance against implemented activities aimed at increasing gender awareness and improving

women’s work environment at UNIRC. Gender stereotypes create certain gender role expectations

15 ESW II, 2020: ASI, Hostile Sexism subscale, t(633) = 6.04, p < .05. 16 ESW I, 2018: AMI, Hostile Sexism subscale, men: M = 2.80, SD = .13; women: M = 3.71, SD = .15; t(68) = 20.97, p < .001. ESW II, 2020: AMI, Hostile Sexism subscale, men: M = 2.90, SD = .07; women: M = 3.68, SD = .05; t(547) = 78.84, p < .001. 17 ESW II, 2020: AMI, Benevolent Sexism subscale, t(586) = 24.25, p < .001.



that influence people’s behavior and determine how people are treated in professional or private

situations due to their gender. Efforts must be continued by effectively communicating the benefits of

equality and gender diversity, and thus addressing the factors underlying the perception of women in

STEM as deviating from their societal role.

When people evaluate objective information based on existing gender stereotypes, gender bias occurs.

To measure the gender bias experienced by female students at UNIRC, a scale developed by Robnett

(2016) to assess girls’ and women’s experiences with different forms of academic gender bias was used

in ESW I and ESW II. Gender bias occurs when people treat women unfairly due to their gender. With

regard to the experiences of female students with gender bias at UNIRC,18 the findings of ESW I and II

show that the main source of gender bias are male peers and male supervisors. The five forms of

academic bias that were experienced most regularly (i.e., several times or many times) by female

students at UNIRC in 2020, are listed in Table 3. “Made negative comments about women’s science

abilities” is still the form of gender bias that female students experienced the most at UNIRC. In ESW

II, 16.71% of female students reported that they had experienced this form of bias from male peers

several or many times over the past year (2019–2020); 11.14% of them also experienced this form of

gender bias from male supervisors.

There were only slight differences in the reported gender bias experiences of female students between

ESW I and ESW II. However, due to the low number of female respondents in ESW I, a meaningful

comparison of ESW I and ESW II is not possible.

Table 3. Experiences With Gender Bias: Relative Frequency of the Five Forms of Gender Bias Most Regularly Experienced by Female Students, From Male Supervisors and Male Peers, UNIRC, 2020

18 The item battery on experiences with gender bias addresses only experiences of female students. In ESW I (2018), 10 female students reported their experiences with gender bias at UNIRC. In ESW II (2020), 359 female students were asked to report their experiences with different forms of gender bias.

Form of Gender Bias ESW II (2020)

Male Peers Male

Supervisors

Made negative comments about women’s science abilities. 16.71% 11.14%

Made negative comments about your ability in STEM because of your

gender. 9.75% 4.18%

Made you feel like your gender will make it difficult for you to

succeed in STEM. 11.42% 7.24%

Expected less of you academically or professionally because of your

gender. 11.14% 5.85%

Made you feel like you had to work harder than male students to be

taken seriously. 9.75% 7.52% Note. Female students, ESW II (2020): N =359. Source: GEECCO ESW II (2020), University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria (UNIRC).



18 UNIRC – KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

18.1 UNIRC – DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND BODIES

At UNIRC, we find that necessary conditions for a sustainable gender equality policy and its

implementation have been created during participation in the GEECCO project. Changes in the

thematic area “decision-making processes and bodies” are reflected in the fact that the position of

delegate for equal opportunities was filled again in mid-2020. It had been vacant since the departure

of UNIRC’s first ever delegate and GEP coordinator the year before. Also noteworthy is the

commitment demonstrated by the general secretary of UNIRC, the head of university administration,

who actively supported and implemented specific measures proposed by the local GEP coordinators.

The implementation of the “Office for Administrative and Organizational Support to Equal

Opportunities Activities” in June 2020, which is described as a structural body supporting the vice-

rector for equal opportunities staffed by one part-time employee, is a major achievement toward

institutionalizing gender equality structures at UNIRC.

Unfortunately, there is no further tangible evidence that the aim of reducing the gender imbalance in

decision-making bodies at UNIRC has been achieved. The proportion of women at rectorate level and

on university-wide committees had increased minimally by 2020, but all faculties were headed by men.

This means that, although the conditions for a systematic and steady reduction of the

overrepresentation of men have now been created, these measures have not yet produced any

significant effects.

In order to achieve tangible effects in the future, cooperation should be sought with decision-makers

and central units, some of which became game changers in the two years from 2018 to 2020. Finally,

formulating more specific objectives could also help to implement actions with more tangible effects.

18.2 UNIRC – RECRUITMENT, CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF FEMALE RESEARCHERS AND FEMALE STAFF

The assessment of ratios of women to men among staff indicates marginal progress in gender balance

among staff in grade C, B, and A positions. However, UNIRC is a relatively small university, which places

limitations on the interpretation of statistical variations, specifically at the level of PhD students and

graduates. As at many universities in Europe, the low share of women among researchers at the

highest seniority level (grade A) indicates the presence of multi-causal, structural discrimination of

female researchers on the path to full professorship positions. Over the four years from 2016 to 2020,

the share of women in grade A positions increased by 2.2%. This indicates a moderate trend in the

right direction, which is confirmed by the similar trend in the share of women in grade B and C

positions.

The interest of UNIRC female staff in participating in GEECCO GEP actions in this thematic area has

remained low. A different communication strategy that is more in line with the ambitions of the

targeted female talents and offers attractive career prospects might stimulate a fruitful dynamic in this

thematic area.

To support women’s career development at UNIRC in the long term, further activities are needed that

do not focus on “fixing the women” but rather on “fixing the institution.” This entails, for example,

measures to reduce gender bias in recruitment mechanisms and to address prevailing gender

stereotypes.



18.3 UNIRC – GENDER DIMENSION IN RESEARCH AND TEACHING

Low awareness and knowledge of how to include the gender dimension in research and teaching

continues to be the status quo at UNIRC in this thematic area. As pointed out in the logic model analysis

presented in the Baseline Evaluation Report on UNIRC’s GEP, in order to induce organizational change

and to incentivize the integration of gender knowledge in research and teaching at UNIRC, it is

necessary to offer regular trainings for researchers and teachers, as well as STEM courses with gender

components. To achieve this, more knowledge and expertise on how to include the gender dimension

in research and teaching at UNIRC needs to be built up, for example, by using the materials developed

by the GEECCO partnership and its “sister projects,” as well as other materials made available by expert

groups, such as the Gendered Innovations 2.0 report. Thus, the planned training in applying the

"Guidelines on Teaching & Research" outlined in GEP 3.0 should be accompanied by further capacity-

building measures at UNIRC. External support for the implementation of effective capacity-building

measures should be considered.

18.4 UNIRC – GENDER CULTURE

This thematic area covers aspects relating to communication and institutional culture. In the second

phase of designing and implementing gender equality measures, the number of measures to change

the gendered culture at UNIRC more than doubled. As a result, most of the gender equality measures

implemented within the framework of the GEECCO GEP were assigned to the thematic area of “gender

culture.” Although the need to initiate a process of change in this area is undisputed, it was not

established by pre–post analysis of monitoring and survey data, for example, because it also involved

the development of very fundamental structures for gender equality, which UNIRC was lacking in the

initial phase of the collaboration. Making an effort to create the necessary organizational structures,

which still remained fragile throughout the years 2019 to 2020, was an essential step for UNIRC to

become operational and to implement the university’s first gender equality plan.

Other measures were aimed at raising awareness and communicating the importance of gender

inequality and what can be done about it at the university. However, the results of the Ambivalence

toward Men Inventory scale that was administered in Evaluation Survey Wave I (2018) and Wave II

(2020) reveal an increase in ambivalent sexism among the respondents over this two-year period. The

results of the measurement in ESW II suggest that men at UNIRC agree more strongly with patriarchal

values than women.

The survey data further show that attitudes toward sexism and gender differences became more, not

less, entrenched over the two years from 2018 to 2020. This may indicate resistance against

implemented activities aimed at increasing gender awareness at UNIRC. Efforts must be continued by

effectively communicating the benefits of equality and gender diversity, and thus addressing the

factors underlying the perception of women in STEM as deviating from their societal role.



19 UNIRC - REFERENCES





http://www.jstor.org/stable/2235722

Donaldson, S. I., Christie, C. A., & Mark, M. M. (Eds.). (2009). What counts as credible evidence in applied research

and evaluation practice? Sage.

European Commission. (2019). She figures 2018: Gender in research and innovation.

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9540ffa1-4478-11e9-a8ed-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en https://doi.org/10.2777/936

Glick, P [P.], & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent

beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-

6402.1999.tb00379.x

Glick, P [Peter], & Fiske, S. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent

sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232548173


von Kontexteffekten in der Schule. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 64(1), 123–153.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-012-0158-5

Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2015). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social

research (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107587991


K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (pp. 98–125). Jossey-Bass.



en.htm

Robnett, R. D. (2016). Gender bias in STEM fields: Variation in prevalence and links to STEM self-concept.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315596162

Rollero, C., Glick, P [Peter], & Tartaglia, S. (2014). Psychometric properties of short versions of the Ambivalent

Sexism Inventory and Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. TPM, 21(2), 1–11.




oder Datenfriedhof? In A. Wroblewski, U. Kelle, & F. Reith (Eds.), Gleichstellung messbar machen: Grundlagen

und Anwendungen von Gender- und Gleichstellungsindikatoren (pp. 171–189). Springer VS.




UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE

CATALUNYA (UPC)











Document Versions






0.3 27.04.2021 Third Draft Dr. Anke Lipinsky,



(TUW)




- Dr. Anke Lipinsky

- Claudia Schredl



20 UPC – THE AIM AND CONTEXT OF THE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT



Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) by the GESIS evaluation team. The report is based on

quantitative indicators for the summative evaluation of gender equality achievements and impacts.

Thus, the present evaluation is a meaningful complement to the formative evaluation, which was

based on the analysis of qualitative data. At the same time, it concludes the evaluation process in the

context of the project “Gender Equality in Engineering through Communication and Commitment”

(GEECCO).

















described.













21 UPC – ABOUT THE GEECCO PROJECT






equality is still a serious problem, and whose innovations are increasingly important in knowledge-



















and services.












22 UPC – METHODS AND DATA













place in July 2018 and July 2020 and from two online surveys implemented at UPC in November 2018

and November 2020.

22.1 UPC – BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT AND DATA COLLECTION – MONITORING DATA



a data monitoring template was tailor-made and co-produced by UPC and GESIS (for more details on

the data monitoring template, see Deliverable D10.2). The key objective of the data monitoring task

was to provide a consistent database containing sex-disaggregated data on the four thematic areas of

gender equality actions at UPC – namely, decision-making processes and bodies; recruitment and

career development of female researchers and female staff members; the gender dimension in

research and teaching; and communication, monitoring, and sustainability.




indicators from the beginning of the implementation of the GEECCO GEP at UPC and to compare them


post analysis of the outcomes and effects of UPC’s gender equality measures, counterfactuals were

formed for selected indicators on the basis of national data from relevant scientific fields (following


















to properly classify the results on the progress of the indicators in question. As outlined above, our

systematic data collection refers to the status of outcomes at UPC up to July 2020. However, more

recent data may be available at the RPO by the time the Final Evaluation Report is published that we

could not systematically take into account.

In addition to a consistent database containing sex-disaggregated data on the four thematic areas of




22.2 UPC – BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT AND DATA COLLECTION – SURVEY DATA

The GEECCO Evaluation Survey was conducted among UPC staff and students in 2018 and in 2020. The

aim of the online survey was to produce evidence of changes in the UPC members’ attitudes toward

sexism and perceptions of sexual harassment that were induced by the implementation of the GEP in

the course of the GEECCO project.

As part of the GEECCO project, the GESIS evaluation team collected survey data from UPC staff and

students at two points in time: GEECCO Evaluation Survey Wave I (ESW I) took place at UPC between


from October 21 to November 4, 2020. The GEECCO Evaluation Survey was made available to

respondents in Spanish and English. To facilitate the comparative analysis of the data from the two


baseline scenario of UPC respondents’ attitudes toward sexism and sexual harassment. Potential

changes in attitudes and perceptions over the GEECCO project period are assessed by comparing the

baseline survey data from 2018 with the survey data from 2020. In combination with the monitoring

data, the results of ESW I and ESW II are used for the assessment of UPC’s gender equality actions

aimed at improving gender awareness and knowledge on gender and/or preventing sexual harassment

in the four thematic areas.

To allow for this comparison between the two survey waves and to reduce nonresponse bias, the






faculty membership within the survey and wave to the distribution at UPC. By weighting the samples,


drawn about the attitudes toward sexism and perceptions of sexual harassment at UPC.

The target population of the GEECCO Evaluation Survey Waves comprised all UPC staff (academic and

non-academic) as well as enrolled students at the time of the data collection in November 2018. In

2018, a total of 5,048 people were employed at UPC, of whom 2,672 people were classified as

academic staff, and the total number of students was 27,751 (Monitoring Data I, UPC, July 2018).



To recruit survey respondents, GESIS provided a link to the GEECCO Evaluation Survey Waves I, which

was distributed via email in the name of UPC’s vice-rector for social responsibility and equality. The

invitation email included a description of the survey, the access link to the survey and was sent to all

UPC members. By contrast, the invitation email to participate to ESW II was not sent to all UPC

members but to a randomly drawn sample of 500 academic staff, 450 non-academic staff, and 2,000

students, invited by the UPC’s Planning, Evaluation and Quality Department. This resulted in a lower

number of respondents completing the survey in November 2020 compared with 2018. Ultimately,

target persons decided themselves whether to participate in the online survey. Due to this self-

selection, there are limitations to the representativeness of the sample for all UPC staff and students.

These limitations were reduced by the above-mentioned weighting procedure.

A total of 2,444 respondents participated in ESW I, of whom 1,192 respondents self-identified as

women, 1,219 as men, and 33 as other. Seventy percent of ESW I respondents were students; 30%

were employees of UPC. A total of 214 respondents participated in ESW II, of whom 105 self-identified

as women and 108 as men; one respondent self-identified as other. Forty-seven percent of the ESW II

respondents were students; 53% were employees.

In ESW I and ESW II, the Modern Sexism (MS) Scale (Swim et al. 1995; Swim and Cohen 1997) was

applied to assess subtle forms of sexism among UPC members. The individual items were measured


was also provided. The concept of subtle or covert sexism describes forms of sexism that are either

hidden or unnoticed because they are built into cultural and social norms. They include, for example,

denial of continued discrimination, resentment toward policies and practices aiming at reducing

structural gender inequalities, and antagonism toward women’s demands (Swim et al. 1995; Swim and

Cohen 1997).

To measure the perception of male sexual harassment of women among staff members and students

at UPC, the Illinois Sexual Harassment Myth Acceptance (ISHMA) Scale (Lonsway et al., 2008) was

applied in ESW I and II. The ISHMA scale measures the acceptance of sexual harassment mythology. It

consists of a set of 20 critical items, distributed over four subscales (Fabrication/Exaggeration, Ulterior

Motives, Natural Heterosexuality, and Woman´s Responsibility). The respondents were asked to rate

each item on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A “don’t

know” option was also provided.

22.3 UPC – BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENT AND DATA COLLECTION – LOGIC MODELS

Logic model analysis was conducted at UPC within the framework of the baseline evaluation (October


qualitative data collected within the framework of Monitoring Data I (May–July 2018; see Section 22.1

above) and on a document analysis.






their impacts.






In the present context, impacts are long-term and fundamental changes in institutions, communities








implemented activities. Therefore, for the final evaluation, the possible outcomes and impacts of UPC’s

gender equality measures outlined in the logic model analysis conducted within the framework of the

baseline evaluation are contrasted with the quantitative indicators and reported outcomes in

Monitoring Data II.



23 UPC – WHAT WORKED AND WHAT DID NOT WORK AT UNIVERSITAT

POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA (UPC)

In this chapter, the gender equality activities implemented in each thematic area are presented, and

the outcomes of these activities are analyzed – to the extent that indicators measuring these outcomes

were available. The aim is to show with regard to the implementation of the GEECCO gender equality

plan (GEP) at UPC what worked and what did not work.

At UPC, the third gender equality plan served as a “mold” for, and thus had the same content as, the

GEECCO GEP. This means that the existing gender equality plan at UPC and the GEECCO GEP were

aligned and, to a large extent, merged into one gender equality strategy. In what follows, “GEP” refers

to the gender equality plan implemented within the framework of GEECCO.





of UPC’s GEP, this chapter presents the outcome analysis for each thematic area. In so doing, reference

is made to the aforementioned logic model analysis and quantitative indicators.

23.1 UPC – PORTFOLIO OF GENDER EQUALITY ACTIVITIES

Figure 10 shows the continuing focus of UPC’s GEP on the thematic area “recruitment and career

development of female researchers and female staff members” in 2020. Half of the 32 planned and

implemented gender equality activities were in this thematic area. However, Figure 10 also

demonstrates that there was an increase in the number of activities in all thematic areas between

2018 and 2020. This increase was most pronounced in the thematic areas “decision-making bodies and

processes” and “communication, monitoring and sustainability,” where two and four additional

activities, respectively, were included in the GEP. In the other two thematic areas, only one further

activity was added. However, in the case of the thematic area “recruitment and career development,”

many activities were implemented between 2018 and 2020, and the one additional activity in the

thematic area “gender dimension in research and teaching” is significant in terms of its potential to

lead to long-term impacts in this thematic area.

By July 2020, the implementation status of about half of the 15 GEP gender equality activities had a

degree of implementation of less than 90%. Some of these activities relate to the design and

implementation of the future (fourth) gender equality plan at UPC and therefore started later in 2020.

