quality assurance mechanisms for gender training in the … · importance if gender mainstreaming...

Quality assurance mechanisms for gender

training in the European Union

http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/web-discussions/quality-assurance-mechanisms-gender-

training-european-union

Starts at: 18/09/2013, 08:00 CEST (+02:00)

Ends at: 19/09/2013, 18:30 CEST (+02:00)

Welcome to this online discussion!

Gender competence of public administrators and policy makers is of paramount importance if gender mainstreaming is to work. Assuring quality of the competence development processes therefore deserves specific attention and will be at the core of this online discussion.

On day one we invite you to share your views on the needs for quality assurance mechanisms in Europe. Do you know any examples of systems that have worked or those that haven’t?

On day two we will turn our focus to discussing ways to improve quality of gender competence development in Europe. What do you think are the options? Is certification a real option?

This event will take place on 18-19 September 2013. Each day we will begin at 09.00 (Central European Time) and we will aim to close at 18.30 (Central European Time).

Check out the 2012' s online discussion report

If you encounter any problems using the platform, contact EuroGender Administrator at [email protected]

If you want to tweet about discussion, use #QAMGT

Facilitators: Katarzyna Pabijanek, Jenny Birchall, Hazel Reeves

http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/web-discussions/quality-assurance-mechanisms-gender-training-european-union


http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/documents/reflections-online-discussion-gender-training-eu

mailto:[email protected]

1. Jenny Birchall | 18/09/2013, 10:09 EEST (+03:00)

Dear all

Welcome to the first day of this online discussion on gender training in the European

Union. I’m Jenny Birchall and I’ll be moderating our discussion over the next two days

along with my colleague, Hazel Reeves.

As you will have seen from the preparatory documents, we are going to be focusing on

improving gender training through quality assurance mechanisms. This was one of the

main emerging points in the online discussion held in September last year, in which many

of you took part. Participants expressed the need for quality assurance, standardisation of

gender training programmes and accreditation systems that are flexible and adaptable for

audience needs, focus on outcomes more than content, and provide minimum standards

and general principles to follow. You can read the report of last year’s discussion here:

http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/documents/reflections-online-discussion-gender-

training-eu

What do we mean by gender training? In this context we are talking about an educational

tool employed by EU and Member State institutions in order to develop the gender

competence of actors involved in policy making at all levels. We’re very excited to

engage with you all on this topic and look forward to hearing about your experiences and

ideas.

The discussion will run until 6.30pm (Central European Time [CET]) today, and then

will continue between 9am and 6.30pm (CET) tomorrow. Today we’ll focus on why

quality assurance mechanisms are needed (9am-1pm CET), and what existing

mechanisms are in place at both EU member state and international level (1pm-6.30pm

CET). Tomorrow we’ll move on to thinking about the options for quality assurance, how

they might work on a practical level, and who could help to take them forward.

We understand that not all of you can join us for the whole two days. Some of you are in

different time zones and therefore won’t be online until 4pm (CET) each day. We look

forward to hearing from you then. We also look forward to hearing from our colleagues

at EIGE and at some point during the discussion, from some of the experts involved in

the work EIGE has been doing on gender training.

We hope that you have been able to register and log in to the platform successfully, but if

you encounter any problems using the platform, please don’t hesitate to contact the Euro

Gender Administrator at [email protected]

In a moment we’ll introduce the first discussion question. Many thanks in advance for

your participation!

Jenny and Hazel



mailto:[email protected]


As promised, here is the first question that we’d like to discuss with you today:

Why is there a need to introduce quality assurance mechanisms (of which one form is

certification) in gender training?

When thinking about this question, it may be useful for us to hear about:

• Is the idea of standardisation of gender training relevant in your country or

context?

• What is the problem that certification mechanisms would seek to address?

• Who or what should be ‘standardised’? For example gender trainers, gender

training courses, gender training organisations?

• Do you think standardisation or quality assurance could increase the provision of

gender training?

Of course these are only guiding suggestions. We look forward to hearing your ideas. Just

hit the ‘comment’ button and tell us what you think.

Jenny and Hazel

3. priya alvarez | 18/09/2013, 10:35 EEST (+03:00)

Morning here in Vilnius,

m name is priya alvarez. I am delighted to be in such good company. Bridge was for year

the information broker on gender issues for me and my colleagues working in the field.

thanks for this interesting discussion. there have been so many years of gender training

out there and still a long way to go. I am a firm believer in accountability mechanisms. If

well implemented, they help us work better. Organizations could then monitor not only

the quality of training but also learn about requirements and conditions under which

training works better.

Perhaps first we need to make training mandatory when it matters. Training is a fabulous

method to raise awareness and recondition people into new avenues of action and

perception. But very few people are exposed to (good) training. In all organizations there

are people with disparate levels of influence, and gender training needs to be targeted

also to those at the top.

The issue I would like to discuss is related to something I am working on. At present, my

work is focused on analysing current strategies for gender equality and, in particular,

gender mainstreaming. It seems that as a strategy it has made a disservice to gender

equality by depoliticizing (gender mainstreaming is seen as a technicality) and

dismantling (because mainstreaming is everybody's business (and thus nobody's)) some

of the strengths of former approaches based on specific actions to advance women's

rights and undermine power existing power arrangements. However, gender

mainstreaming offers potential to increase the reach of gender equality policies, involve

other non-traditional actors in policy making and policy implementation, and widening

the possibilities to introduce policy changes across sectors.

Some authors find gender mainstreaming as a strategy conducive to irrelevance. It has

lost the transformative edge of gender equality policies because staff and organization

culture remains gendered, stereotyped and subject to the patriarchal dynamics and values

(so many times we revered male professionals and give them limelight as "the expert" or

"the facilitator" or "the trainer" even in the field of gender equality--much to the shame

for many of us).

It is in this light that I would like to see quality assurance of gender equality training. As

a method for gender equality, it should lead to change in perceptions and attitudes, and

finally behaviors and actions. Can we measure that? Isnt this one of the main

requirements than a gender equality training should be asked for?

Otherwise, I keep thinking, we may be lured to again another hyper technical tool, full of

facts and figures, perfectly tailored to the specific field, technically perfect and targeted

to teach new skills. But other than skills, we need to "reprogram" people to perceive

reality with different eyes, to raise their awareness over the multiple manipulations of

"the System" as it is deployed now, with its intricate codes of power, prestige, and

success.

Perhaps it is a "back to the basics" reminder....

4. Despina Charalambidou-Solomi | 18/09/2013, 10:39 EEST (+03:00)

Good morning. My name is Despina Solomi from Cyprus.Personally, I belive that in

countries like Cyprus standardisation of G.training is relevant as there is no official body

or centre for it.

I believe gender trainers and gender training organisations should be standirdised as

courses and methoddologies need to bbe tailored to the needs of the participants.

Standirdisation or quality assurannce of g . training will both increase and enhance it.


i agree that traning should become mandatory for certain categories of employees

especially those involved in G. mainstreaming policies and strategies. Accountability and

feedback will follow and this will lead to the necessary changes in each member state.

6. Add Gender AB | 18/09/2013, 10:47 EEST (+03:00)

Good morning!

My name is Jenny Claesson and I work at Add Gender in Sweden.

I believe that one soultion could be to help companies and municipalities to know what to

ask for. Some sort of demands on what to expect from a gender equality consultant would

be more helpful than to give the consultants certification.

Thoughts?

7. The Centre for Gender Equality - Iceland | 18/09/2013, 10:50 EEST (+03:00)

Hello, Tryggvi Hallgrímsson – Iceland.

Why is there a need to introduce quality assurance mechanisms?

Could we not say that if gender mainstreaming or any other work with gender equality is

mandatory – an obligation within public policy or any form of administration, that

standardization is very relevant.

Regarding what certification mechanisms would seek to address – I wonder if we

could/should take that question together with the question on what and how should be

“standardized” – and perhaps (and I might be getting ahead of myself) what do you see

thae role of EIGE in preparing guidelines for such standardization?


In Sweden gender mainstreaming is mandatory for state, county, municipality and a few

more, but the reality is that it is still not in place. Several years has passed. I am thinking:

how can we keep the motivation and "carrot" and still add some consequenses if you

don't follow the law?

My soultion is to work with the organization ordering gender equality services. Help

them make good choices and know what to ask for.

9. Veronika Šprincová | 18/09/2013, 11:01 EEST (+03:00)

Dear colleagues, many greetings from Prague!

My name is Veronika Šprincová and I'm lecturer and analyst in NGO Fórum 50 %.

Question of quality assurance is very relevant for us because there are no clear standards

in the Czech Republic.

There are some courses certified by Ministry of Internal Affairs, but these are tailored for

public administration only (and they aren't focused solely on gender issues) - but from

my point of view those who certify them are not experts on the subject therefore they are

able to asses only technical parameters of the courses, not the content.

At the same time in one call within EU funds (focused on human resources and labour

market, particularly on work-life balance) there is a condition to have gender expert in

the project team, but again, teher are no clear standards and therefore people with diverse

background work on this position. Therefore Czech gender NGOs and academic

instituitions are considering to establish gender experts/trainers association to supply the

role of the state in this area and to certify lecturers (experts). But of course it would be

great if there were some EU standards. I think EIGE would be the perfect body to set and

controll them.

In my point of view all the levels should be standardized/certified (and in this way it

works in the case of courses for public administration): organizations as well as particular

programmes. In the case of gender training I think it's relevant to certify also individiual

trainers because not all of them are associated with some institution (be it NGO or

academic department).

I believe some kind of standardization would help to increase the quality of provided

gender training or expertise. In my opinion for many professions gender perspective is

essential to be able to implement gender mainstreaming across various areas (be it formal

education, marketing or HR), therefore really good and quality training based on

expertise of the trainers is needed. But when the training is led by people who are

inexperienced in this area (which happens in some cases), there can be no useful

outcomes and effects of gender mainstreaming implementation (sometimes it can be even

counterproductive).

I hope I touched all the proposed questions and I'm looking forward to your opinions and

perspectives!

10. Karin Heisecke | 18/09/2013, 11:03 EEST (+03:00)

Good morning everyone, this is Karin from Berlin, Germany.

I find Priya's reflections on the need to go "back to basics" quite interesting.

I have also come across a more "basic" issue that I think would need to come before the

question of standardisation or quality assurance, namely the lack of evaluation of existing

gender trainings. If the commissioning institutions don't measure the outcomes (let alone

impact) of the gender training, it seems difficult to establish quality assurance

mechanisms. Often, the lack of funding for evaluation is mentioned as an obstacle. And I

guess this is related to a lack of political will to allocate funding for evaluation?! Is this

an issue in your countries too?

Karin

11. Roza Dimova | 18/09/2013, 11:03 EEST (+03:00)

Good morning. My name is Roza Dimova. I am working in the Center of Women's

Studies and Policies in Bulgaria and I am very curious to participate in that discussion on

quality assurance mehanisms for gender training in Europe, because I have already 8

years of experince as a gender trainer in our country and I observe that this question more

and more become important and need to be discussed at EU level.


My biggest issue with certification of the consultants is who will hand them out? Who

can get it?

In Sweden we have people that have been working with gender equality for so long that

Gender studies did not exist on the university. So do we need to force them back to

school or should education not be one of the criteria to get the certificate? How do you

measure knowledge?

I am also sceptical to involve money, since start up companies don't have a lot of money

it seems like a way to brake rather than help people make a career out of their knowledge

and skills in gender equality, diversity and such.

13. Mary Koutselini | 18/09/2013, 11:07 EEST (+03:00)

Hello, we are Panayiota Chrysochou and Floria Valanidou, representing the UNESCO

Chair in Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment of The University of Cyprus, and

we are here on behalf of the Chairholder Professor Mary Koutselini. We believe that

quality standards of gender training are required at both a national and EU level.

However, standardisation does not always lead to quality assurance. How do we even

define 'quality'? Based on which criteria? Standardisation does not entail quality

assurance, and even if quality is assured, this does not necessarily lead to effectiveness,

i.e. effective trainers, organisations and courses.


Veronika Šprincová I agree that some sort of standadisation would be good. It just needs

to be in a way that don't make it harder for equality companies to start up and grow.

Maybe make some rules about what should always be included? I'm thinking: analysis

(facts not guesses), set goals, make budget, whos responsible?, deadline.

That is still very adjustable and flexible.

And another question:

Who, in your opinion, should be giving out the certificates to consultants?


Mary Koutselini wrote:









I totally agree - standardization does not provide quality assurance – and that problem

comes back to funding and political will (were relevant). This poses the question – are

standards simply a way to assert “a minimum” level of competence – and if not do they

serve as counterproductive when they are in place but can not be implemented/applied

I











I agree! What are the better options?

17. Nicolaas Vlaeminck | 18/09/2013, 11:16 EEST (+03:00)

Nicolaas Vlaeminck from EIGE

Every training should be evaluated by looking at its value; every good trainer should even

so be evaluated. It's in a way measuring return on investment.