Overall, the GEECCO project supported to a great extent the implementation of planned gender

equality activities at UPC and helped to put priorities into practice. The high overlap between UPC’s

third gender equality plan and the GEECCO GEP indicates a high level of sustainability and continuity

of gender equality activities implemented within the framework of the GEECCO project.



23.2 UPC – DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND BODIES

The main objective in the thematic area “decision-making processes and bodies” was to introduce

gender policies to promote equality between women and men at UPC. To reach this overarching goal,

several gender equality activities were implemented by the operational GEECCO team and the UPC

Equality Unit. The planned activities (Monitoring Data II, 2020) to achieve this goal included inter alia:

(a) the separation of the areas of equality and disability at UPC and the creation of five working groups;

(b) the analysis of decision-making processes; and (c) online information to promote the use of gender-

sensitive language. Finally, a gender equality observatory was established within the framework of

UPC’s gender equality website. Although the gender equality observatory does not represent an

activity directly aimed at increasing gender equality between women and men at UPC, it provides an

evidence-based decision-making tool for designing and implementing adequate gender equality

policies to promote gender equality at the university.

We now take a closer look at the available monitoring data on the gender balance in decision-making

bodies. Figure 11 demonstrates that the share of women in decision-making bodies at the central level

at UPC changed only minimally between 2016 and 2020. The proportion of women in the University

Senate rose from 30.7% to 33.1%, while the proportion of women in the Governing Council fell from

33.3% to 29.4%. Data for some decision-making bodies at central level were available only from 2018

onward. For example, the share of women on the Board of Trustees and the Academic Council

decreased by 2.8% and 2.2%, respectively, between 2018 and 2020. The number of women on the

seven-member Appeals Committee also decreased – from two in 2018 to only one in 2020. Thus,

despite limitations due to data availability, and despite the increase in the share of women in the

University Senate, the monitoring data show an overall trend toward a lower proportion of women in

decision-making bodies at central level at UPC.

Note. MD I = Monitoring Data I; MD II = Monitoring Data II. Source: Monitoring Data I (July 2018) and Monitoring Data II (July

2020), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC).

0

5

10

15

20

Decision-Making Processesand Bodies


Staff Members


Communication,Monitoring & Sustainability


Figure 10. Portfolio of Planned Gender Equality Activities, UPC, 2018 and 2020



At rectorate level (see Figure 11), the total proportion of women fell from 36.4% in 2016 to 23.1% in

2020. This was due mainly to a decrease in the number of women in vice-rector positions: In 2016,

there were eight vice-rectors, three of whom were women; in 2020 there were 10 vice-rectors, of

whom only two were women.

In contrast, as shown in Figure 12, the overall proportion of women in decision-making positions at

school/faculty level increased – from 28.9% in 2016 to 36.6% in 2020. The proportion of women at

department/institute level increased in all three decision-making positions (director, vice-directors and

academic secretary), so that the overall proportion of women in decision-making positions at

department/institute level rose from 20.4% in 2016 to 24.6% in 2020.

Based on the quantitative indicators on the gender balance in UPC’s decision-making bodies, the GESIS

evaluation team observe a slight decrease in the representation of women at rectorate level and a

positive trend toward more gender-equal representation at department/institute level and

school/faculty level by 2020.21 However, women continue to be chronically underrepresented in

decision-making bodies at UPC, and further gender equality activities need to be implemented in the

future to improve the gender balance in decision-making bodies and processes at the university. The

creation of an observatory for gender equality, which displays sex-disaggregated data on staff and

students, was a valuable first step to promote equality between women and men in decision-making

bodies at UPC. However, further efforts are necessary

21 As mentioned in Section 22.1, our systematic data collection refers to the status of outcomes at UPC up to July 2020. However, more recent data may be available at the RPO by the time the Final Evaluation Report is published that we could not systematically take into account.



.

Figure 11. Proportion of Women and Men in Decision-Making Bodies and Positions at Central and Rectorate Level Over Time, UPC, 2016–2020

30,7%

33,1%

no data available

27,8%

25,0%

33,3%

29,4%

no data available

16,7%

18,9%

no data available

27,3%

27,3%

no data available

28,6%

14,3%

37,5%

20,0%

100,0%

100,0%

69,3%

66,9%

72,2%

75,0%

66,7%

70,6%

83,3%

81,1%

72,7%

72,7%

71,4%

85,7%

100,0%

100,0%

62,5%

80,0%

100,0%

100,0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2016

2020

2016

2018

2020

2016

2020

2016

2018

2020

2016

2018

2020

2016

2018

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

Un

ive

rsit

ySe

nat

eB

oar

d o

fTr

ust

ees

Go

vern

ing

Co

un

cil

Aca

dem

icC

ou

nci

l

Te

ach

ing

and

Res

ear

ch S

taff

Rec

ruit

men

t an

dA

sses

sme

nt

Co

mm

itte

eA

pp

eals

Co

mm

itte

eR

ecto

rV

ice-

Rec

tors

Gen

eral

Secr

etar

yM

anag

er

CEN

TRA

L LE

VEL

REC

TOR

ATE

LEV

EL

f %

m %

Note. Members of decision-making bodies at central and rectorate level. Central level, 2016: N = 299 (93 women, 206 men);

2018: N = 393 (118 women, 275 men); 2020: N = 404 (121 women, 283 men). Data for four decision-making bodies at central

level (Board of Trustees, Academic Council, Teaching and Research Staff Recruitment and Assessment Committee, Appeals

Committee) were available only from the year 2018 onward. Rectorate level, 2016: N = 11 (4 women, 7 men); 2018: N = 12

(2 women, 10 men); 2020: N = 13 (3 women, 10 men).

Source: Monitoring Data I (July 2018) and Monitoring Data II (July 2020), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC).



23.3 UPC – RECRUITMENT, CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF FEMALE RESEARCHERS AND FEMALE STAFF

The following objectives in the thematic area “recruitment, career development of female researchers

and female staff members” were outlined in UPC’s GEP:

1. to ensure that people in positions of responsibility incorporate the gender perspective in their

area of activity

2. to contextualize the barriers to academic careers of women at UPC

3. to promote the UPC’s courses in secondary schools and emphasize the values involved

4. to facilitate networking, mentoring, mutual learning, and empowerment of women at UPC

5. to foster work–life balance for the members of the UPC community

6. to set up safeguards to prevent sexual harassment, harassment on grounds of sex, sexual

orientation, gender identity and expression, and discrimination

25,0%

29,4%

28,9%

36,9%

33,3%

38,5%

11,4%

16,7%

20,5%

26,2%

29,4%

30,6%

75,0%

70,6%

71,1%

63,1%

66,7%

61,5%

88,6%

83,3%

79,5%

73,8%

70,6%

69,4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

2016

2020

Dir

ect

or/

De

an

Vic

e-D

ire

cto

rs/V

ice

-D

ean

sA

cad

emic

secr

eta

ryD

ire

cto

rV

ice-

Dir

ecto

rsA

cad

emic

Secr

etar

y

SCH

OO

L/FA

CU

LTY

LEV

ELD

EPA

RTM

ENT/

INST

ITU

TE L

EVEL

f %

m %

Figure 12. Proportion of Women and Men in Decision-Making Bodies and Positions at School/Faculty and Department/Institute Level Over Time, UPC, 2016–2020

Note. Members of decision-making bodies at school/faculty and department/institute level. School/faculty level, 2016: N =

121 (35 women, 86 men); 2020: N = 141 (51 women, 90 men). Department/institute level, 2016: N = 113 (23 women, 90

men); 2020: N = 114 (28 women, 86 men). Source: Monitoring Data I (July 2018) and Monitoring Data II (July 2020),

Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC).



The measures implemented over the four years from 2016 to 2020 to achieve these objectives included

trainings and awareness-raising activities for management staff; two measures (the return-to-

research-scheme22 and the gender coefficient23) aimed at supporting women researchers in their

careers; diverse bottom-up activities to increase the number of female students; mentoring programs;

the development and dissemination of online awareness material and practical tools for contact

persons of sexual harassment cases; and the revision of the sexual harassment protocol for students.

In addition, three measures to promote the work-life balance of staff were proposed.

The monitoring data provide indicators on gender representation at different undergraduate,

graduate, and career levels, which were used to evaluate the quantitative outcomes of activities in this

thematic area that influence career development. These indicators include, for example, the share of

women among full professors, the share of women among first-semester students, programs, and the

Glass Ceiling Index at UPC. On the topic of sexual harassment, the GESIS evaluation team drew on the

results of the GEECCO Evaluation Survey Waves I and II.

23.3.1 UPC – INDICATORS ON GENDER REPRESENTATION AT DIFFERENT CAREER LEVELS

The monitoring data were used to evaluate whether there had been progress toward a more gender-

equal representation of women at different undergraduate, graduate, and career levels at UPC over

the four years from 2016 to 2020. Following a comprehensive overview of the gender representation

along the academic study and career path at UPC, this section takes a closer look at the gender balance

among staff members, Bachelor and Master students and graduates, and PhD students and graduates.

Finally, the gender representation in different forms of employment will be analyzed.


denoted, in descending order, by the grades A, B, C, and D. In Spain, grade A comprises full professors,

grade B comprises tenured associate professors, and grade C comprises non-tenured associate

professors, TEUs (Titular de Escuela Universitaria, less than associate professors), and instructors

(similar to TEUs). Grade D, the lowest seniority level, comprises teaching assistants and part time

instructors (European Commission, 2019, p.190).

Figure 13 illustrates the significant gender gap between women and men at all stages on the academic

study and career path at UPC. In 2020, women made up only 26.5% of Bachelor graduates, 30.3% of

Master graduates, and 28.2% of PhD graduates. While the proportion of female Bachelor graduates

remained stable over the four years from 2016 to 2020, the share of women among Master and PhD

graduates decreased by 6.3% and 5.5%, respectively.

Interestingly, the gender gap does not widen further directly after the postdoctoral phase but rather

at the transition to the highest academic career grade (grade A, which comprises full professors). In

2020, the proportion of women among grade C staff amounted to 31.4%; among grade B staff it was

27.7%, and among grade A staff 10.2%. The proportion of women among grade A staff increased

further in 2021, to 13.4%.24 Although women are significantly underrepresented on all rungs of the

22 Women researchers can apply for the return-to-research scheme – that is, an exemption from their teaching duties for one semester after their maternity leave. 23 The gender coefficient (since 2018) is a positive measure in the evaluation of women candidates for promotion to full professor: The final score achieved by women candidates is multiplied by a coefficient of 1.21. 24 As explained in Section 22.1, our systematic data collection refers to the status of outcomes at UPC up to July 2020, and more recent data on various indicators available at UPC at the time of publication of the Final Evaluation Report could not be considered. However, the GESIS evaluation team decided to make an exception in the case of the most recent figure for the share of women among grade A positions (as of 2021) and to include



academic career ladder at UPC, the barriers that they encounter before reaching a grade A position

seem to be particularly high. However, over the four years from 2016 to 2020, there was an increase

of 1.6 percentage points in the share of women among full professors, which indicates a positive trend

toward more gender-equal representation at UPC.

Figure 13. Proportion of Women and Men at Different Undergraduate, Graduate, and Career Levels, UPC, 2016 and 2020

UPC – GENDER BALANCE AMONG STAFF MEMBERS

The proportion of women among the total (i.e., the academic and non-academic) staff at UPC was

relatively low. It increased only marginally over the four years under review – from 36.1% in 2016 to

36.7% in 2020.

Among the individual fields of science (according to the Frascati Manual classification, OECD, 2015, p.

59) at UPC, the ratio of women to men among the academic and non-academic staff in the field of

electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering was the least balanced, with

women accounting for 13.4% in 2016. By 2020, the proportion of women among the academic and

non-academic staff in this field had increased to 16.4%. However, it was still the field with the lowest

female share at UPC in 2020. At 16.7% in 2016, the proportion of women among academic and non-

academic staff in the field of “other engineering and technologies” was also low. By 2020, the female

share among staff in this field had increased significantly, to 25.5%. The proportion of women among

it in the outcome analysis as it shows a significant positive trend toward more gender-equal representation at UPC – brought about by the gender equality measures implemented at the university over the last five years.

26,5%30,3% 28,2%

31,4%

27,7%

10,2%

24,9%

36,6%

33,7%

28,8%26,8%

8,6%

73,5%

69,7% 71,8%

68,6%72,3%

89,8%

75,1%

63,4% 66,3%

71,2%73,2%

91,4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Bachelor Graduates Master Graduates PhD Graduates Grade C Grade B Grade A


Note. Bachelor graduates, 2016: N = 2,623 (653 women, 1,970 men); 2020: N = 3,186 (843 women, 2,343 men). Master graduates, 2016:

N = 1,173 (429 women, 744 men); 2020: N = 1,700 (515 women, 1,185 men). PhD graduates, 2016: N = 356 (120 women, 236 men); 2020

(data available only for 2019): N = 308 (87 women, 221 men). Grade C, 2016: N = 354 (102 women, 252 men); 2020: N = 293 (92 women,

201 men). Grade B, 2016: N = 1,082 (290 women, 792 men); 2020: N = 991 (275 women, 716 men). Grade A, 2016: N = 245 (21 women,

224 men); 2020: N = 275 (28 women, 247 men). Source: Monitoring Data I (July 2018) and Monitoring Data II (July 2020), Universitat

Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC).



academic and non-academic staff in the field of environmental biotechnology also increased

significantly – from 35.8% in 2016 to 44.7% in 2020.

Looking at the values for this indicator, it can be observed that the overall ratio of women to men

among the academic and non-academic staff at the university is rather imbalanced. In two fields of

science (chemical engineering and environmental biotechnology), women and men were almost

equally represented in 2020, with a female share of 44.3% and 44.7%, respectively. In all other fields

of science at UPC, women were very much in the minority. Only among the administration staff at UPC

was the ratio of women to men balanced in 2016 and 2020, with a proportion of women of 53.3% and

52.9%, respectively.

The above data refer to academic and non-academic staff at UPC. As can be seen from the next

indicator, the ratio of women to men is more imbalanced when only academic staff are considered.

Academic Staff by Seniority Level – Institutional Perspective

A look at the proportion of women in the various academic seniority grades in the individual fields of

science at UPC reveals an imbalanced ratio of women to men in all grades in most fields of science at

UPC. For example, in the field of mechanical engineering, the overall proportion of women in 2016 was

18.4%, and the proportion of women in grades B, C, and D was between 11.5% and 25%, but there was

not a single woman in seniority grade A. By 2020, the proportion of women among academic staff in

this field had risen slightly, to 19.1%, but there were still no women at the highest seniority level, grade

A.

The developments in the field of chemical engineering are also striking: The proportion of women

among the total academic staff in this field increased from 37.1% in 2016 to 41.3% in 2020. However,

this increase was due almost entirely to a significant rise in the proportion of women among grade D

staff. In 2020, the ratio of women to men in this field in grade D (46.7% women), grade C (62.5%

women), and grade B (42.9% women) was very balanced, but only 8.3% of grade A positions were held

by women. A similar development can be identified in the field of environmental biotechnology, where

the proportion of women in all academic positions could be increased from 35.5% in 2016 to 43.7% in

2020, making it the field of science with the highest proportion of women in academic positions at UPC

in 2020. However, the percentage of women increased only in seniority grades B, C and D, but not in

grade A.

Overall, the monitoring data show that women were chronically underrepresented among academic

staff in all fields of science at UPC: The higher the seniority grade, the lower the proportion of women.

Although this underrepresentation of women already exists in the lower seniority grades in most fields

of science at UPC, this inequality increases tremendously at the highest seniority level, grade A.

The results regarding the rates of growth in the proportion of women in the different academic

positions also show that some fields of science made significantly more progress toward gender-equal

representation in the highest academic positions than others over the four years from 2016 to 2020.

One example that stands out is the field of physical sciences, which had a growth rate of 0% in the

proportion of women in grade A positions in the two years before the project began (2014–2016).

However, the proportion of women in grade A positions in this field increased by 41.4% during the

project term (2018–2020), and by 2020, four of the 16 full professors in the field of physical sciences

were women. Similarly, the field of civil engineering steadily increased its share of women in grade A

positions by 23.2% between 2014 and 2020. In contrast, zero growth was observed in women’s share

of grade A positions in the following fields of science: Computer and information sciences; electrical



engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering; mechanical engineering; chemical

engineering; and environmental engineering.

Despite the continuing underrepresentation of women in grade A positions in several fields of science

at UPC, the implemented gender equality measures aimed at tackling barriers to women’s career

progression (e.g., the return-to-research scheme and the gender coefficient) show signs of success at

UPC. Whereas the overall proportion of women in grade A positions at UPC rose by 2.5% between

2014 and 2016 (i.e., before the project started), it increased by 10.3% between 2018 and 2020 (during

the project term).

Glass Ceiling Index – Institutional and National Perspective

The Glass Ceiling Index (GCI) compares the proportion of women in all academic positions (grades A,

B, and C) with the proportion of women in the highest academic positions (grade A). The GCI can range


and women in academia. If the value is greater than 1, a glass ceiling effect exists. This means that


(grades A, B and C). In other words, the higher the value of the GCI, the stronger the glass ceiling effect,


p.125).

The GCI at UPC in 2016 was 2.87. By 2020, it had fallen to 2.49, which means that the glass ceiling

effect at UPC decreased over this four-year period.

Due to missing data, a comparison of the GCI at UPC with the national GCI of STEM universities in Spain

overall is not possible. However, the proportion of women in grade A positions at Spanish universities

in the STEM fields overall was 19.4% in 2016 (European Commission, 2019). At UPC, the proportion of

grade A positions held by women was only 8.6% in 2016. This demonstrates an underrepresentation

of women in grade A positions at UPC compared with STEM universities in Spain generally. More recent

national data are not available, but as shown in Figure 13, the UPC’s gender equality activities in this

regard have had a positive impact on the proportion of women at the highest academic career level,

which increased from 8.6% in 2016 to 10.2% in 2020. The proportion of women in grade A positions

increased even more substantially in 2021, to 13.4%.