Gender Training, as a very needed ingredient for gender mainstreaming, is so important

that it can not be left without quality assurance, both for the trainer and the training. It's

not about control, it's about making sure we all look in the same direction, with the same

desire of making gender equality a reality. If we show how serious we can be about it,

then for sure only the ignorent will be left behind :-)

18. Katlijn Demuynck | 18/09/2013, 11:17 EEST (+03:00)

Hello, I'm Katlijn Demuynck from Genderatwork (Belgium) a consultancy firm

specialised in coaching, training & consulting on gender mainstreaming.

I'm all for quality criteria in themself: they would offer a tool to organisers of

gendertraining and help them verify the quality of the trainingmodules that are offered. I

see these quality criteria that I as a trainer could use in my negotiation with those

interested in organising gender training. Very often the quality of gender trainings is not

what it could be, not so much because of the trainer or the lack of quality of materials and

methods, but because of the often very restrictive demands of the organiser (budget,

training length, etc.)

I'm not for a type of quality criteria that would fix for example content elements or

specific methods and such. Gender trainings are in my long experience always very

sensitive to context and should be constructed as such.

This would solve the problem of certification, in which I do not believe at all. There is a

UN body that has an online data base of gender consultants/trainers in which you can get

listed after filling in a long list af very dubious and debatable questions, a sort on online

test for gender experts... The only type of certification that I thiink could be usefull is a

sort of quality label that you get after a peer-review process for example.


The discussion so far has revealed that in some counttries G. training is compulsory and

on an extensive basis, in others it is not compulsory or on a very limited basis. For this

reason, at least at EIGE level, this diversiity should be taken into account in order to

decide on standardisation and quality assurance.


With regard to the comment made by The Centre for Gender Equality from Iceland, we

would agree that by implementing such standards we might very easily fall into the trap

of assuring only minimum levels of competencies, and this creates additional problems

for the trainers and the courses they are doing. It all comes down to the question of

motivation - both extrinsic and intrinsic. Via certification it is possible to ensure extrinsic

motivation but what about intrinsic motivation? This takes us back to people's belief

systems, attitudes and perceptions. Just because gender educators and teachers receive the

adequate training, skills or certification does not mean that they will apply the knowledge

and skills that they have acquired in order to effectively influence their trainees' actions,

beliefs and perceptions.


To answer Gender AB's comment regarding what the better options might be, we could

start with ensuring the quality of the basics, that is, the quality, experience and motivation

of teachers/trainers and the types of pedagogy (i.e. the curriculum, teaching strategies)

they use. This will lead to an improvement in the quality, equity and efficiency of

training. We would agree with Priya Alvarez that it is a 'back to the basics' reminder.

22. Indre Mackeviciute | 18/09/2013, 11:38 EEST (+03:00)

Add Gender AB wrote:

Good morning!


I believe that one soultion could be to help companies and municipalities to know what to

ask for. Some sort of demands on what to expect from a gender equality consultant would

be more helpful than to give the consultants certification.

Thoughts?

Hello, Jenny,

indeed making the institutions more aware on how to plan gender training activities and

what to take into account in the process was one of the issues, that we've put on the table

for ourselves at EIGE at the start of the project. We thought it was important that the

institutions would not only look for gender training in order to tick the box in the gender

mainstreaming checklist. They should try to understand clearer what they are looking for,

what their specific needs are and think about the meaning of the quality of training for

themselves.

Last year, EIGE has produced a reference sheet called Step-by-step approach to quality in

gender training, which might be helpful in this regard. It's on EIGE's web:

http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/gender-training-stepbystep-approach-to-quality

Indre




With regard to the comment made by The Centre for Gender Equality from Iceland, we

would agree that by implementing such standards we might very easily fall into the trap

of assuring only minimum levels of competencies, and this creates additional problems

for the trainers and the courses they are doing. It all comes down to the question of

motivation - both extrinsic and intrinsic. Via certification it is possible to ensure extrinsic

motivation but what about intrinsic motivation? This takes us back to people's belief

systems, attitudes and perceptions. Just because gender educators and teachers receive the

adequate training, skills or certification does not mean that they will apply the knowledge

and skills that they have acquired in order to effectively influence their trainees' actions,

beliefs and perceptions.

Very good – and I believe this is what we have to deal with: we have work the idea of

standardization into a field that is characterizes by both planned and processual change.

This is why I would like to propose that standardization will do well to address –

changing structures before ideas. I speak for my-self when saying, I’m a little bit stress-

free about people “not getting the idea” of for example gender mainstreaming – but still

having to conform with the principles.


Indre Mackeviciute wrote:


Good morning!


I believe that one soultion could be to help companies and municipalities

to know what to ask for. Some sort of demands on what to expect from a

gender equality consultant would be more helpful than to give the

consultants certification.

Thoughts?

Hello, Jenny,

indeed making the institutions more aware on how to plan gender training activities and

what to take into account in the process was one of the issues, that we've put on the table

for ourselves at EIGE at the start of the project. We thought it was important that the

institutions would not only look for gender training in order to tick the box in the gender

mainstreaming checklist. They should try to understand clearer what they are looking for,

what their specific needs are and think about the meaning of the quality of training for

themselves.

Last year, EIGE has produced a reference sheet called Step-by-step approach to quality in

gender training, which might be helpful in this regard. It's on EIGE's web:


Indre

That's good! I feel like the companies don'r know what to ask for. They book meetings

and want to buy "gender equality". That puts an enormous pressure on me as a

conusltant. I have to be very skilled at knowing whta they need and how I can help them

the best way.



To answer Gender AB's comment regarding what the better options might be, we could

start with ensuring the quality of the basics, that is, the quality, experience and motivation

of teachers/trainers and the types of pedagogy (i.e. the curriculum, teaching strategies)

they use. This will lead to an improvement in the quality, equity and efficiency of

training. We would agree with Priya Alvarez that it is a 'back to the basics' reminder.

In Sweden we have started a business network called Genusföretagarna (gender workers)

and through that network we are trying to make the equality business more professional.

Are there similar networks in other places i Europe?



Veronika Šprincová I agree that some sort of standadisation would be good. It just needs

to be in a way that don't make it harder for equality companies to start up and grow.

Maybe make some rules about what should always be included? I'm thinking: analysis

(facts not guesses), set goals, make budget, whos responsible?, deadline.

That is still very adjustable and flexible.

And another question:

Who, in your opinion, should be giving out the certificates to consultants?


I absolutely agree that the standardization can't be solely formal and limiting. But in the

Czech Republic we are in quite paradox situation: equality companies with qualified and

experienced staff exist but their growth is limited by competing with big companies

(sometimes not linked to the subject in any way) "pretending" to offer gender training

and a) provide gender training with very poor expertise or b) hire experts for very low

pay and take the rest of the money from the client (typically another big company and

very often from EU funds). This led to the idea to establish professional association (incl.

academic departments, NGOs and also companies focusing on gender issues as well as

individual experts) and keep some standards - both expertise of consultants/trainers and

minimal reward for their services. This association would also be the certification body.

And as I've written above, I would very welcome some such body on EU level and I

believe that EIGE has very good preconditions to become one.


The Centre for Gender Equality - Iceland wrote:

Hello, Tryggvi Hallgrímsson – Iceland.

Why is there a need to introduce quality assurance mechanisms?

Could we not say that if gender mainstreaming or any other work with gender equality is

mandatory – an obligation within public policy or any form of administration, that

standardization is very relevant.

Regarding what certification mechanisms would seek to address – I wonder if we

could/should take that question together with the question on what and how should be

“standardized” – and perhaps (and I might be getting ahead of myself) what do you see

thae role of EIGE in preparing guidelines for such standardization?

Dear Tryggvi and other colleagues who have managed to join the discussion,

me as project manager in the institute for the gender training project and my colleagues

are really happy to see your involvement in this discussion.

Having worked on the issue of gender training for quite a while now, we've come to the

point we'll, together with the European Commission and the EU Member States we'll

have to decide on what is to be done next. It is rather obvious that assuring quality of

gender mainstreaming training in its broad sense should be one of the things that is given

serious consideration.

For this reason, we have organised this discussion to collect your experiences with regard

to what exists already and your views with regard to what steps need to be taken next.

We'll appreciate your thoughts which will then be useful to those who decide on the

priorities of EIGE's work.

Let me once again thank you for taking your time and sharing your valuable insights.

I wish you two resourceful and fruitful days.

Indre Mackeviciute


Indeed, the EIGE leaflet "step by step approach tto quality" is very helpful. However, we

should bear in mind that in some countries 9like Cyprus) there is no officiall policy on

gender training provision neither for the public nor the private sector nor a G training

policy. For this reason, it shoulld be decided to what extent and to what sectors G.

training might become compulsory and what form of standardisation G. training should

take. Otherwise, it would remain a nice plan on paper with no application.

29. MAURIZIO MOSCA | 18/09/2013, 11:58 EEST (+03:00)

Dear all

I am Maurizio Mosca, gender expert at EIGE, in charge of the work on good practices

within the Gender Mainstreming team.

I would like to provide my contribution to discussion, focusing on the "process" of

quality assurance.

I think the gender dimension of quality assurance should be embedded at all levels of the

traning process and infrastrucure.

It is strategic gender cosnsitency is placed into the design phase, addressing needs and

gaps, into the delivery phase, identifyiing required expertise and relevant target

(audience), into the monitoring process, establishing indicators and tools to assess the

effectiveness of the training provided.

if not only at system level, the quality of the gender relevance is assured, it might happen

what many of you just said so far, with no impact in terms of tranformative effectiveness

as well as in terms of improved understanding of the gender dimension.

this undesired outcome would damage both the quality of the training provided and the

opportunity to support gender change.

to conclude, I guess that the quality assurance process needs to address ALL the stages of

the learning pathways, ensuring that gender quality and consistency it there, at all levels,

at all stages.

30. INDERA Gender Consultancy | 18/09/2013, 12:03 EEST (+03:00)

Hello Everybody!

My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I am very much enjoying to be part of this

discussion today.

I would like to refer to some very important aspects Priya raised:

1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender training lost its transformative edge.

2. We do not need another hypertechnical tool.

3. "Reprogram"

What happended in the last 20 years basically is that gender wasn't so much

mainstreamed but gender was adapted to the mainstream, to take away the individual,

collective (institutional as well as social) and political process that is the transformative

foundation of gender mainstreaming. GM was basically transformed into a technical tool

where people learned to tick the right boxes, use the right language and leave the

underlying structure of the system untouched.

The result is that people got comfortable with GM, because the transformative potential

was taken out.

People also got bored of gender training, because they still relate "gender" to "women"

and very little is understood what it is really about. And most of them do not want to face

the challenges it really brings.

And this is what I feel we have to look at, why do we train on gender and what are the

expected results. As Priya says to reprogram, to raise awareness and to put "gender

glasses" on.

From my practical experience it is not so much about the right material, contents,

knowledge, didactical, etc. its much more about how can I as a gender trainer facilitate

an individual, collective and political learning process in diverse contexts.

For me its far more important that people get the "aha" affect "that is what it is about"

than teaching them tools. Once they put their own gender glasses on they start their own

learning process and reach for knowledge and information.

Regarding standardization we have to take into account the famous sentence "doing

gender". Gender or GM is not a standard learning process of knowledge transfer it is

constantly changing and has to be adapted to its context.

Its a political process not a technical one!


Despina Charalambidou-Solomi wrote:

The discussion so far has revealed that in some counttries G. training is compulsory and

on an extensive basis, in others it is not compulsory or on a very limited basis. For this

reason, at least at EIGE level, this diversiity should be taken into account in order to

decide on standardisation and quality assurance.

Indeed, Despina, a very good point on the diversity of the countries. When talking of

gender training quality assurance this should be taken into account by all means. Still

what do you think this acutally means in real terms? How should this diversity be taken

into account?


INDERA Gender Consultancy wrote:

Hello Everybody!

My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I am very much enjoying to be part of this

discussion today.


1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender training lost its transformative edge.


3. "Reprogram"

What happended in the last 20 years basically is that gender wasn't so much

mainstreamed but gender was adapted to the mainstream, to take away the individual,

collective (institutional as well as social) and political process that is the transformative

foundation of gender mainstreaming. GM was basically transformed into a technical tool

where people learned to tick the right boxes, use the right language and leave the

underlying structure of the system untouched.

The result is that people got comfortable with GM, because the transformative potential

was taken out.

People also got bored of gender training, because they still relate "gender" to "women"

and very little is understood what it is really about. And most of them do not want to face

the challenges it really brings.

And this is what I feel we have to look at, why do we train on gender and what are the

expected results. As Priya says to reprogram, to raise awareness and to put "gender

glasses" on.

From my practical experience it is not so much about the right material, contents,

knowledge, didactical, etc. its much more about how can I as a gender trainer facilitate

an individual, collective and political learning process in diverse contexts.

For me its far more important that people get the "aha" affect "that is what it is about"

than teaching them tools. Once they put their own gender glasses on they start their own

learning process and reach for knowledge and information.

Regarding standardization we have to take into account the famous sentence "doing

gender". Gender or GM is not a standard learning process of knowledge transfer it is



I agree! We need to helt people understand the possibilities with gender equality, then

they will search the tools.

33. Roza Dimova | 18/09/2013, 12:10 EEST (+03:00)

Nicolaas Vlaeminck wrote:

Nicolaas Vlaeminck from EIGE

Every training should be evaluated by looking at its value; every good trainer should even

so be evaluated. It's in a way measuring return on investment.

Gender Training, as a very needed ingredient for gender mainstreaming, is so important

that it can not be left without quality assurance, both for the trainer and the training. It's

not about control, it's about making sure we all look in the same direction, with the same

desire of making gender equality a reality. If we show how serious we can be about it,

then for sure only the ignorent will be left behind :-)

I agree very much with you. Our experinece show that the evaluation is necessary for

further our improvemnet and to check out if we succeed to touch the audience. I am very

much for developping standards for internal evaluation of trainers and trainings.





Good morning!

My name is Jenny Claesson and I work at Add Gender in

Sweden.

I believe that one soultion could be to help companies and

municipalities to know what to ask for. Some sort of

demands on what to expect from a gender equality

consultant would be more helpful than to give the


Thoughts?

Hello, Jenny,

indeed making the institutions more aware on how to plan gender training

activities and what to take into account in the process was one of the

issues, that we've put on the table for ourselves at EIGE at the start of the

project. We thought it was important that the institutions would not only

look for gender training in order to tick the box in the gender

mainstreaming checklist. They should try to understand clearer what they

are looking for, what their specific needs are and think about the meaning

of the quality of training for themselves.

Last year, EIGE has produced a reference sheet called Step-by-step

approach to quality in gender training, which might be helpful in this

regard. It's on EIGE's web:

http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/gender-training-stepbystep-

approach-to-quality

Indre

That's good! I feel like the companies don'r know what to ask for. They book meetings

and want to buy "gender equality". That puts an enormous pressure on me as a

conusltant. I have to be very skilled at knowing whta they need and how I can help them

the best way.

Certain standard for gender training/gender trainers - would this help

institutions/companies to understand better what they might or should expect?

In your experience did you run into any other




Hello Everybody!

My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I am very much enjoying to be

part of this discussion today.


1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender training lost its transformative

edge.


3. "Reprogram"

What happended in the last 20 years basically is that gender wasn't so

much mainstreamed but gender was adapted to the mainstream, to take

away the individual, collective (institutional as well as social) and political

process that is the transformative foundation of gender mainstreaming.

GM was basically transformed into a technical tool where people learned

to tick the right boxes, use the right language and leave the underlying

structure of the system untouched.



The result is that people got comfortable with GM, because the

transformative potential was taken out.

People also got bored of gender training, because they still relate "gender"

to "women" and very little is understood what it is really about. And most

of them do not want to face the challenges it really brings.

And this is what I feel we have to look at, why do we train on gender and

what are the expected results. As Priya says to reprogram, to raise

awareness and to put "gender glasses" on.

From my practical experience it is not so much about the right material,

contents, knowledge, didactical, etc. its much more about how can I as a

gender trainer facilitate an individual, collective and political learning

process in diverse contexts.

For me its far more important that people get the "aha" affect "that is what

it is about" than teaching them tools. Once they put their own gender

glasses on they start their own learning process and reach for knowledge

and information.

Regarding standardization we have to take into account the famous

sentence "doing gender". Gender or GM is not a standard learning process

of knowledge transfer it is constantly changing and has to be adapted to its

context.


I agree! We need to helt people understand the possibilities with gender equality, then

they will search the tools.

All these comments are so right to the point. Thanks Rachel and Add gender.

I worked for years as a training consultant and facilitator for gender budgeting. People

expected a highly technical training on hands-on budgeting techniques, templates, etc. I

even enrolled myself in a diploma for public finances to get the vocabulary right and not

be seen as an outsider. After years of technicalities, I realized that two ingredients were

basic in any GB training. One was a wholehearted discussion about gender equality.

People needed some eye opener about the dimensions of inequality coming closer to their

own behaviors and perceptions, starting by their own working place, their families,

children and lives.

Second, people needed to understand why gender equality was important and the benefits

for a better policy making and a more effective job, their job. Otherwise, they thought it

was another fastidious chore invented by a crazy feminist somewhere and they were in

reactions already against it. When it worked, it was fabulous for me to see their faces

changing.

Eventually, I devoted a lot less time in the training to the technicalities of how to conduct

a budgeting exercise with a gender lens. For that, they already knew, even more than me

in cases when they had spent years working on budgeting and financial issues.

What they needed most was the motivation and the understanding of gender equality.

Then I could trust that they would found the exact way they could apply that to their

budgeting systems.

What I mean is that unless people have already gone through basic gender equality

training, they need those basics again and again. It is about them as gendered people, as

well.

Standards and certification should be linked to that as well.

HOW TO DO IT? How to create standards, indicators and certifications for a truly

transformative training, politically effective, change enabler and enabling??

Otherwise, mainstream experience is that those with all the certificates are the Deloittes,

Ernst&Young, etc...., right??

36. Hazel Reeves | 18/09/2013, 12:15 EEST (+03:00)

Hello all

Thank you so much for all your contributions so far - what a fantastic start to the day.

So far, these are some of the main points that have stood out for us when thinking about

why there is a need for quality assurance mechanisms in gender training:

-Standardisation could help us go 'back to basics' and think more about training as a route

to behaviour change or intrinsic motivation. As Rachel Andras says "It's a political

process not a technical one"

-It could help those commissioning training to know more about what to ask for and how

to plan what they want to get out of the training

-It could help trainers when negotiating with those commissioning training. For example

it could offer benefits to smaller trainers with greater gender expertise than bigger

companies who otherwise might dominate.

We have another two hours on this particular topic and look forward to hearing more.

One thing we might want to discuss further is around the question of who or what should

be certified or standardised? What would be the key areas - trainers, programmes,

procedures? Already there have been some interesting points made by Mary, Katlijn and

others on this.

Hazel and Jenny






Good morning!

My name is Jenny Claesson and I work at

Add Gender in Sweden.

I believe that one soultion could be to help

companies and municipalities to know what

to ask for. Some sort of demands on what to

expect from a gender equality consultant

would be more helpful than to give the


Thoughts?

Hello, Jenny,

indeed making the institutions more aware on how to plan

gender training activities and what to take into account in

the process was one of the issues, that we've put on the

table for ourselves at EIGE at the start of the project. We

thought it was important that the institutions would not

only look for gender training in order to tick the box in the

gender mainstreaming checklist. They should try to

understand clearer what they are looking for, what their

specific needs are and think about the meaning of the

quality of training for themselves.

Last year, EIGE has produced a reference sheet called Step-

by-step approach to quality in gender training, which might

be helpful in this regard. It's on EIGE's web:

http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/gender-training-

stepbystep-approach-to-quality

Indre

That's good! I feel like the companies don'r know what to ask for. They

book meetings and want to buy "gender equality". That puts an enormous

pressure on me as a conusltant. I have to be very skilled at knowing whta

they need and how I can help them the best way.




I think it is very important to offer gender training first of all in the context of

Organizational Development. It cannot be a stand alone tool.

I also see myself not so much as the expert who brings the gender knowledge, but as the

facilitator of the people in an institution or company to help them to see thir area of

expertise with "gender glasses".

They are the experts, they have to explain me how their area works, I ask them just some

questions to see things form a different angle.


We would agree with Rachel Andras that 'gender or GM is not a standard learning

process of knowledge transfer. It is constantly changing and has to be adapted to its

context.' Due to the wide and diverse context of gender equality it becomes even more

imperative to not only make sure that quality standards are in place, but also that these

standards are implemented, monitored, adapted to their context and re-evaluated from

time to time to make sure that there is the most efficient allocation of resources and that

adequate GM is taking place at all sectors or levels, as Maurizio Mosca so aptly points

out. Learning and teaching are never static but dynamic and context is important. What

about the emerging categories in some higher education organisations that are associated

with 'borderless' and virtual education, for example? How do we standardise online

learning? Is it possible or even desirable? Even setting aside the learning environment

and different contexts, as Despina Charalmbidou-Solomi has pointed out, 'there is no

official policy on gender training provision neither for the public nor the private sector

nor a G training policy' in Cyprus. This complicates matters even further.



39. Magdalena Zadkowska | 18/09/2013, 12:20 EEST (+03:00)

Hello,

I would like to share my experience of teaching gender equality in Pomeranian region in

Poland, among managers.

I have some recommendation regarding the equality issue.

1. How to encourage participants to view gender issue as important?

In our project financed by European Social found we worked on manager skills with the

background of gender equality. The most important thing was to convince participants

that it is in 100% their choice either they implement gender mainstreaming in their

companies or not. Our role was to show them that this strategy makes profit.

2. How to deal with gender stereotypes?

We always work first in separate gender group. Women work with women and men work

with work. It help people to open themselves to the differences among them. They see

how different they are and what different manager styles they use. After first module of

training we create new mixed groups. Thanks to that they have experience of change to

deal with and they see differences among them from different perspectives, the gender

differences is only one of the differences. Its role is far less significant.

3. How to convince soft skills are even more important on labor market then hard

skills?

The aim of our strategy is to focus not only on professional life but on private and family

life too. Soft skills when practice and increased give quick result in interactions not only

in the office but also with friends and family members. Participants feel the change in

every aspect of their life.


priya alvarez wrote:



Hello Everybody!

My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I am very much

enjoying to be part of this discussion today.

I would like to refer to some very important aspects Priya

raised:

1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender training lost its

transformative edge.


3. "Reprogram"

What happended in the last 20 years basically is that gender

wasn't so much mainstreamed but gender was adapted to

the mainstream, to take away the individual, collective

(institutional as well as social) and political process that is

the transformative foundation of gender mainstreaming.

GM was basically transformed into a technical tool where

people learned to tick the right boxes, use the right

language and leave the underlying structure of the system

untouched.

The result is that people got comfortable with GM, because

the transformative potential was taken out.

People also got bored of gender training, because they still

relate "gender" to "women" and very little is understood

what it is really about. And most of them do not want to

face the challenges it really brings.

And this is what I feel we have to look at, why do we train

on gender and what are the expected results. As Priya says

to reprogram, to raise awareness and to put "gender

glasses" on.

From my practical experience it is not so much about the

right material, contents, knowledge, didactical, etc. its

much more about how can I as a gender trainer facilitate an

individual, collective and political learning process in

diverse contexts.

For me its far more important that people get the "aha"

affect "that is what it is about" than teaching them tools.

Once they put their own gender glasses on they start their

own learning process and reach for knowledge and

information.

Regarding standardization we have to take into account the

famous sentence "doing gender". Gender or GM is not a

standard learning process of knowledge transfer it is



I agree! We need to helt people understand the possibilities with gender

equality, then they will search the tools.









children and lives.





changing.






budgeting systems.



well.






I so much agree to what you said and I share the same experience.

People are the experts of their area we help them to analyse their area of expertise from

the gender perspective. We do not need to give them the perfect tools, they will develop

them, once they understood what gender really means.






Good morning!

My name is Jenny Claesson and I work at

Add Gender in Sweden.

I believe that one soultion could be to help

companies and municipalities to know what

to ask for. Some sort of demands on what to

expect from a gender equality consultant

would be more helpful than to give the


Thoughts?

Hello, Jenny,

indeed making the institutions more aware on how to plan

gender training activities and what to take into account in

the process was one of the issues, that we've put on the

table for ourselves at EIGE at the start of the project. We

thought it was important that the institutions would not

only look for gender training in order to tick the box in the

gender mainstreaming checklist. They should try to

understand clearer what they are looking for, what their

specific needs are and think about the meaning of the

quality of training for themselves.

Last year, EIGE has produced a reference sheet called Step-

by-step approach to quality in gender training, which might

be helpful in this regard. It's on EIGE's web:

http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/gender-training-

stepbystep-approach-to-quality

Indre

That's good! I feel like the companies don'r know what to ask for. They

book meetings and want to buy "gender equality". That puts an enormous

pressure on me as a conusltant. I have to be very skilled at knowing whta

they need and how I can help them the best way.




I am not sure frankly. We sometimes have trouble getting people to understand that we

do this for a living. It's often thought that we somehow are paid by the state. We need to

be clear about this area as an area of knowledge. That's the first thing.

The second is that since companies often are so clueless about what to ask for I am not

sure that certifications would help. How about certificates for the companies? And

municipalities also maybe?





Hello Everybody!






raised:




3. "Reprogram"









untouched.










glasses" on.





diverse contexts.





information.
















children and lives.





changing.






budgeting systems.



well.






Thank you too!

43. Christina Andersson | 18/09/2013, 12:24 EEST (+03:00)





Hello Everybody!

My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I

am very much enjoying to be part of this

discussion today.

I would like to refer to some very important

aspects Priya raised:

1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender

training lost its transformative edge.

2. We do not need another hypertechnical

tool.

3. "Reprogram"

What happended in the last 20 years

basically is that gender wasn't so much

mainstreamed but gender was adapted to the

mainstream, to take away the individual,

collective (institutional as well as social) and

political process that is the transformative

foundation of gender mainstreaming. GM

was basically transformed into a technical

tool where people learned to tick the right

boxes, use the right language and leave the

underlying structure of the system

untouched.

The result is that people got comfortable

with GM, because the transformative

potential was taken out.