A). However, what specific processes and mechanisms underlie the restriction of access to the highest

scientific positions for women remains an open question.



UPC – GENDER BALANCE AMONG BACHELOR AND MASTER STUDENTS

First-Semester Bachelor and Master Students

The ratio of women to men among the first-semester Bachelor and Master students at UPC differs

strongly across the various fields of science. Overall, the share of women among first-semester

Bachelor students amounted to 24.1% in 2016 and 27.0% in 2020. A similar increase of about three

percentage points can observed among the first-semester Master students at UPC over the same

period (28.7% in 2016 and 31.6% in 2020).

At 8.2%, the proportion of women among the Bachelor students in the field of computer and

information sciences in 2016 was very low. By 2020, it had almost doubled, to 15.9%. The proportion

of women among the first-semester Master students in the field of computer and information sciences

was slightly higher than among Bachelor students, and it, too, significantly increased over the period

under review – from 10.1% in 2016 to 17.7% in 2020. The proportion of female first-semester Bachelor

students also increased significantly in the field of environmental engineering –from 21.2% in 2016 to

27.6% in 2020.

The proportion of women among first-semester Bachelor students in the field of physical sciences was

very high (76.8% in 2016 and 76.3% in 2020). Although women were also well represented among first-

semester Master students in this field, their share decreased from 70.8% in 2016 to 65.2% in 2020. In

2020, women were also strongly represented among the first-semester students in the field of

industrial biotechnology, both at Bachelor (71.7%) and Master (80%) level. The ratio of women to men

among first-semester students in 2020 was also very balanced in the fields of civil engineering (46%

female Bachelor students) and environmental biotechnology (53.6% female Master students).

Bachelor and Master Students

Overall, the percentage of female Bachelor and Master students at UPC was very low in 2020 (26.2%

and 28.2%, respectively), and had remained stable over the previous four years.

The field of science at UPC with the highest percentage of female Bachelor and Master students was

physical sciences, where 74.2% of Bachelor students and 72.1% of Master students in 2020 were

female. In contrast, with a share of 11.9% in 2020, female Bachelor students were underrepresented

in the field of computer and information sciences. In 2016, however, the share of female Bachelor

students in this field was 9.2%, so that the representation of women improved slightly over the four-

year period under review. At 11.6% in 2016 and 17.2% in 2020, the proportion of women among

Master students in the field of computer and information sciences was significantly higher than among

Bachelor students.

The ratio of women to men among Bachelor students was most balanced in the fields of medical

engineering (58.6% female students in 2020) and industrial biotechnology (54.6% female students in

2020). Among Master students, the field of environmental biotechnology (48.3% female in 2020) and

civil engineering (42.9% female in 2020) performed particularly well in terms of gender-equal

representation.

UPC – GENDER BALANCE AMONG BACHELOR AND MASTER GRADUATES

In 2020, the overall female share among Bachelor and Master graduates at UPC was 26.5% and 30.3%,

respectively. Compared with 2016, there was an increase of 2.4 percentage points in the share of



female Bachelor graduates and a decrease of 6.3 percentage points in the share of female Master

graduates.

The field of science at UPC with the lowest proportion of female Bachelor graduates was computer

and information sciences. However, the very low proportion of female Bachelor graduates in 2016

(9.3%) increased to 10.3% in 2020. The proportion of female Master graduates in this field increased

from 6.7% in 2016 to 21.6% in 2020. At 16.0% in 2016 and 15.2% in 2020, the proportion of female

Bachelor graduates was also very low in the field of electrical engineering, electronic engineering,

information engineering. The proportion of female Master graduates in this field rose by 1.9% between

2016 and 2020.

Women are strongly represented in the field of physical sciences: In 2016, 84.2% of Bachelor graduates

in this field were female, and in 2020 the female share was 70.1%. In contrast to this drop in the

proportion of women among physical science Bachelor graduates, the share of female Master

graduates rose from 80.0% in 2016 to 88.9% in 2020. Women were also well represented in the field

of medical engineering, with a share of 67.5% among Bachelor graduates in 2020. The gender balance

among graduates in the field of materials engineering was also strong: In 2020, 54.5% of Bachelor

graduates and 45% of Master graduates were women.

Comparing the data on the gender balance among Bachelor and Master graduates at UPC with the

national-level data for Spain, some similarities and differences can be identified.

Similarly to UPC, women were strongly underrepresented among bachelor graduates in the field of

computer and information sciences in Spain overall, with a share of 15.8% in 2016 and 12.3% in 2018.25

The situation was quite different for Master graduates in this field, where the proportion of female

graduates in Spain increased from 18.6% in 2016 to 40.8% in 2018. As described above, the proportion

of women among Bachelor and Master graduates in the field of physical sciences at UPC is very high:

In 2020, 70.1% of Bachelor graduates and 88.9% of Master graduates were women. UPC thus differs

significantly from the national average in the field of physical sciences, which amounted to 25% for

Bachelor graduates and 28.7% for Master graduates in 2018.

Looking at the individual fields of science in a national comparison, the monitoring data show that UPC

has a more gender-equal balance among Bachelor and Master graduates in some fields and a less

gender-equal one in others. Overall, however, the ratio of women to men among Bachelor graduates

(female share of 55.6%) and Master graduates (female share of 54.7%) was more balanced at STEM

universities in Spain overall than at UPC in 2018: The female share among Bachelor graduates of STEM

universities in Spain overall in 2018 was 55.6%, in contrast to 27.2% at UPC; the female share of Master

graduates of STEM universities in Spain overall in 2018 was 54.7% compared with 31.6% at UPC.

UPC – GENDER BALANCE AMONG PHD STUDENTS AND PHD GRADUATES

Overall, the female share among PhD students at UPC increased from 29.3% in 201726 to 30.8% in 2020.

Among PhD graduates, however, the proportion of women decreased from 33.7% in 2017 to 28.2% in

2019.

Regarding the gender balance among PhD students at UPC, the field of physical sciences stands out

with a female share of 18.3% in 2017, which increased to 38.9% by 2020. The opposite trend was

observed in the field of chemical sciences. Whereas female PhD students were very strongly

25 National data were not available for 2020. 26 Monitoring data were not available for 2016.



represented in this field in 2017 (50.0%), their share declined significantly by 2020, to 38.9%. The

lowest proportion of female PhD students was observed in the field of computer and information

sciences. Between 2017 and 2020, it decreased further from 19.4% to 15.3%.

In national comparison, the ratio of women to men among PhD students was more balanced at STEM

universities in Spain overall than at UPC in 2018.27 Thirty percent of PhD students at UPC and 41.3% of

PhD students at STEM universities in Spain overall were female in 2018. However, there are also some

similarities concerning the gender balance among PhD students at national and institutional level, and

there are fields of science in which the share of female PhD students was higher at UPC than at national

level. For example, in the field of chemical engineering, the share of female PhD students was 51% at

STEM universities in Spain overall and 46.8% at UPC in 2018. Both at national and institutional level,

the two fields of science with the lowest share of PhD students were electrical engineering, electronic

engineering, information engineering (14.8% at UPC, 11.9% at STEM universities in Spain overall) and

mechanical engineering (15.9% at UPC, 5.3% at STEM universities in Spain overall).

The monitoring data on the gender balance among PhD graduates demonstrate that the proportion of

female PhD graduates in the field of physical sciences increased from 18.8% in 2017 to 33.3% in 2019.

The lowest proportion of female PhD graduates was in the field of mechanical engineering in 2019. In

2017, 14.8% of PhD graduates in this field were female; in 2019, the proportion of women was only

7.3%. A positive development in the gender balance among PhD graduates at UPC took place in the

field of medical engineering. Whereas in 2017, 40% of PhD graduates in this field were female, this

share had increased to 50% by 2020.

Due to the lack of national data, a comparison of the ratio of women to men among PhD graduates of

UPC and of STEM universities in Spain overall is not possible.

UPC – ACADEMIC STAFF BY FORM OF EMPLOYMENT

Overall, 62.2% of academic staff at UPC were employed in tenured positions and 37.8% in fixed-term

positions in 2016. By 2020, a trend toward more fixed-term positions could be observed, with 47.5%

of academic staff being employed in a fixed-term position. However, the monitoring data do not show

that women were generally more likely to hold fixed-term positions than tenured positions. In 2016,

38.07% of the 654 female academic staff members at UPC were employed in fixed-term positions

compared with 37.6% of the 1,995 male academic staff. By 2020, the share of both women (49.18%)

and men (46.9%) working in fixed-term positions had increased. Thus, although women are

underrepresented among academic staff of UPC, they are equally represented in the different forms

of employment and are not more likely to hold a fixed-term position than men.