People also got bored of gender training,

because they still relate "gender" to

"women" and very little is understood what

it is really about. And most of them do not

want to face the challenges it really brings.

And this is what I feel we have to look at,

why do we train on gender and what are the

expected results. As Priya says to

reprogram, to raise awareness and to put

"gender glasses" on.

From my practical experience it is not so

much about the right material, contents,

knowledge, didactical, etc. its much more

about how can I as a gender trainer facilitate

an individual, collective and political

learning process in diverse contexts.

For me its far more important that people get

the "aha" affect "that is what it is about"

than teaching them tools. Once they put their

own gender glasses on they start their own

learning process and reach for knowledge

and information.

Regarding standardization we have to take

into account the famous sentence "doing

gender". Gender or GM is not a standard

learning process of knowledge transfer it is

constantly changing and has to be adapted to

its context.


I agree! We need to helt people understand the possibilities

with gender equality, then they will search the tools.

All these comments are so right to the point. Thanks Rachel and Add

gender.

I worked for years as a training consultant and facilitator for gender

budgeting. People expected a highly technical training on hands-on

budgeting techniques, templates, etc. I even enrolled myself in a diploma

for public finances to get the vocabulary right and not be seen as an

outsider. After years of technicalities, I realized that two ingredients were

basic in any GB training. One was a wholehearted discussion about gender

equality. People needed some eye opener about the dimensions of

inequality coming closer to their own behaviors and perceptions, starting

by their own working place, their families, children and lives.

Second, people needed to understand why gender equality was important

and the benefits for a better policy making and a more effective job, their

job. Otherwise, they thought it was another fastidious chore invented by a

crazy feminist somewhere and they were in reactions already against it.

When it worked, it was fabulous for me to see their faces changing.

Eventually, I devoted a lot less time in the training to the technicalities of

how to conduct a budgeting exercise with a gender lens. For that, they

already knew, even more than me in cases when they had spent years

working on budgeting and financial issues.

What they needed most was the motivation and the understanding of

gender equality. Then I could trust that they would found the exact way

they could apply that to their budgeting systems.

What I mean is that unless people have already gone through basic gender

equality training, they need those basics again and again. It is about them

as gendered people, as well.


HOW TO DO IT? How to create standards, indicators and certifications

for a truly transformative training, politically effective, change enabler and

enabling??

Otherwise, mainstream experience is that those with all the certificates are

the Deloittes, Ernst&Young, etc...., right??

I so much agree to what you said and I share the same experience.

People are the experts of their area we help them to analyse their area of expertise from

the gender perspective. We do not need to give them the perfect tools, they will develop

them, once they understood what gender really means.

This is very true! " We do not need to give them the perfect tools, they will develop

them, once they understood what gender really means" very true indeed


Hazel Reeves wrote:

Hello all
















others on this.

Hazel and Jenny

What are the advantages of certification processes for gender trainers? They stamp

on you the "quality assurance" hallmark and then institutions can rely (and relax) on this.

But, as a feminist, I want certification processes to be able to assess commitment,

experience or ability to facilitate change.

Who will benefit from certification processes? If the market is interesting enough, big

consultancy companies will want a piece of that. Overexpensive or cumbersome

certification processes can leave out traditional gender trainers coming from civil society

organizations.

Shouldnt we have "AND Gender" certification process? Many times I need a training in

leadership and managerial skills and I would love to find a facilitator able to offer

"leadership, managerial skills AND gender.





Hello Everybody!




raised:




3. "Reprogram"









untouched.










glasses" on.





diverse contexts.





information.
















children and lives.





changing.






budgeting systems.



well.






Yes! We need to make sure that the right people get the certificates. I can see very clearly

that the big consultant companies in Sweden are starting to see the money in equality and

I worry about their level of knowledge. In my experience, it is worse to come to a

company after a "bad" gender equality consultant than to be the first they meet.

How do we secure this from happening?

EIGE?


As academic teacher and gender trainer I would need the certificate (the best would be

European level) to make my work seen as important and needed especially at the very

first stage of cooperation. The first contact with clients is crucial. I feel that the certificate

might be good idea to give strength to the work we do and feel clients convinced they

invest in important field of human resources. When the coperation is already on-going the

certifcate importance is not that significant.






Hello Everybody!

My name is Rachel Andras from Spain and I

am very much enjoying to be part of this

discussion today.

I would like to refer to some very important

aspects Priya raised:

1. Gender mainstreaming and in this gender

training lost its transformative edge.

2. We do not need another hypertechnical

tool.

3. "Reprogram"

What happended in the last 20 years

basically is that gender wasn't so much

mainstreamed but gender was adapted to the

mainstream, to take away the individual,

collective (institutional as well as social) and

political process that is the transformative

foundation of gender mainstreaming. GM

was basically transformed into a technical

tool where people learned to tick the right

boxes, use the right language and leave the

underlying structure of the system

untouched.

The result is that people got comfortable

with GM, because the transformative

potential was taken out.

People also got bored of gender training,

because they still relate "gender" to

"women" and very little is understood what

it is really about. And most of them do not

want to face the challenges it really brings.

And this is what I feel we have to look at,

why do we train on gender and what are the

expected results. As Priya says to

reprogram, to raise awareness and to put

"gender glasses" on.

From my practical experience it is not so

much about the right material, contents,

knowledge, didactical, etc. its much more

about how can I as a gender trainer facilitate

an individual, collective and political

learning process in diverse contexts.

For me its far more important that people get

the "aha" affect "that is what it is about"

than teaching them tools. Once they put their

own gender glasses on they start their own

learning process and reach for knowledge

and information.

Regarding standardization we have to take

into account the famous sentence "doing

gender". Gender or GM is not a standard

learning process of knowledge transfer it is

constantly changing and has to be adapted to

its context.


I agree! We need to helt people understand the possibilities

with gender equality, then they will search the tools.

All these comments are so right to the point. Thanks Rachel and Add

gender.

I worked for years as a training consultant and facilitator for gender

budgeting. People expected a highly technical training on hands-on

budgeting techniques, templates, etc. I even enrolled myself in a diploma

for public finances to get the vocabulary right and not be seen as an

outsider. After years of technicalities, I realized that two ingredients were

basic in any GB training. One was a wholehearted discussion about gender

equality. People needed some eye opener about the dimensions of

inequality coming closer to their own behaviors and perceptions, starting

by their own working place, their families, children and lives.

Second, people needed to understand why gender equality was important

and the benefits for a better policy making and a more effective job, their

job. Otherwise, they thought it was another fastidious chore invented by a

crazy feminist somewhere and they were in reactions already against it.

When it worked, it was fabulous for me to see their faces changing.

Eventually, I devoted a lot less time in the training to the technicalities of

how to conduct a budgeting exercise with a gender lens. For that, they

already knew, even more than me in cases when they had spent years

working on budgeting and financial issues.

What they needed most was the motivation and the understanding of

gender equality. Then I could trust that they would found the exact way

they could apply that to their budgeting systems.

What I mean is that unless people have already gone through basic gender

equality training, they need those basics again and again. It is about them

as gendered people, as well.


HOW TO DO IT? How to create standards, indicators and certifications

for a truly transformative training, politically effective, change enabler and

enabling??

Otherwise, mainstream experience is that those with all the certificates are

the Deloittes, Ernst&Young, etc...., right??

Yes! We need to make sure that the right people get the certificates. I can see very clearly

that the big consultant companies in Sweden are starting to see the money in equality and

I worry about their level of knowledge. In my experience, it is worse to come to a

company after a "bad" gender equality consultant than to be the first they meet.

How do we secure this from happening?

EIGE?

Even in recruitment processes for staff, I always rely in commitment. Commitment can

be shown by people consistently chosing gender equality all along their professional

lives, instead of other more luring paths.

Years of experience IN gender equality, affiliation to gender equality organizations (civil

society) vs. experience on a variety of related topics, for which generalists consultancy

companies are unbeatable.


In response to Hazel Reeves' questions 'Who or what should be certified or standardised?

What would be the key areas - trainers, programmes, procedures?' we would suggest that

procedures should certainly be standardised, as well as certain programmes (although this

imposes limits and can be difficult), but that it is difficult and undesirable, if not

impossible, to standardise trainers. If we are talking about standardising numbers to

ensure an equal or 50/50 participation rate, i.e. one female and one male gender trainer,

then that may be manageable (although even here we are opening the door to judgemental

claims of discrimination), but to standardise people's belief systems, attitudes and

perceptions is not a viable option.


Hazel Reeves wrote:

Hello all
















others on this.

Hazel and Jenny

We have to be very careful in standadisation and certification, as lots of people already

mentioned, there is a huge danger of getting into a very competetive process, where again

the real quality gets lost.

In my experience it has to be a quality assurance for trainers which is considered a

learning cycle and not a fixed certficate.

I feel it is important to set up a community of practice where trainers have the possibility

for constant reflection and peer review on a supportive basis, not as a control!


Not to mention the fact that when notions of equity and quality are analyzed according to

measurable criteria, this ironically produces inequality among trainees and techniques

among teachers.


Magdalena Zadkowska wrote:

As academic teacher and gender trainer I would need the certificate (the best would be

European level) to make my work seen as important and needed especially at the very

first stage of cooperation. The first contact with clients is crucial. I feel that the certificate

might be good idea to give strength to the work we do and feel clients convinced they

invest in important field of human resources. When the coperation is already on-going the

certifcate importance is not that significant.

I understand what you mean, but I rather have better argumnets and work on my selling

skills. I still don't see how a certificate would work. Who shall give them out? On what

grounds? How much will this cost? How is small start ups going to pay for the

certificate?

It is still a bransch with many small companies. I strive to make it easier to start and live

off a gender equality company and I see certificates as a threshold at the moment. Things

might change in the future.



Hazel Reeves wrote:

Hello all

Thank you so much for all your contributions so far - what a fantastic start

to the day.

So far, these are some of the main points that have stood out for us when

thinking about why there is a need for quality assurance mechanisms in

gender training:

-Standardisation could help us go 'back to basics' and think more about

training as a route to behaviour change or intrinsic motivation. As Rachel

Andras says "It's a political process not a technical one"

-It could help those commissioning training to know more about what to

ask for and how to plan what they want to get out of the training

-It could help trainers when negotiating with those commissioning

training. For example it could offer benefits to smaller trainers with

greater gender expertise than bigger companies who otherwise might

dominate.

We have another two hours on this particular topic and look forward to

hearing more.

One thing we might want to discuss further is around the question of who

or what should be certified or standardised? What would be the key areas -

trainers, programmes, procedures? Already there have been some

interesting points made by Mary, Katlijn and others on this.

Hazel and Jenny

We have to be very careful in standadisation and certification, as lots of people already

mentioned, there is a huge danger of getting into a very competetive process, where again

the real quality gets lost.

In my experience it has to be a quality assurance for trainers which is considered a

learning cycle and not a fixed certficate.

I feel it is important to set up a community of practice where trainers have the possibility

for constant reflection and peer review on a supportive basis, not as a control!

I agree, and I have mentioned the Swedish gender business network. Are there similar

networks in Europa? Can we collaborate?




Hazel Reeves wrote:

Hello all

Thank you so much for all your contributions so far - what

a fantastic start to the day.

So far, these are some of the main points that have stood

out for us when thinking about why there is a need for

quality assurance mechanisms in gender training:

-Standardisation could help us go 'back to basics' and think

more about training as a route to behaviour change or

intrinsic motivation. As Rachel Andras says "It's a political


-It could help those commissioning training to know more

about what to ask for and how to plan what they want to get

out of the training

-It could help trainers when negotiating with those

commissioning training. For example it could offer benefits

to smaller trainers with greater gender expertise than bigger


We have another two hours on this particular topic and look

forward to hearing more.

One thing we might want to discuss further is around the

question of who or what should be certified or

standardised? What would be the key areas - trainers,

programmes, procedures? Already there have been some


Hazel and Jenny

We have to be very careful in standadisation and certification, as lots of

people already mentioned, there is a huge danger of getting into a very

competetive process, where again the real quality gets lost.

In my experience it has to be a quality assurance for trainers which is

considered a learning cycle and not a fixed certficate.

I feel it is important to set up a community of practice where trainers have

the possibility for constant reflection and peer review on a supportive

basis, not as a control!



http://www.genusforetagarna.se/

In swedish though...

54. Roza Dimova | 18/09/2013, 12:43 EEST (+03:00)

I would like to add on the question of Hazel that certifying procedures and programs

would be difficult, because in most of the cases GM trainings are demand driven. So,

probably certifying trainers is better option, especially setting a minimum standards for

them, based on experineces in the field.




Hazel Reeves wrote:

Hello all

Thank you so much for all your contributions so far - what

a fantastic start to the day.

So far, these are some of the main points that have stood

out for us when thinking about why there is a need for

quality assurance mechanisms in gender training:

http://www.genusforetagarna.se/

-Standardisation could help us go 'back to basics' and think

more about training as a route to behaviour change or

intrinsic motivation. As Rachel Andras says "It's a political


-It could help those commissioning training to know more

about what to ask for and how to plan what they want to get

out of the training

-It could help trainers when negotiating with those

commissioning training. For example it could offer benefits

to smaller trainers with greater gender expertise than bigger


We have another two hours on this particular topic and look

forward to hearing more.

One thing we might want to discuss further is around the

question of who or what should be certified or

standardised? What would be the key areas - trainers,

programmes, procedures? Already there have been some


Hazel and Jenny

We have to be very careful in standadisation and certification, as lots of

people already mentioned, there is a huge danger of getting into a very

competetive process, where again the real quality gets lost.

In my experience it has to be a quality assurance for trainers which is

considered a learning cycle and not a fixed certficate.

I feel it is important to set up a community of practice where trainers have

the possibility for constant reflection and peer review on a supportive

basis, not as a control!



We started over two years ago to set up a gender training CoP, but had to stop due to lack

of funds. There is already a group of trainers who are interested in.

I think its a point we have to raise in the second part of this discussion.

56. City of Vienna | 18/09/2013, 12:45 EEST (+03:00)

Hello, we are Ursula Bauer and Jana Schultheiß from the City of Vienna, working for the

section gender mainstreaming. This is our first participation in an EIGE online discussion

and we are very impressed about how in informative and well organizes this works. We

are offering gender trainings for civil servants working for the vast city administration.

And we are as well commissioning gender experts either for trainings or for gender

expertise when working out pilot projects. Thus we see both sides: as trainers and as an

organization looking for trainers. So standardizations seems promising - makes life easer

for organizations. But we completely agree to those who point out the problem of who

will decide what and who is beeing cerified and who will be able to pay for cerfitication.

Shouldn´t we not rather think about making organizations who ask for trainings "gender

fit" and offer guidelines what they should look for?


As to Add Gender AB question on gender diversity in Member States, my concern is that

if we donot take into account the vast diversity on GM and G. training to begin with, any

plans or measures decided at EU or EIGE level will not be effective. Probably, by

dividing EU mmember states into categories as regards their policies and degree of

implementation of GM and G training, we might be able to cater for each

category/country separately e.g. by making G.training compulsory for all institutions

private or public that acquire EU funding.

Another issue we have not mentioned so far, is that gender equality policies and actions

are taking back seat in the priorities and budgets of southern european countries, like

Cyprus, because of the financial crisis.

Thus, however, excellent or thorough plans on G. training are, they will not be applied in

some countries like GM has not become official policy and has not had any real bearing

on official policies so far in some countries.


I agree with Magdalena Zadkowsa on the topic of certification. The question is, what

authority or organisation will implement this gender training? Someone mentioned

political will earlier. Political will is clearly needed if a certain authority's cerificate is

going to be used routinely. How will this certificate be validated? It won't say how

effective the training was, and trainers and educators will receive it once they have

attended certain seminars, courses, etc. So is attendance going to be the main criterion?

Then there is the question of funding. Will the authority be supported financially by an

external body, for example, as takes place with the European Quality Mark - EQM?

Training must clearly be financially viable and sustainable.

59. Krini Kafiris | 18/09/2013, 12:51 EEST (+03:00)

Hi, I'm Krini Kafiris. Both the topic and the comments here are very thought provoking.

Here are some of my thoughts.

1. It seems to me that quality assurance mechanisms are put in place in order to improve

outcomes and impacts. However, in some kinds of trainings at least, we don't really know

what those are. Evaluations are very limited and there is little opportunity for follow up

over longer periods of time. There is also little independent/academic research on these

issues. So, if we don't know exactly what gender training has resulted in, how do we

know how to improve it?

The assumption that more gender training will lead to better results--has not been proved

to be true. If anything, in many places in Europe, even though we are doing more and

more gender trainings of all kinds, the situation for women is getting worse especially in

employment settings, not better, and a social and cultural backlash against feminism

seems to be everywhere.

2. In the kind of training that I do, there is already a fair bit of informal standardisation--

content, methods, structure, approaches. It is not always adjusted or tailored to address

local needs, experiences, understandings and standpoints. And newer ideas and theories

which could be useful in getting points across---have not been incorporated. Trainers and

clients are not interested in exploring new approaches or in promoting locally relevant

trainig for specific people and places---there is little time, funding and political incentive.

Which I think is another main issue here--as our colleagues in Cyprus pointed out. There

is increasingly limited time and funding for gender training and little political

commitment to it--at institutional but also individual levels. This includes participants.

How can gender training be developed with these issues in mind so that it can make a

difference? I am not convinced that quality assurance mechanisms--as I understand them

at least---is the way to go.


Hi, I'm Krini Kafiris. Both the topic and the comments here are very thought provoking.

Here are some of my thoughts.

1. It seems to me that quality assurance mechanisms are put in place in order to improve

outcomes and impacts. However, in some kinds of trainings at least, we don't really know

what those are. Evaluations are very limited and there is little opportunity for follow up

over longer periods of time. There is also little independent/academic research on these

issues. So, if we don't know exactly what gender training has resulted in, how do we

know how to improve it?

The assumption that more gender training will lead to better results--has not been proved

to be true. If anything, in many places in Europe, even though we are doing more and

more gender trainings of all kinds, the situation for women is getting worse especially in

employment settings, not better, and a social and cultural backlash against feminism

seems to be everywhere.

2. In the kind of training that I do, there is already a fair bit of informal standardisation--

content, methods, structure, approaches. It is not always adjusted or tailored to address

local needs, experiences, understandings and standpoints. And newer ideas and theories

which could be useful in getting points across---have not been incorporated. Trainers and

clients are not interested in exploring new approaches or in promoting locally relevant

trainig for specific people and places---there is little time, funding and political incentive.

Which I think is another main issue here--as our colleagues in Cyprus pointed out. There

is increasingly limited time and funding for gender training and little political

commitment to it--at institutional but also individual levels. This includes participants.

How can gender training be developed with these issues in mind so that it can make a

difference? I am not convinced that quality assurance mechanisms--as I understand them

at least---is the way to go.


Despina Charalambidou-Solomi wrote:

As to Add Gender AB question on gender diversity in Member States, my concern is that

if we donot take into account the vast diversity on GM and G. training to begin with, any

plans or measures decided at EU or EIGE level will not be effective. Probably, by

dividing EU mmember states into categories as regards their policies and degree of

implementation of GM and G training, we might be able to cater for each

category/country separately e.g. by making G.training compulsory for all institutions

private or public that acquire EU funding.

Another issue we have not mentioned so far, is that gender equality policies and actions

are taking back seat in the priorities and budgets of southern european countries, like

Cyprus, because of the financial crisis.

Thus, however, excellent or thorough plans on G. training are, they will not be applied in

some countries like GM has not become official policy and has not had any real bearing

on official policies so far in some countries.

Yes and we have such different histories, one soultion for all will not be enough.

But I would like to use GE as a motor for economic growth and a way out of crisis.


I have the feeling if we start to standardize 50/50 participants and female and male

trainers, etc. people will again focus on this aspects and they will get more importance

than the actual training.

Yes I agree it is good to have a female and a male trainer, but its not crucial. We also

have to be careful to not go into a biased approach, it is not so much about male and

female it is about power relations and they equally exist between different groups of male

and female, etc.

If we focus too much on those aspects we will again drift away from the essential aspect

of GM: power relations.


Hazel Reeves wrote:

Hello all
















others on this.

Hazel and Jenny

There seems to be a general tendency to point out the discrepancy between

standardization and “real gender equality” grounded on real understanding of a feminist

critique. – Is this where we are? Because this means that discussion on how a certificate

should work needs to address this.

In Iceland we have “done gender” basically on these two levels. The first: Based on

approaching the mechanical structures with more or less the same tools you are all

familiar with. Second (and this is less formalised): We try to reinforce the need for

constantly re-addressing the “classic” questions posed by the women’s rights movements.

If a standard is to work universally – it will have to allow for “a positioning” of different

actors (organizations/companies) on this continuum between (A)--->---(B) were A: the

technical requirement/and a positioning of gender issues within the formal structures B:

an understanding (“the proper understanding”.. power relations etc).

And after we position actors on this continuum we need to be sure that the work done

moves progressively towards more equality.

Trainers must therefore be able to work within this “archetype” –

Question remains how much autonomy they should have? – and does the need for

autonomy eliminate the possibility for a standard?



I have the feeling if we start to standardize 50/50 participants and female and male

trainers, etc. people will again focus on this aspects and they will get more importance

than the actual training.

Yes I agree it is good to have a female and a male trainer, but its not crucial. We also

have to be careful to not go into a biased approach, it is not so much about male and

female it is about power relations and they equally exist between different groups of male

and female, etc.

If we focus too much on those aspects we will again drift away from the essential aspect

of GM: power relations.

Well put. I agree. The goal for me is never 50/50 it is awareness and knowledge.


City of Vienna wrote:

Hello, we are Ursula Bauer and Jana Schultheiß from the City of Vienna, working for the

section gender mainstreaming. This is our first participation in an EIGE online discussion

and we are very impressed about how in informative and well organizes this works. We

are offering gender trainings for civil servants working for the vast city administration.

And we are as well commissioning gender experts either for trainings or for gender

expertise when working out pilot projects. Thus we see both sides: as trainers and as an

organization looking for trainers. So standardizations seems promising - makes life easer

for organizations. But we completely agree to those who point out the problem of who

will decide what and who is beeing cerified and who will be able to pay for cerfitication.

Shouldn´t we not rather think about making organizations who ask for trainings "gender

fit" and offer guidelines what they should look for?

Welcome Ursula and Jana!

it's relate great to have people who see both sides of the coin. As I have mentioned

before, EIGE has developed a short guide for the institutions on what to think about when

they plan training: http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/gender-training-stepbystep-

approa...

Indeed, we should consider different options for making sure that the quality is there.

Certification is one of them. But we know well, that certification in the worst case

scenario might turn into a complicated system that requires lots of resources and does not

always serve the initial purpose. Therefore we could take this possibility to also see what

the other options are to make sure that gender training transforms the realities for the

benefit of gender equality. What are the ways to make sure that quality is there in

Austrian gender training efforts?

66. Benedetta Magri | 18/09/2013, 13:14 EEST (+03:00)



Hello this is Benedetta Magri from the International Training Centre of the ILO (Gender

Programme). Thanks for the interesting contribution, here are just some initial ideas,

hope I am not repeating too much of what said before.

On the why for quality assurance in gender training : a bad gender training course is

worse than no training at all. In a way this is true for any training, but for gender it seems

to be worse because it is very easy to downplay the issue with the excuse that the training

was bad.

If we are talking about training for institutional capacity development - quality of training

is closely related to the quality of the overall institutional capacity development strategy

and its relevance to the very specific context of people's working environment. So yes

there is need for quality assurance of the training design, delivery and evaluation process:

relevance, inclusiveness, (potential) impact on behavioural change.

Certification of trainers is a bit more complex and needs to be - in my view -

contextualised as "gender training" covers very different areas of technical expertise.

To be a gender trainer you need to put together two sets of not necessarily linked

competences. I mean that a good gender trainer must have direct experience in gender

analysis and planning in a specific field + capacity to help people develop their own

skills.

In relation to contents: we have been working on defining sets of competences for various

types of professional gender-related profiles over the last 15 years (eg EO Advisors for

Italian Ministry of Labour, gender focal points in the UN, gender audit facilitators - here

we have a proper Certification programme by the way) and one of the lessons learned is -

I agree with INDERA - that Certification is valid only if it is a on-going learning process

and not a system to create competition.


Benedetta Magri wrote:

Hello this is Benedetta Magri from the International Training Centre of the ILO (Gender

Programme). Thanks for the interesting contribution, here are just some initial ideas,

hope I am not repeating too much of what said before.

On the why for quality assurance in gender training : a bad gender training course is

worse than no training at all. In a way this is true for any training, but for gender it seems

to be worse because it is very easy to downplay the issue with the excuse that the training

was bad.

If we are talking about training for institutional capacity development - quality of training

is closely related to the quality of the overall institutional capacity development strategy

and its relevance to the very specific context of people's working environment. So yes

there is need for quality assurance of the training design, delivery and evaluation process:


Certification of trainers is a bit more complex and needs to be - in my view -

contextualised as "gender training" covers very different areas of technical expertise.

To be a gender trainer you need to put together two sets of not necessarily linked

competences. I mean that a good gender trainer must have direct experience in gender

analysis and planning in a specific field + capacity to help people develop their own

skills.

In relation to contents: we have been working on defining sets of competences for various

types of professional gender-related profiles over the last 15 years (eg EO Advisors for

Italian Ministry of Labour, gender focal points in the UN, gender audit facilitators - here

we have a proper Certification programme by the way) and one of the lessons learned is -

I agree with INDERA - that Certification is valid only if it is a on-going learning process

and not a system to create competition.

Benedetta, I absolutely agree. You put it very precisely.

68. Edīte Kalniņa | 18/09/2013, 13:31 EEST (+03:00)

I do not have a clarity whom are we going to certify? What's trhe rational to certify EIGE

and for EIGE to hold ISO certificate? Most of learning providers on gender

mainsteraming/ gender equality are small and medium size companies, self-employed

consultants, even not-for-profits. Requiring ISO certificate seems to me more like a

lobbying action for ISO certificate providers. It is costly. I think our Ministry of Welfare,

social partners (e.g tradfeunions, employers confideration) got ISO certified using EU

social funds. Does it help with gender equality situation in Latvia. No.