To sum up the results of the monitoring data, gender imbalances at the different career levels,

particularly at the highest level (grade A), continue to be an issue at UPC. However, the share of women

full professors increased significantly by two percentage points between 2016 and 2020. Women’s

share among full professors increased even further in 2021, to 13.4%. This tremendous increase is also

reflected in the Glass Ceiling Index for UPC, which decreased from 2.87 in 2016 to 2.49 in 2020. Thus,

UPC has made good progress toward contextualizing barriers to women’s academic careers, and, with

the return-to-research scheme and the gender coefficient, it has implemented effective measures in

this regard. The objective to promote UPC’s courses in secondary schools in order to increase the share

27 National data on PhD students were not available for 2020.



of female students also seems to have had a beneficial effect over the four years under review: The

share of female first-semester Bachelor students increased from 24.1% in 2016 to 27.0% in 2020. These

outcomes are also in line with the outcomes expected in the logic model analysis conducted within the

framework of the baseline evaluation.

No quantitative indicators were available for measuring the outcomes of the remaining objectives in

the thematic area “recruitment and career development of female researchers and staff members”

outlined above. For example, no indicators were available on the work–life balance of UPC members,

or on safeguards to prevent sexual harassment. However, the next section presents survey results on

changes in the acceptance of sexual harassment of women at UPC.

23.3.2 UPC – INDICATOR ON PERCEPTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

To evaluate the perception of sexual harassment, the GESIS evaluation team drew on data collected

within the framework of the GEECCO Evaluation Survey. To measure the attitudes toward and the

perception of male sexual harassment of women among staff members at UPC, the Illinois Sexual

Harassment Myth Acceptance (ISHMA) Scale (Lonsway et al., 2008) was administered in Evaluation

Survey Waves (ESW) I and II. As outlined in Section 16.2 above, the ISHMA scale measures the

acceptance of sexual harassment mythology. Respondents were asked to rate each item on a 7-point

Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The comparative analysis of the

scale scores shows a low and stable level of acceptance of the sexual harassment of women at UPC,

with a total mean score of 2.1 in ESW I (2018) and ESW II (2020). However, there were gender

differences in the mean scores on ISHMA in ESW I and ESW II, with male respondents (2018: M = 2.6;

SD = .07; 2020: M = 2.4, SD = .21) demonstrating a significantly higher acceptance of sexual harassment

of women than female respondents (2018: M = 1.8, SD = .03; 2020: M = 1.9, SD = .09).28

In ESW I (2018), these gender differences also remained significant when the male and female

respondents were disaggregated by target group,29 with the highest acceptance of sexual harassment

being observed among male students (M = 2.7, SD = .07). However, in 2020, only the differences in the

acceptance of sexual harassment between male employees (M = 2.4, SD = .26) and female employees

(M = 1.7, SD = .08) were significant,30 and the mean score of male students fell to 2.3. This indicates

that the gender differences among male and female employees are more persistent. Thus, not only

the prevailing gender differences in the perception and acceptance of sexual harassment should be

considered when developing future activities, but also the target groups.

Although the gender differences in the perception of sexual harassment prevail, a decrease in the level

of acceptance among men, especially among male students, can be observed in 2020. This suggests

that the perception of sexual harassment among men had changed, and that they rejected myths on

sexual harassment more strongly in 2020 than in 2018. This finding may be indicative of the fact that

the gender equality work conducted during the GEECCO project period has led to increased awareness

among men at UPC.

28 Gender differences: ESW I, 2018: ISHMA, t(1,104) = 120.36, p < .001; ESW II, 2020: ISHMA, t(102) = 5.22, p < .05. 29ESW I, 2018, ISHMA, male students: M = 2.7, SD = .07; female students: M = 1.8, SD = .04, t(1,464) = 136.34, p < .001; male employees: M = 2.5, SD = .10; female employees: M = 1.9, SD = .05; t(2,083) = 24.90 , p < .001; 30ESW II, 2020: ISHMA, male students: M = 2.3, SD = .23; female students: M = 2.0 SD = .15; t(153) = 1.78 , p > .05; male employees:

M = 2.4, SD = .26; female employees: M = 1.7, SD = .08, t(162) = 6.25, p < .05.



Table 4. Illinois Sexual Harassment Myth Acceptance Scale, Mean Scores of the Five Items With the Strongest Agreement, by Total Respondents, Male Respondents (m) and Female Respondents (f), UPC, 2018 and 2020

Taking a closer look at the different dimensions of the ISHMA Scale, a clear pattern emerges that

provides useful insights for developing future activities (see Table 4). In 2018 and 2020, the items with

the highest acceptance belonged to two of the four dimensions of ISHMA: ulterior motives and

woman’s responsibility. The ISHMA dimension “ulterior motives” includes items suggesting that

women have ulterior motives for filing sexual harassment claims, such as extorting money from their

employer. Items of the “woman’s responsibility” dimension include beliefs suggesting that the

responsibility for preventing sexual harassment rests with the women being victimized, and that it is

their own fault for not discouraging men’s advances (Lonsway et al., 2008). This means that the existing

acceptance of sexual harassment at UPC continues to be rooted in the beliefs that women have

concealed motives for claiming sexual harassment had taken place, and that it is the women’s own

responsibility to protect themselves from being sexually harassed.

To sum up, the results of the GEECCO Evaluation Survey Waves I and II show a positive trend toward

less acceptance of sexual harassment among men in 2020 compared with 2018. The results on the

individual ISHMA dimensions also provide a better understanding of two persistent beliefs about

sexual harassment that need to be addressed through further educational work and awareness-raising

measures at UPC in the future.

More detailed information on the GEECCO Evaluation Survey Waves I and II, as well as on the scale

used to measure perceptions of sexual harassment can be found in Section 16.2.

ISHMA

Dimension Item ESW I (2018) ESW II (2020)

Mean

(total

)

Mean

(m)

Mean

(f)

Mean

(total

)

Mean

(m)

Mean

(f)

Woman’s

Responsibility


sexual attention from a co-worker

by telling their supervisor about it.

3.3 3.9 2.8 3.0 3.5 2.7

Woman’s

Responsibility


sexual attention by simply telling the

man that his behavior is not

appreciated.

2.8 3.5 2.4 2.6 3.0 2.4

Ulterior Motives A woman can easily ruin her

supervisor’s career by claiming that

he “came on” to her.

4.0 4.7 3.5 4.0 4.6 3.4

Ulterior Motives Women who are caught having an

affair with their supervisor

sometimes claim that it was sexual

harassment.

3.0 3.5 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.0

Ulterior Motives Sometimes women make up

allegations of sexual harassment to

extort money from their employer.

2.6 3.3 2.2 2.6 2.9 2.3

Note. 2018: N = 2,411 (1,192 women, 1,219 men); 2020: N = 213 (105 women, 108 men). ISHMA: 7-point Likert scale ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Source: GEECCO Evaluation Survey Wave (ESW) I (2018) and GEECCO Evaluation Survey Wave (ESW) II (2020), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC).



23.4 UPC – GENDER DIMENSION IN RESEARCH AND TEACHING

In the thematic area “gender dimension in research and teaching,” the main aims were to increase

research on gender issues and to facilitate the mainstreaming of the gender perspective in all research

projects. Activities to achieve these aims included mainly trainings and workshops on gender and

research, as well as the dissemination of information material on how to include gender in research

and the implementation of an exhibition on the topic.

No quantitative indicators are available concerning the outcomes of the aforementioned activities.

Nonetheless, as pointed out in the logic model analysis conducted within the framework of the

baseline evaluation, providing trainings and information material on how to include the gender

perspective in STEM research represents a good first step. The GESIS evaluation team encourages the

inclusion of further activities in this regard in UPC’s fourth gender equality plan.

Originally, UPC’s gender equality plan focused only on the gender dimension in research, not in

teaching. However, due to UPC’s participation in the GEECCO project, a pilot program aimed at

providing a good practice guideline for including the gender dimension in teaching started at the

university at the beginning of 2019. Ultimately, this led to the planned activity to offer permanent

trainings for academic staff once a year, the definition of a new competence in gender to be included

in all Bachelor and Master degrees, and the appointment of a coordinator to oversee the further

inclusion of the gender dimension in teaching at UPC (GEP 3.0, D8.4). There are no quantitative

indicators available in the monitoring data or survey data to evaluate the outcomes of this pilot

program, but the GESIS evaluation team see it as a promising development for including the gender

dimension in teaching, and consider that it has the potential to achieve long-term institutional impacts.

Overall, it will be essential to provide sufficient institutional financial and staff resources beyond the

GEECCO project period in order to ensure sustainable change toward a stronger inclusion of the gender

dimension in research and teaching at UPC.

23.5 UPC – COMMUNICATION, MONITORING AND SUSTAINABILITY

The activities of the cross-cutting thematic area “communication, monitoring and sustainability”

outlined in UPC’s GEP are aimed at communicating cultural change, monitoring and measuring the

GEP’s impact, and ensuring equality of opportunities at UPC in the long term. The planned measures

include institutional communication actions and external social awareness initiatives, as well as

mechanisms for monitoring the GEP’s impact, and learning loops for the development of the

subsequent gender equality plans ensured by the UPC Equality Unit.