Hello this is Benedetta Magri from the International Training Centre of the

ILO (Gender Programme). Thanks for the interesting contribution, here

are just some initial ideas, hope I am not repeating too much of what said

before.

On the why for quality assurance in gender training : a bad gender training

course is worse than no training at all. In a way this is true for any

training, but for gender it seems to be worse because it is very easy to

downplay the issue with the excuse that the training was bad.

If we are talking about training for institutional capacity development -

quality of training is closely related to the quality of the overall

institutional capacity development strategy and its relevance to the very

specific context of people's working environment. So yes there is need for

quality assurance of the training design, delivery and evaluation process:


Certification of trainers is a bit more complex and needs to be - in my

view - contextualised as "gender training" covers very different areas of

technical expertise.

To be a gender trainer you need to put together two sets of not necessarily

linked competences. I mean that a good gender trainer must have direct

experience in gender analysis and planning in a specific field + capacity to

help people develop their own skills.

In relation to contents: we have been working on defining sets of

competences for various types of professional gender-related profiles over

the last 15 years (eg EO Advisors for Italian Ministry of Labour, gender

focal points in the UN, gender audit facilitators - here we have a proper

Certification programme by the way) and one of the lessons learned is - I

agree with INDERA - that Certification is valid only if it is a on-going

learning process and not a system to create competition.

I agree, it is very important that we think this through, but it is also important the gender

equality training has high quality.


Thank you for all inspiring comments :-)

I see two issues that can be standardized:

3. We can develop the evaluation tool – like a questionnaire that appears at the very

beginning of training and the very end. We can collect data then (on international

level) and see if trainings work (also for our, trainers needs) when analyzing the

change of attitudes towards men and women before and after course (that is what

I do with psychological test of Heilman and/or ASI – backlash of stereotypes)

4. We could agree on having certificate saying that we work under EU gender policy

– gender mainstreaming as the green light for our activism in every area we

work.

Comments:

o Katarzyna Pabijanek | 18/09/2013, 13:40 EEST (+03:00)

Magdalena, this is interesting idea. As you my know, we have Gender Trainers'

Database available through EuroGender (accessible from Communications Hub

menu). The database features up-to-date profiles of gender trainers and

organisations offering gender training across the EU and Croatia. This database

was created to help finding gender trainers with specific thematic knowledge,

skills and expertise to design training courses tailored for different needs and

policy areas. While trainers who currently are in the database were identified

through a specific project, EuroGender seeks to serve as a platform where trainers

will be able to advertise their work. Of course, here comes again the question of

standardization and certification. Anyway, as the launch of EuroGender is

approaching, we will be grateful for your, gender training practitioners,ideas on

how make it useful and credible!


In my eyes what we need is mininum standard for learning/ training providers. I would go

for individual certification or assessment against minimum criteria. When can you call

yourself a gender trainer? As an NGO activist I found recently an issue how to actually

prove/ get evidence for volunteer NGO work in gender equality field.

72. Christian Veske | 18/09/2013, 13:40 EEST (+03:00)

Hello,

My name is Christian. Before starting working at EIGE I used to work at Estonian

Ministry of Social Affairs Gender Equality Department. From the ESF programme the

ministry organised training for Gender Equality trainers. During the course participants

also had to do practical work within the large institutions. Some participants at the

training already had gender studies background, some not. Training the trainers allowed

ministry to be sure of the quality.

To my knowledge, after participation at the training the participants also established a

consultation body to work in the field.

Nevertheless, Estonia faces issues of training its public service eployees. It is not

systematic. A good example however is a project led by the Equality Commissioner

where part of the gender budgeting project they also provided participants (state

institutions) with the basics of gender equality. To my knowledge they also made it very

relevant to different groups.

I hope that it will be a fruitful discussion on how to proceed and what has been done in

different member states.


Maybe one way to start this is to compare the laws in the member countries. What are the

similarities? Where is the common grounds? What is mandatory and so on?

Has this been a topic in EIGE?


I feel that the Swedish gender business network is a great way to tell companies where to

find skilled consultants. And because we are many we can share experiences, teach each

other, get better deals on ensurance and so on. I would really like to extend the network

to the whole of Europe!


What rich insights. Our discussions show how we are all actively engaging, in our own

ways, with how gender training can make a difference and leverage change towards

gender equality. Our priorities and routes may be different but we have a unifying goal.

Clearly there are fundamental questions and dilemmas emerging: what makes for

‘quality’ training; how can we ensure that quality assurance mechanisms will result in

better gender equality outcomes; how do we assure any quality assurance system is

embedded in a process of learning; under what conditions might standardisation be

desirable, or indeed, undesirable; how do we avoid a system of standards that defaults to

a lowest level of acceptable competence; what are the tensions between standardisation,

sensitivity to context, and autonomy for the trainer; how can we improve evaluation of

existing training.

We are about to pose the next question for our afternoon discussions.

Hazel and Jenny


Hello again everyone

After such an interesting morning of discussion, we'd now like to introduce our second

topic question:

What quality assurance mechanisms are in place for gender training programmes

and trainers at EU Member State and international level?

When thinking about this question, things we might want to consider include:

-What quality assurance mechanisms are in place at national and international level to

standardise either the quality of training or the quality of gender trainers, and how are

they implemented?

-What are the strengths and weaknesses of the approach?

-Do you think that a similar approach might work in your country?

From the preparatory discussions we had with some of you, we know that there are some

interesting examples to share. There are also a range of examples in the document by

Marianne Dauvellier and Thera van Osch which was circulated last night. You can find

this document online here too: http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/web-discussions/quality-

assurance-mechanisms-gender-training-european-union

We look forward to hearing about your experiences in this area for the rest of the

afternoon. (Although if you are joining us later from a different time zone, please feel

free to comment on both this and the question we posed this morning).

Jenny and Hazel


I don't agree that standardisation will help going back to basics; (the moderators referred

to this point) nor am I clear that this is what was meant by it actually.

I also do not believe that standardisation will be helpful to trainers working with, in and

for small institutions.



1. I agree the gender training is all about context--, it really needs to be adapted to

specific local needs, of a workplace, institution and culture to even stand a chance.

It needs to be open and creative enough to keep on questioning its own approaches and

methods in specific contexts, and to keep on looking for better and more effective ones--

to whatever extent this is possible of course. It needs support to do this and a collective

effort--such as academic research to draw from on these issues, pilot projects exploring

these things, and input from others. The logic of standardisation, of trying to standardise,

even at the national level, will not promote these activities and objectives.

I also disagree with the idea that standardisation could help trainers working for smaller

institutions---I think this assumes that they don't have enough experience, confidence,

knowledge or up-to-date skills and thus need a standard, pre-fab training to get it right.

The main problem for trainers working with smaller NGOs and institutions is that less

and less funding is going to the smaller NGOS in the first place. Which means more

limited trainings, even one-off efforts.. things we know won't have much, if any, impact.

Yet these gender trainers are the ones who are in the fabric of the local community and

often have a lot of knowledge and a lot to offer in terms of training because of their

positions, knowledge and local acceptance. They would really benefit from the kinds of

activities I suggested above. Standardisation however, would not promote those activities

and thus would not allow them to develop their contributions to gender training.

2. I agree that gender training is ultimately a political process. You can give people

information, strategies and techniques---but it takes political commitment to really use

them, apply them and to want to make a difference. Gender training is only one aspect of

these processes.

I don't think that it can be enhanced through quality assurance mechanisms, only by more

coordinated, long-term and diverse action between those interested in gender equality and

social change--individuals, political collectivities, institutions.

78. City of Vienna | 18/09/2013, 14:16 EEST (+03:00)

Hello Indre, this is a very tricky question. We cannot answer for Austria all together but

this is how we do it in Vienna: we first check the background of possible gender trainers

among people within our informal network of gender experts (inside and outside

institutions), then we look at their formation (where they got their diplomas), their

attitude towards gender roles and the methods and tools they offer.

But when looking closer at the issue in 2007 an EQUAL project

called "Qualitätsentwicklung Gender Mainstreaming" (Quality Development of Gender

Mainstreaming) took place and dealt with all these questions about quality in trainings

and whether there should be standards or not. But there was no final answer to that.



I feel that the Swedish gender business network is a great way to tell companies where to

find skilled consultants. And because we are many we can share experiences, teach each

other, get better deals on ensurance and so on. I would really like to extend the network

to the whole of Europe!

But what if someone created pseudo Gender Business Network No 2. How to choose the

correct one? How do we know that business network is skilled?


On Gender's Trainers data base - how do we know that gender trainer in x country is the

same in country y? Gender trainers and experts are simply named by other gender

experts, civil servants etc. But we do not have joint criteria/ requirements for all


Edīte Kalniņa wrote:


I feel that the Swedish gender business network is a great way to tell

companies where to find skilled consultants. And because we are many we

can share experiences, teach each other, get better deals on ensurance and

so on. I would really like to extend the network to the whole of Europe!

But what if someone created pseudo Gender Business Network No 2. How to choose the

correct one? How do we know that business network is skilled?

First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a network. Second I think that a bad one will

have a hard time surviving.

There will always be consultants that is not skilled. But they wont survive if more of us

are skilled. I don't see any problem with competition as long as I am good. We shouldn't

be afraid, we shall be better.





I feel that the Swedish gender business network is a great

way to tell companies where to find skilled consultants.

And because we are many we can share experiences, teach

each other, get better deals on ensurance and so on. I would

really like to extend the network to the whole of Europe!

But what if someone created pseudo Gender Business Network No 2. How

to choose the correct one? How do we know that business network is

skilled?






The Gender business network is a non profit and has an elected board. We have rules for

what to do and not to do.





I feel that the Swedish gender business network is a great

way to tell companies where to find skilled consultants.

And because we are many we can share experiences, teach

each other, get better deals on ensurance and so on. I would

really like to extend the network to the whole of Europe!

But what if someone created pseudo Gender Business Network No 2. How

to choose the correct one? How do we know that business network is

skilled?






A gender equality Issue or a gender issue should never turn into a buisness.

I think this is the wrong way to go.


Christina Andersson wrote:




I feel that the Swedish gender business

network is a great way to tell companies

where to find skilled consultants. And

because we are many we can share

experiences, teach each other, get better

deals on ensurance and so on. I would really

like to extend the network to the whole of

Europe!

But what if someone created pseudo Gender Business

Network No 2. How to choose the correct one? How do we

know that business network is skilled?

First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a network. Second I think that a

bad one will have a hard time surviving.

There will always be consultants that is not skilled. But they wont survive

if more of us are skilled. I don't see any problem with competition as long

as I am good. We shouldn't be afraid, we shall be better.



Explain more, I am not sure I understand.






I feel that the Swedish gender business

network is a great way to tell companies

where to find skilled consultants. And

because we are many we can share

experiences, teach each other, get better

deals on ensurance and so on. I would really

like to extend the network to the whole of

Europe!

But what if someone created pseudo Gender Business

Network No 2. How to choose the correct one? How do we

know that business network is skilled?

First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a network. Second I think that a

bad one will have a hard time surviving.

There will always be consultants that is not skilled. But they wont survive

if more of us are skilled. I don't see any problem with competition as long

as I am good. We shouldn't be afraid, we shall be better.



It is a business already. ILO is charging 2 000 EUR plus for gender training;-)

Consultants and researchers do get paid for gender equality work







I feel that the Swedish gender

business network is a great

way to tell companies where

to find skilled consultants.

And because we are many we

can share experiences, teach

each other, get better deals on

ensurance and so on. I would

really like to extend the

network to the whole of

Europe!

But what if someone created pseudo Gender

Business Network No 2. How to choose the

correct one? How do we know that business

network is skilled?

First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a network.

Second I think that a bad one will have a hard time

surviving.

There will always be consultants that is not skilled. But

they wont survive if more of us are skilled. I don't see any

problem with competition as long as I am good. We

shouldn't be afraid, we shall be better.

A gender equality

Issue or a gender issue should never turn into a buisness.



I think gender is ought to be implemented in the society in a natural way of trust

humanity and awareness among the citizens. Therefore I believe that the word

"buisness" might give the wrong signals at the start.


Good afternoon from rainy Prague! :)

I indicated some basic framework regarding QA in the Czech Rep. in the morning. To be

more precise now:

There are no QA mechanisms applied specificaly to gender training/expertise. The only

existing one is "top-down" mechanism applied to courses for public administration (civil

servants) some of which are focused on gender related agenda (e.g. Fórum 50 % has two

courses certified by Ministry of Internal Affairs: "Current Problems of Equal

Opportunities of Women and Men for Public Service” and "Participatory Budgeting").

Within the certification process mainly general features are assessed, not partilular

content. In courses for other target groups (management, general public etc.) no standards

are set.

Therefore relevant parties (gender NGOs, academic departments and also companies

focusing on the topic) are planning to introduce "bottom-up" mechanisms reacting to

current situation and together establish professional association or at least gender

trainers/experts network. The "gender" community is not big therefore the firs phase will

probably be based on personal contact and knowledge of the work and expertise of the

others. But in order to create more sustainable network/association we are planning to

introduce some mechanisms such as certification. The question is to which extent it will

be recognized by the state authorities and other "clients".

Comments:

o Jenny Birchall | 18/09/2013, 15:43 EEST (+03:00)

Veronika the point you make on "bottom-up" mechanisms is very interesting. Am

I right in thinking that this is at an early stage of development, although with

some interesting possibilities for the future? I wonder if any other participants

have experience of these kind of initiatives and how they have been recognised

(or not) by authorities and clients? And what do others think about the potential of

professional associations or gender training networks to assure quality?







I feel that the Swedish gender

business network is a great

way to tell companies where

to find skilled consultants.

And because we are many we

can share experiences, teach

each other, get better deals on

ensurance and so on. I would

really like to extend the

network to the whole of

Europe!

But what if someone created pseudo Gender

Business Network No 2. How to choose the

correct one? How do we know that business

network is skilled?

First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a network.

Second I think that a bad one will have a hard time

surviving.

There will always be consultants that is not skilled. But

they wont survive if more of us are skilled. I don't see any

problem with competition as long as I am good. We


A gender equality

Issue or a gender issue should never turn into a buisness.


It is a business already. ILO is charging 2 000 EUR plus for gender training;-)

Consultants and researchers do get paid for gender equality work

:(


Moving into this afternoon's topic, it would be good to draw out people's experiences and

ideas on quality assurance mechanisms. Already today people have talked about

certification, 'quality labels', communities of practice, EU standards for gender training, a

gender trainers database, the potential for 'bottom up' mechanisms, professional

associations and gender business networks.

It would be very interesting to hear about these or others, including any reflections you

have on examples in the paper from Marianne Dauvellier and Thera van Osch - for

example, the ITC/ILO gender marker, GEMTrEx (quality standards for gender

workers/trainers) and Pro(e)Quality standards for gender equality. Can anyone tell us

more about these and how they work practically in different countries and contexts?

Jenny and Hazel







Add Gender

AB wrote:

I feel that the

Swedish

gender

business

network is a

great way to

tell companies

where to find

skilled

consultants.

And because

we are many

we can share

experiences,

teach each

other, get

better deals on

ensurance and

so on. I would

really like to

extend the

network to the

whole of

Europe!

But what if someone created

pseudo Gender Business

Network No 2. How to

choose the correct one? How

do we know that business

network is skilled?

First, it's a lot of work to establish and run a

network. Second I think that a bad one will


There will always be consultants that is not

skilled. But they wont survive if more of us

are skilled. I don't see any problem with

competition as long as I am good. We


A gender equality

Issue or a gender issue should never turn into a buisn

ess. I think this is the wrong way to go.


I think gender is ought to be implemented in the society in a natural way of trust

humanity and awareness among the citizens. Therefore I believe that the word


But it is a business. I make my living on helping companies and municipalities be more

gender equal. Do you believe that it is wrong paying for my knowledge? Or am I not

understanding what you mean?

How do you see gender equality spreading without training?


Krini Kafiris wrote:

I don't agree that standardisation will help going back to basics; (the moderators referred

to this point) nor am I clear that this is what was meant by it actually.

I also do not believe that standardisation will be helpful to trainers working with, in and

for small institutions.

1. I agree the gender training is all about context--, it really needs to be adapted to

specific local needs, of a workplace, institution and culture to even stand a chance.

It needs to be open and creative enough to keep on questioning its own approaches and

methods in specific contexts, and to keep on looking for better and more effective ones--

to whatever extent this is possible of course. It needs support to do this and a collective

effort--such as academic research to draw from on these issues, pilot projects exploring

these things, and input from others. The logic of standardisation, of trying to standardise,

even at the national level, will not promote these activities and objectives.

I also disagree with the idea that standardisation could help trainers working for smaller

institutions---I think this assumes that they don't have enough experience, confidence,

knowledge or up-to-date skills and thus need a standard, pre-fab training to get it right.

The main problem for trainers working with smaller NGOs and institutions is that less

and less funding is going to the smaller NGOS in the first place. Which means more

limited trainings, even one-off efforts.. things we know won't have much, if any, impact.

Yet these gender trainers are the ones who are in the fabric of the local community and

often have a lot of knowledge and a lot to offer in terms of training because of their

positions, knowledge and local acceptance. They would really benefit from the kinds of

activities I suggested above. Standardisation however, would not promote those activities

and thus would not allow them to develop their contributions to gender training.

2. I agree that gender training is ultimately a political process. You can give people

information, strategies and techniques---but it takes political commitment to really use

them, apply them and to want to make a difference. Gender training is only one aspect of

these processes.

I don't think that it can be enhanced through quality assurance mechanisms, only by more

coordinated, long-term and diverse action between those interested in gender equality and

social change--individuals, political collectivities, institutions.

and most of initatives on quality assurance seems coming from EU funded projects. Even

a simple certification will need some resources - human, finance. Where that will come

from?







Edīte Kalniņa

wrote:

A

d

d

G

e

n

d

e

r

A

B

w

r

o

t

e

:

I

f

e

e

l

t

h

a

t

t

h

e

S

w

e

d

i

s

h

g

e

n

d

e

r

b

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

n

e

t

w

o

r

k

i

s

a

g

r

e

a

t

w

a

y

t

o

t

e

l

l

c

o

m

p

a

n

i

e

s

w

h

e

r

e

t

o

f

i

n

d

s

k

i

l

l

e

d

c

o

n

s

u

l

t

a

n

t

s

.

A

n

d

b

e

c

a

u

s

e

w

e

a

r

e

m

a

n

y

w

e

c

a

n

s

h

a

r

e

e

x

p

e

r

i

e

n

c

e

s

,

t

e

a

c

h

e

a

c

h

o

t

h

e

r

,

g

e

t

b

e

t

t

e

r

d

e

a

l

s

o

n

e

n

s

u

r

a

n

c

e

a

n

d

s

o

o

n

.

I

w

o

u

l

d

r

e

a

l

l

y

l

i

k

e

t

o

e

x

t

e

n

d

t

h

e

n

e

t

w

o

r

k

t

o

t

h

e

w

h

o

l

e

o

f

E

u

r

o

p

e

!

But what if

someone

created pseudo

Gender

Business

Network No 2.

How to choose

the correct

one? How do

we know that

business

network is

skilled?

First, it's a lot of work to

establish and run a network.

Second I think that a bad one

will have a hard time

surviving.

There will always be

consultants that is not skilled.

But they wont survive if

more of us are skilled. I don't

see any problem with

competition as long as I am

good. We shouldn't be afraid,

we shall be better.

A gender equality

Issue or a gender issue should never tur

n into a buisness.



I think gender is ought to be implemented in the society in a natural

way of trust humanity and awareness among the citizens. Therefore

I believe that the word






Also, at least in Sweden there is a decision that the strategy to reach GE is through GM

and with the help of a "healthy consultant market"... Of course you don't have to agree

just because there is a decision but I'm curious on your alternatives.







Edīte Kalniņa

wrote:

A

d

d

G

e

n

d

e

r

A

B

w

r

o

t

e

:

I

f

e

e

l

t

h

a

t

t

h

e

S

w

e

d

i

s

h

g

e

n

d

e

r

b

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

n

e

t

w

o

r

k

i

s

a

g

r

e

a

t

w

a

y

t

o

t

e

l

l

c

o

m

p

a

n

i

e

s

w

h

e

r

e

t

o

f

i

n

d

s

k

i

l

l

e

d

c

o

n

s

u

l

t

a

n

t

s

.

A

n

d

b

e

c

a

u

s

e

w

e

a

r

e

m

a

n

y

w

e

c

a

n

s

h

a

r

e

e

x

p

e

r

i

e

n

c

e

s

,

t

e

a

c

h

e

a

c

h

o

t

h

e

r

,

g

e

t

b

e

t

t

e

r

d

e

a

l

s

o

n

e

n

s

u

r

a

n

c

e

a

n

d

s

o

o

n

.

I

w

o

u

l

d

r

e

a

l

l

y

l

i

k

e

t

o

e

x

t

e

n

d

t

h

e

n

e

t

w

o

r

k

t

o

t

h

e

w

h

o

l

e

o

f

E

u

r

o

p

e

!

But what if

someone

created pseudo

Gender

Business

Network No 2.

How to choose

the correct

one? How do

we know that

business

network is

skilled?

First, it's a lot of work to

establish and run a network.

Second I think that a bad one

will have a hard time

surviving.

There will always be

consultants that is not skilled.

But they wont survive if

more of us are skilled. I don't

see any problem with

competition as long as I am

good. We shouldn't be afraid,

we shall be better.

A gender equality

Issue or a gender issue should never tur

n into a buisness.



I think gender is ought to be implemented in the society in a natural

way of trust humanity and awareness among the citizens. Therefore







I understand what you mean and this is not wrong to make a living to create a c

hange. I am just saying that the word "buisness" is wrong.

It is such a big Issue that courses should be free of charge funded by goverments.

Much more is needed to create awarness among the society.


Jenny Birchall wrote:

Moving into this afternoon's topic, it would be good to draw out people's experiences and

ideas on quality assurance mechanisms. Already today people have talked about

certification, 'quality labels', communities of practice, EU standards for gender training, a

gender trainers database, the potential for 'bottom up' mechanisms, professional

associations and gender business networks.

It would be very interesting to hear about these or others, including any reflections you

have on examples in the paper from Marianne Dauvellier and Thera van Osch - for

example, the ITC/ILO gender marker, GEMTrEx (quality standards for gender

workers/trainers) and Pro(e)Quality standards for gender equality. Can anyone tell us

more about these and how they work practically in different countries and contexts?

Jenny and Hazel

I love these open discussions and ope questions but I sometimes miss a definition of what

we are discussing. And I also see that we have different approaches depending on from

which perspective we are talking. It's interesting but hard to disucss so openly when you

are not sure everyone means the same with "quality", "certificate", "gender training" or

even "gender equality" for that matter.

Could you maybe help summarise even more? And in terms of how people seem to

interprete the topics? Or is that going to lead to misunderstandings?

Very interesting people here!

Comments:

o Hazel Reeves | 18/09/2013, 15:50 EEST (+03:00)

Yes, some very interesting people here : ) You are right that we come to these

discussions with differing understandings of key concepts/terms and have

differing priorities. The more we have opportunities like this to talk about the

issues, the more we will understand each other - our similarities and differences.

Let's try and be explicit as we post about what we mean by different terms, such

as 'certification', 'standardisation' and so on. I think summarising may indeed be

more confusing. Hazel and Jenny







Add Gender

AB wrote:

E

d

ī

t

e

K

a

l

n

i

ņ

a

w

r

o

t

e

:

A

d

d

G

e

n

d

e

r

A

B

w

r

o

t

e

:

I

f

e

e

l

t

h

a

t

t

h

e

S

w

e

d

i

s

h

g

e

n

d

e

r

b

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

n

e

t

w

o

r

k

i

s

a

g

r

e

a

t

w

a

y

t

o

t

e

l

l

c

o

m

p

a

n

i

e

s

w

h

e

r

e

t

o

f

i

n

d

s

k

i

l

l

e

d

c

o

n

s

u

l

t

a

n

t

s

.

A

n

d

b

e

c

a

u

s

e

w

e

a

r

e

m

a

n

y

w

e

c

a

n

s

h

a

r

e

e

x

p

e

r

i

e

n

c

e

s

,

t

e

a

c

h

e

a

c

h

o

t

h

e

r

,

g

e

t

b

e

t

t

e

r

d

e

a

l

s

o

n

e

n

s

u

r

a

n

c

e

a

n

d

s

o

o

n

.

I

w

o

u

l

d

r

e

a

l

l

y

l

i

k

e

t

o

e

x

t

e

n

d

t

h

e

n

e

t

w

o

r

k

t

o

t

h

e

w

h

o

l

e

o

f

E

u

r

o

p

e

!

B

u

t

w

h

a

t

i

f

s

o

m

e

o

n

e

c

r

e

a

t

e

d

p

s

e

u

d

o

G

e

n

d

e

r

B

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

N

e

t

w

o

r

k

N

o

2

.

H

o

w

t

o

c

h

o

o

s

e

t

h

e

c

o

r

r

e

c

t

o

n

e

?

H

o

w

d

o

w

e

k

n

o

w

t

h

a

t

b

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

n

e

t

w

o

r

k

i

s

s

k

i

l

l

e

d

?

First, it's a lot

of work to

establish and

run a network.

Second I think

that a bad one

will have a

hard time

surviving.

There will

always be

consultants

that is not

skilled. But

they wont

survive if

more of us are

skilled. I don't

see any

problem with

competition as

long as I am

good. We

shouldn't be

afraid, we

shall be better.

A gender equality

Issue or a gender issue sho

uld never turn into a buisn

ess.

I think this is the wrong w

ay to go.


I think gender

is ought to be implemented in the society in a natural

way of trust

humanity and awareness among the citizens. Therefore



But it is a business. I make my living on helping companies and

municipalities be more gender equal. Do you believe that it is wrong

paying for my knowledge? Or am I not understanding what you mean?


I understand what you mean and this is not wrong to make a living to create a c

hange. I am just saying that the word "buisness" is wrong.