To evaluate the outcome of the implemented awareness-raising measures, the GESIS evaluation team

drew on the results on changes in attitudes on sexism among UPC members measured within the

framework of the GEECCO Evaluation Survey Waves (ESW) I and II.

The Modern Sexism scale (Swim et al. 1995; Swim and Cohen 1997) was administered in ESW I and

ESW II. As outlined in Section 16.2 above, the items of the scale were rated by respondents on a 5-

point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The results point to the

presence of a low level of subtle sexism among UPC members, with a total mean score of 2.1 in 2018

and 2.2 in 2020. The concept of subtle or covert sexism describes covert forms of sexism – such as

denial of continued discrimination, or resentment toward policies and practices aiming at reducing



structural gender inequalities – that are either hidden or unnoticed because they are built into cultural

and social norms.

Despite the low overall level of subtle sexism at UPC, there were significant gender differences in 2018,

with male respondents showing stronger sexist attitudes (M = 2.4, SD = .03) than females (M = 1.9, SD

= .02).31 This gender difference in sexist attitudes remained stable in the 2020 survey results, with

mean scores of 2.4 for men and 2.0 for women.32

In ESW I (2018) and ESW II (2020), there were also significant differences between the sexist attitudes

of male employees and female employees and between the sexist attitudes of male students and

female students.33 Taking a look at differences between the two target groups in total, one can identify

significant differences in the level of sexist attitudes between employees (M = 2.2, SD = .04) and

students (M = 2.0, SD = .02) in 201834 but not in 2020.35 This indicates that the differences in sexist

attitudes between target groups are less persistent than the differences in sexist attitudes between

genders.

Overall, the survey data show no significant change in the attitudes toward sexism at UPC over the two

years from 2018 to 2020. In ESW I (2018) and ESW II (2020), the strongest agreement was received by

items of the Modern Sexism scale describing the denial of continued discrimination, for example:

“Society has reached the point where women and men have equal opportunities for achievement.”

This suggests that, at UPC, inequalities are attributed more to individualistic causes than to

discrimination or prejudice against women. For this reason, in order to tackle the gender differences

in subtle sexism in the UPC community, future gender equality activities could include awareness-

raising measures addressing issues of structural discrimination.

No quantitative indicators are available concerning the objectives in this thematic area addressing the

internal monitoring mechanisms of UPC’s GEP and the sustainability of implemented activities.

However, the GESIS evaluation team sees a promising development toward sustainability in the

planned institutionalization of the pilot program to increase the inclusion of the gender dimension in

teaching. Finally, the process for developing UPC’s next gender equality plan includes the analysis of

the previous plan (i.e., the third UPC gender equality plan), and time has been allotted for the

development of the next gender equality plan (i.e., the fourth UPC gender equality plan). Both aspects

are essential to identify problems or inconsistencies in the previous gender equality plan and to be

able to establish measures to improve the implementation of the next plan.

31: ESW I, 2018: Modern Sexism, gender differences, t(1,906) = 188.24, p < .001. 32 ESW II, 2020: Modern Sexism, gender differences, t(167) = 8.14, p < .05. 33 ESW I, 2018, Modern Sexism, male employees: M = 2.3, SD = .05, female employees: M = 2.0, SD = .03, t(2,285) = 26.41, p < .001;

male students: M = 2.5 , SD = .04, female students: M = 1.8 , SD = .03; t(2064) = 208.73, p < .001.

ESW II, 2020: Modern Sexism, male employees: M = 2.4, SD = .13, female employees: M = 2.0, SD = .07, t(194) = 5.42, p < .05; male

students: M = 2.6, SD = .17, female students: M = 2.0 , SD = .14; t(186) = 6.81, p < .05. 34 ESW I, 2018, Modern Sexism, target groups, t(1,933) = 21.13, p < .001. 35 ESW II, 2020, Modern Sexism, target groups, employees: M = 2.3, SD = .10; students: M = 2.1, SD = -11, t(168) = 0.82, p > .05.



24 UPC – KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

24.1 UPC – DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND BODIES

The evaluation of UPC’s monitoring data shows that the representation of women in decision-making

bodies at the university was relatively stable, with a slight downward drift during the four-year period

under review. By 2020, the data show a trend toward fewer women in UPC vice-rector positions, and

a positive trend toward a more gender-balanced representation at school/faculty level. Overall,

women continue to be chronically underrepresented in decision-making bodies at UPC, and further

gender equality actions need to be implemented in the future to foster gender balance in decision-

making bodies and processes at the university.

The UPC management, including the vice-rector for equality, relied on initiatives and extra hours

worked by employees and students to implement specific gender equality actions. In addition to

measures in the field of decision-making, the external EU project funding was used to lay foundations

for developing future gender equality measures at UPC on the basis of organizational evidence.

During the interim evaluation of the GEECCO GEP, the GESIS evaluation team recommended an

evidence-based approach to policy and action planning as a useful complement to the bottom-up

initiatives. The Equality Unit at UPC fostered the implementation of this approach in an excellent way

in the form of a data observatory for gender equality. The design of UPC’s fourth institutional equality

plan will benefit from this.

Overall, the GEECCO project and its financial structure contributed to the UPC management’s

commitment to and accountability for gender equality. The GEECCO GEP created an added value to

the university’s existing gender equality policy. Moreover, UPC stepped up its efforts to institutionalize

the position of a vice-rector for equality and to budget for actions to fulfill the institution’s legal

obligations and objectives in this field. Implementing institutional actions should be recognized as an

important service to the university and be rewarded as such.

24.2 UPC – RECRUITMENT, CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF FEMALE RESEARCHERS AND FEMALE STAFF

The data presented in Chapter 4 indicate clear gender imbalances favoring men over women in the

stages of educational achievements and at all academic status levels at UPC. While the representation

of female Bachelor graduates remained stable over the four years under review, the share of women

among Master and PhD graduates dropped by 6.3% and 5.5%, respectively, between 2016 and 2020.

Overall, the monitoring data show this chronic underrepresentation of women in all fields of science

at UPC: the higher the seniority grade, the lower the proportion of women. In most fields of science at

UPC, women were already underrepresented in the lower seniority grades. However, this inequality

increased enormously at the highest seniority level, grade A. Barriers to women reaching a grade A

position at UPC have been counteracted by a specific measure – namely, the coefficient to weight

individual achievements, which has resulted in the present upward boost of about 1% per annum in

the share of newly appointed grade A women professors. As the overall representation of women in

grade A professorships in STEM is significantly lower than the national average of Spanish universities,

UPC is catching up at a moderate pace. The institutional Glass Ceiling Index decreased during the

GEECCO GEP implementation period from 2.87 in 2016 to 2.49 in 2020, which is good but still

improvable progress.

In order to identify changes in attitudes toward sexual misconduct among UPC staff and students, the

GESIS evaluation team relied on measuring the acceptance of sexual harassment. A comparison of the

data from two Evaluation Survey waves (one conducted at the beginning and one after the



intervention) shows stable but significant differences in the acceptance of sexual harassment myths,

indicating that men are more likely to accept myths about sexual harassment than women. The

misconceptions about the reasons and responsibility for sexual misconduct should be actively

addressed through further educational work and awareness-raising measures.

24.3 UPC – GENDER DIMENSION IN RESEARCH AND TEACHING

Prior to UPC’s participation in the GEECCO project, this topical area of the gender equality plan focused

only on the inclusion of the gender dimension in research, not in teaching. However, due to its

participation in the project, a pilot program aimed at providing a good practice guideline for including

the gender dimension in teaching started at UPC at the beginning of 2019. This ultimately led to the

planned offering of permanent trainings for academic staff once a year, the definition of a new

competence in gender to be included in all Bachelor and Master degrees, and the appointment of a

coordinator to oversee the further inclusion of the gender dimension in teaching at UPC. Overall, and

also taking into account the latest policy framework that requires gender knowledge to be considered

in the education of students in higher education in Catalonia, the steps chosen by UPC fit well with

objectives in this thematic area. The coordinated approach can be expected to have sustainable

effects, provided that those responsible for the study programs are consistently involved.

Overall, it will be essential to provide sufficient institutional financial and staff resources beyond the

GEECCO GEP period in order to ensure sustainable change toward increasing excellence in both

research and teaching by taking the gender dimension into account.

24.4 UPC – COMMUNICATION, MONITORING AND SUSTAINABILITY

Except for the above-mentioned data observatory for gender equality, the thematic area of

communication, monitoring and sustainability really took shape only in the second half of the GEECCO

GEP implementation at UPC, that is, in 2020. A time series comparison based on monitoring data is not

possible, because only one data point (from 2020) is available.

Nevertheless, the Evaluation Survey data helped us to assess how awareness of gender inequalities

changed over the two years from 2018 to 2020. The Modern Sexism scale administered in both survey

waves measures subtle forms of sexism, such as denial of continued discrimination, resentment

toward policies and practices aiming at reducing structural gender inequalities, and antagonism

toward women’s demands. As in the case of the scale measuring attitudes toward sexual harassment,

male respondents tended to deny the existence of discrimination to a much higher degree than

women. Unfortunately, the survey data did not show significant changes for the better in this

perception between 2018 and 2020.

Regarding the desired sustainability, including the strategic planning of gender equality activities, the

GESIS evaluation team sees promising developments toward sustainability in the institutionalization

of the pilot program to increase the inclusion of the gender dimension in teaching and in the process

for developing the next gender equality plan. This process includes an analysis of the previous plan and

actions, as well as a specific timeline for the development of the next plan. Both aspects are essential

to identify problems or inconsistencies in the previous plan and to be able to establish measures to

improve the implementation of the next plan. Overall, it is inspiring to see how much UPC has

benefited from its participation in GEECCO, and to recognize that the initiated measures have

established organizational capacity for change.



25 UPC – REFERENCES





http//www.jstor.org/stable/2235722

Donaldson, S. I., Christie, C. A., & Mark, M. M. (Eds.). (2009). What counts as credible evidence in applied

research and evaluation practice? Sage.

European Commission. (2019). She figures 2018: Gender in research and innovation. Publications Office of the

European Union. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9540ffa1-4478-11e9-

a8ed-01aa75ed71a1/language-en https://doi.org/10.2777/936


von Kontexteffekten in der Schule. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 64(1), 123–153.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-012-0158-5

Lonsway, K. A., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Sexual harassment mythology: Definition,

conceptualization, and measurement. Sex Roles, 58(9-10), 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-

9367-1

Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2015). Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social

Research (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107587991



en.htm


K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (pp. 98–125). Jossey-Bass.



Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-Fashioned and modern

prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199–214.

Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the Attitudes

Toward Women and Modern Sexism Scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 103–118.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00103.x


oder Datenfriedhof? In A. Wroblewski, U. Kelle, & F. Reith (Eds.), Gleichstellung messbar machen:

Grundlagen und Anwendungen von Gender- und Gleichstellungsindikatoren (pp. 171–189). Springer VS.



26 CO-CREATION OF A MONITORING TOOL FOR RFOS – THE LOG JOURNAL

The cooperation of the evaluation partner GESIS and the two RFO partners of GEECCO, TACR and

WWTF envisaged an evaluation of the gender equality plans of the RFOS, but had to be adapted to the

reality of actual planning of implementing gender equality activities of the two RFO partners at the

onset of the project. During the project’s kick-off meeting the timing and details of the course of action

planned by the RFO partners was presented. The two key reasons for focusing on establishing a

monitoring tool for the RFO gender equality actions and not performing an external evaluation of the

RFO gender equality activities as part of the external evaluation and monitoring actions of WP10 were

firstly, the absence of a conceptual frame for selecting and implementing relevant gender equality

actions in the RFOs, including preparatory groundwork of data collections, as well as a written

document which formulated strategic goals and specific steps how to achieve the goals was missing in

the two RFOs. Therefore, the approach to advance gender equality taken by the RFOs, which was

appropriate to their contexts, did not correspond to the basic preconditions of evaluability of social

interventions over until the end of the second year into the project.

The mandatory requirements for a gender equality plan (GEP), set forth by the European

Commission[1], such as the GEP being a “formal document” signed by the institutions top management,

“set clear goals and detailed actions and measures to achieve them”, “GEPs must be evidence-based

and founded on sex or gender-disaggregated baseline data collected” - seem to be of a formal nature,

but at the same time they represent the preconditions to the evaluation of GEPs, known as

‘evaluability’ in evaluation research. The baseline evidence for planning gender actions and for the

evaluation was absent and thus performing a systematic assessment was not feasible in terms of

readiness for evaluation (UN Women 2015; Stufflebeam et al. 2000). In addition to this, further

characteristics of the two RFOs justified focusing the cooperation between WP10 and WP7 on

‘monitoring’ instead of focusing on evaluation.

Secondly, the two RFOs have established evaluation and quality assurance mechanisms for their

funding programmes in place that are fully adequate given the respective sizes of the organizations. In

the case of WWTF, the organization itself is very small, it has less than 10 employees and the overall

number of funded projects is also relatively small, e.g. 8 projects funded per year. The overall small

numbers presented here do not allow for a reliable and meaningful evaluation of impacts, e.g. based

on pre-post comparison. In this case, developing several effective measures instead of a full gender

equality plan for advancing institutional changes must be acknowledged as reasonable approach.

In contrast, TACR is one of the main public funders of the Czech Republic administering several

thousands of proposals every year. TACR pays great attention to the fulfilment of its funding

programmes´ aims and the impacts of the design of its funding instruments on researchers. Both

internal and external monitoring mechanisms are used for this purpose. In addition, the first funding

programme in 2017, in which TACR had implemented the changes to advance gender equality (ZÉTA),

underwent the process of an external evaluation in 2020/2021 which is ensured by TACR for all

programmes.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/democracy-and-citizens-rights/gender-equality-research-and-innovation_en (last checked on 8 July 2021)

https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/democracy-and-citizens-rights/gender-equality-research-and-innovation_en

https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/democracy-and-citizens-rights/gender-equality-research-and-innovation_en



With that in mind, GESIS and RFO partners entered into dialogue in order to achieve what was outlined

in the GEECCO project ambition as part of Impact 1 to create an “elaborated system of monitoring”

and to establish a monitoring tool that was adequate to the different sizes, approaches, and

established systems in the two organizations as well as being useful for monitoring and steering of

various gender equality actions which targeted the institution itself or specific phases of the funding

cycle. The result of the productive collaboration between TACR, WWTF and GESIS respectively the co-

created RFO Log-Journal, is presented in the GEECCO Evaluation and Monitoring tutorial for RFOs. It is

publicly available and can be downloaded here. Geecco : Evaluation & Monitoring Tutorials (geecco-

project.eu)

http://www.geecco-project.eu/resources_results/evaluation_monitoring_tutorials/

http://www.geecco-project.eu/resources_results/evaluation_monitoring_tutorials/



27 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Portfolio of Planned Gender Equality Activities, PK, 2018 and 2020 ..................................................... 19

Figure 2. Proportion of Women and Men in Decision-Making Bodies and Positions Over Time, PK, 2016 – 2020

.............................................................................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 3. Proportion of Women and Men at Different Undergraduate, Graduate, and Career Levels, PK, 2016 and

2020 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 4. Portfolio of Planned Gender Equality Activities, TUW, 2018 and 2020 ................................................. 43

Figure 5. Proportion of Women and Men in Decision-Making Bodies and Positions Over Time, TUW, 2016 and

2020 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 6. Proportion of Women and Men at Different Undergraduate, Graduate, and Career Levels, TUW, 2016

and 2020 ............................................................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 7. Portfolio of Planned Gender Equality Activities, UNIRC, 2018 and 2020 ............................................... 66

Figure 8. Absolute Proportion of Women and Men in Decision-Making Bodies and Positions Over Time, UNIRC,

2016 and 2020 ...................................................................................................................................................... 67

Figure 9. Proportion of Women and Men at Different Undergraduate, Graduate, and Career Levels, UNIRC, 2016

and 2020 ............................................................................................................................................................... 69

Figure 10. Portfolio of Planned Gender Equality Activities, UPC, 2018 and 2020 ................................................ 89

Figure 11. Proportion of Women and Men in Decision-Making Bodies and Positions at Central and Rectorate Level

Over Time, UPC, 2016–2020 ................................................................................................................................. 91

Figure 12. Proportion of Women and Men in Decision-Making Bodies and Positions at School/Faculty and

Department/Institute Level Over Time, UPC, 2016–2020 .................................................................................... 92

Figure 13. Proportion of Women and Men at Different Undergraduate, Graduate, and Career Levels, UPC, 2016

and 2020 ............................................................................................................................................................... 94

28 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Experiences With Gender Bias: Relative Frequency of the Five Forms of Gender Bias Most Regularly

Experienced by Female Students, From Male Supervisors and Male Peers, PK, 2018 and 2020 ......................... 24

Table 2. Illinois Sexual Harassment Myth Acceptance Scale, Mean Scores of the Five Items With the Strongest

Agreement, by Total Employees (total), Male Employees (m), and Female Employees (f), PK, 2018 and 2020 .. 26

Table 3. Experiences With Gender Bias: Relative Frequency of the Five Forms of Gender Bias Most Regularly

Experienced by Female Students, From Male Supervisors and Male Peers, UNIRC, 2020 ................................... 76

Table 4. Illinois Sexual Harassment Myth Acceptance Scale, Mean Scores of the Five Items With the Strongest

Agreement, by Total Respondents, Male Respondents (m) and Female Respondents (f), UPC, 2018 and 2020 101

gender equality in engineering through …

Documents