It is such a big Issue that courses should be free of charge funded by goverments.

Much more is needed to create awarness among the society.

I think that it will be hard to raise the status of GE if it is statefinanced. And also hard to

get private sector to see the possibilities with GE if it is interpreted as a political thing

only. There are many upsides for a company that actively work with GE.


I am not sure I understand the debate about "gender being a business" as I suppose all

professionals who offer their services to train or help organisations improve their gender

sensitivity and capacity to address and prevent discrimination need to live and therefore

get paid for their time. Of course advocacy movements and women's (or other) groups

who fight for their own rights may have a different perspective (and different livelihoods

choices), but then the whole debate about gender training we are having here should be

reframed and we should talk about organising for gender equality, workers' rights and

other topics.

Since Cristina mentioned the costs of the training course we offer I feel I must clarify that

the ITC-ILO is a non-profit institution.

Although being a UN specialised agency, fixed contributions from Member States cover

a minimal part of our running costs so we are obliged - like most public education

institutions in the EU by the way - to ask to pay for our courses. Normally we are able to

mobilise funds from donors so that we can at least waive tuition fees to nationals from

ODA countries. Unfortunately these funds cannot be used to fund participation of EU or

other high-income countries. Please be assured that we are trying our best to make our

services as affordable as possible through various means (projects, on-line, training of

consultants etc.). Let me also clarify that the Euro 2,000 per week cover full board and

lodging in the ITC-ILO Campus.

I will contribute on our experience in quality certification later.

All the best and thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this important issue.



My biggest issue with certification of the consultants is who will hand them out? Who

can get it?

In Sweden we have people that have been working with gender equality for so long that

Gender studies did not exist on the university. So do we need to force them back to

school or should education not be one of the criteria to get the certificate? How do you

measure knowledge?

I am also sceptical to involve money, since start up companies don't have a lot of money

it seems like a way to brake rather than help people make a career out of their knowledge

and skills in gender equality, diversity and such.

This is exactly my question- how to measure the experience. I personally had an issue to

prove that I am a gender expert. Should I issue a certificate myself saying that I have

been training on gender mainstreaming for x days x people group. Will a certificate of the

NGO will be sufficient evidence to get certified?


I must now leave and I cannot participate tomorrow because I have a client, gender

training for a region in Sweden. I just want to thank you for today and hope to discuss

more in the future!

Thanks to the organisers and to you all participating.

Have a nice day!


It looks like we slowed down a bit, everybody is out for lunch!!!

Thats a very important aspect also, I always include it in gender training: How much self-

care do you practice during the day??

The ITC/ILO gender marker and the GEMTrEx Quality Standards for Gender Trainers

are good materials to give an orientation where to go. There are also the 7 Quality

Standards for Gender Trainings developed from the "Gender Diversity Fachverband" in

Germany. There is also much written from huge practical experience and shared in

different spaces from the Heinrich Böll Stiftung (Gunda Werner Institut) in Berlin.

The document you provided last night gives also a good overview about where to look,

what is important, what works, etc.

But the same happens with Gender Training Material, there is so much out there and

really good materials.

I don't have the feeling there is a lack of material and information, but more that it is

important to look at quality assurance in a way that is more open and flexible and

promotes reflexivity through a Community of Practices.

We have to refer to the term "doing gender" and the constant process of change. We

cannot create a blue print to follow, because then gender training stagnates.

Reflexivity means to identify reflexive practices, the "doings" that create the openings or

entry points for making a difference.

Gender training deals with the complex relations of power and its practices of oppressive

realities and it should always expose those practices and at the same time offer a space to

learn about alternative ways.

So quality assurance, from my standpoint cannot be a certificate, because a certificate is

not flexible its not cyclic its lineal and not open to processes.

I would very much like EIGE to look at the possibility to open up and support a CoP on

Gender Training, but with a true commitment of the people and a working program based

on reflexivity. Being a member of this CoP can also represent a quality assurance on

international level and the quality is based on constant peer-review and the committment

of the people.

100. Dennis Lucy Aviles Irahola | 18/09/2013, 16:08 EEST (+03:00)

I participated in the ILO second version for Participatory Gender Audit facilitators and

have to say that the level was very good in terms of "basic" theory and practical

exercises. I did so even when I have more than 8 years of experience mainstreaming

gender and working on women's rights because, as in every thing in life, one must get

updated and learn from others. It is not a question to force people back to university, but

to work on gender equality doesn't make us good trainers, and to be good trainers doesn't

make us gender advocates. Again, I advocate here for a balance between theory and

practice.


Thanks a lot to all of your contributions! Highly interesting.

As for the question of definitions, very often I get the feeling that some of the definitions

are basically impossible. At EIGE, what we meant when we started to work on gender

training was the training that was provided to the policy makers and administrators to

improve their knowledge and skills on gender equality and gender mainstreaming.

Gender mainstreaming is afterall the responsibility of the state and it is the public

servants in the first place that need to know how to do it. Also it is the primary role of

EIGE to support the EU member states in their efforts to mainstream gender.

Again, it very much depends on them how far are the companies encouraged to explore

the gender equality benefits and to see how this perspective can help the business

flourish.

On the notion of quality, it really is difficult to define. And I suppose this is something

that we are trying to do with this kind of discussions. In our understanding the basic

determinant of the quality is the potential of gender training to bring about change, that is

the transformative nature of training. It may sound simple, but it is not as EIGE's in-depth

study on gender training found out - gender training to be effective needs to meet certain

preconditions. For example, those who attend training need to be supported in their

attempts to apply the new knowledge in practice, institutions need to aim at making their

whole working environments more gender aware and sensitive, as well as many other

different factors. Please read more about it here:

http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/documents/investing-gender-competence.

On the question of certificates and certification - different definitions might be possible.

And it is through this discussion that we'd like to get a better understanding of what the

experts think could hide behind the word certificate. And how to make it functional if at

all? There've been efforts to introduce certification and other quality assurance systems.

Some things work, some don't.



http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/documents/investing-gender-competence

I must now leave and I cannot participate tomorrow because I have a client, gender

training for a region in Sweden. I just want to thank you for today and hope to discuss

more in the future!

Thanks to the organisers and to you all participating.

Have a nice day!

Dear Jenny!

thanks a lot for your input! And good luck in your work.

Indre




Moving into this afternoon's topic, it would be good to draw out people's

experiences and ideas on quality assurance mechanisms. Already today

people have talked about certification, 'quality labels', communities of

practice, EU standards for gender training, a gender trainers database, the

potential for 'bottom up' mechanisms, professional associations and gender

business networks.

It would be very interesting to hear about these or others, including any

reflections you have on examples in the paper from Marianne Dauvellier

and Thera van Osch - for example, the ITC/ILO gender marker,

GEMTrEx (quality standards for gender workers/trainers) and

Pro(e)Quality standards for gender equality. Can anyone tell us more

about these and how they work practically in different countries and

contexts?

Jenny and Hazel

I love these open discussions and ope questions but I sometimes miss a definition of what

we are discussing. And I also see that we have different approaches depending on from

which perspective we are talking. It's interesting but hard to disucss so openly when you

are not sure everyone means the same with "quality", "certificate", "gender training" or

even "gender equality" for that matter.

Could you maybe help summarise even more? And in terms of how people seem to

interprete the topics? Or is that going to lead to misunderstandings?

Very interesting people here!

Very good point!

We face the same aspect in gender training, that you have people with different

backgrounds coming together and sometimes you end up clarifying and defining words.

We have also much experience in virtual gender training, through our e-learning platform

and we found it a very helpful tool to get people to a similar starting point.

For example, we offer an e-learning course on the basics of gender, the course goes more

or less 3 month with a weekly implication of 5 hours max, easy to do for people working,

etc. We get institutions and organizations to committ that before starting gender training

workshops that the people do this e-learning course so they learn basics about gender and

also have the posibility to have little online discussions and get more familiar with the

topic. The institutional committment is that people participate during working hours in

the course, which guarantees more participation and also shows the people the

committment to gender equality form their organization/institution.

After we offer more specialized workshops on work related topics of each

institution/organization.

Its very efficient as you can go much deeper with the people and really look at their

particular concerns and how to approach them from a gender perspective.



Thanks a lot to all of your contributions! Highly interesting.

As for the question of definitions, very often I get the feeling that some of the definitions

are basically impossible. At EIGE, what we meant when we started to work on gender

training was the training that was provided to the policy makers and administrators to

improve their knowledge and skills on gender equality and gender mainstreaming.

Gender mainstreaming is afterall the responsibility of the state and it is the public

servants in the first place that need to know how to do it. Also it is the primary role of

EIGE to support the EU member states in their efforts to mainstream gender.

Again, it very much depends on them how far are the companies encouraged to explore

the gender equality benefits and to see how this perspective can help the business

flourish.

On the notion of quality, it really is difficult to define. And I suppose this is something

that we are trying to do with this kind of discussions. In our understanding the basic

determinant of the quality is the potential of gender training to bring about change, that is

the transformative nature of training. It may sound simple, but it is not as EIGE's in-depth

study on gender training found out - gender training to be effective needs to meet certain

preconditions. For example, those who attend training need to be supported in their

attempts to apply the new knowledge in practice, institutions need to aim at making their

whole working environments more gender aware and sensitive, as well as many other

different factors. Please read more about it here:

http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/documents/investing-gender-competence.

On the question of certificates and certification - different definitions might be possible.

And it is through this discussion that we'd like to get a better understanding of what the

experts think could hide behind the word certificate. And how to make it functional if at

all? There've been efforts to introduce certification and other quality assurance systems.

Some things work, some don't.

Very important point and what this study shows clearly is that gender training needs to be

in an overall context of Organizational Development.


Dennis Lucy Aviles Irahola wrote:

I participated in the ILO second version for Participatory Gender Audit facilitators and

have to say that the level was very good in terms of "basic" theory and practical

exercises. I did so even when I have more than 8 years of experience mainstreaming

gender and working on women's rights because, as in every thing in life, one must get

updated and learn from others. It is not a question to force people back to university, but

to work on gender equality doesn't make us good trainers, and to be good trainers doesn't

make us gender advocates. Again, I advocate here for a balance between theory and

practice.

I just wonder how many gender trainers (esp one-woman consultancy companies) can

participate in such ILO training for that fee? I do not doubt the quality of ILO course but

accesibility . And how to measure - do I need it? I gad my Train the Trainer in gender

mainstreaming/ gender analysis by UN consultant Astrida Neimanis. Am I worse trainer

if I have no ILO training? Am I better? How to compare, how to measure

http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/documents/investing-gender-competence










other topics.














Dear Benedetta, thank you for your explanation on ILO. To be honest EUR 2000 is a big

big money for a small country gender expert. Not only NGO but as well private sector

(with EUR 500 average base salary (gross) in our country. It is a dream to attend. Do not

see any grant programme in Latvia which would support participation. I think

government as well has no resources to send their staff


Indre asks us to consider what hides behind the word certificate. Rachel (INDERA) states

that quality assurance from her standpoint “cannot be a certificate, because a certificate is

not flexible its not cyclic its lineal and not open to processes”. What do you think?

Jenny and Hazel


Again I support INDERA’s idea of CoPs and self-reflective exercises as an excellent way

not only to assure quality but create a culture of “gender eQuality” as we called it in 2000

when we started to look into this issue.

Certification or quality assurance in the “ISO” approach mainly looks at processes and it

is very hard to make sure that checklists and process monitoring integrate substantive

issues like the ones we are working on and struggling for.

Let me start from the “quality checks” that can be applied to “any” training irrespective

of the subject

The ITC/ILO Gender Marker is a very simple check list we have developed

for/together with our training mangers/colleagues to guide them when they design, plan,

deliver and evaluate their (non-gender specific) training courses, with the aim to making

them gender-sensitive. The check list of just a little part of the story because we have

trained all our colleagues in their use through an organisation-wide “Participatory Self-

Assessment” where each training unit was actively involved in a self-reflection exercise.

We provide them with technical assistance (gender analysis of topics, names of experts,

resources, revision of training material) and direct inputs in their courses when required.

The Gender Marker is used as a self-assessment tool but we monitor the scoring to make

sure that no one uses it inappropriately. The scores are integrated in our result-based

Gender Action Plan, which was also developed in a highly participatory way because

each unit was asked to set their gender performance indicators (E.g. the ratio male/female

participants, sessions or courses explicitly tackling the gender dimensions of a particular

topic etc.).

The open ecbcheck methodology works in a similar way in that you can submit an only

training course or programme to peer review by filling in a quite extensive questionnaire

(supported by evidence). Then you are peer reviewed by other professionals from the

network of ecbcheck learning institutions on the basis of a set of quality criteria. I have

gone through the process and had a programme certified just a couple of months ago. The

exercise was very useful as it obliged me to think of how I came to that particular course

design or how I can improve my interaction with participants etc. However the quality

framework itself is to a large degree “neutral” so it being ecb-certified just means that

you have followed the main state-of-the- art professional rules (but you could have done

it forgetting to include women!)

In Learn4Dev - Gender Expert Group (which I am currently co-chairing) we have made

a reflection on this and asked Thera to produce an assessment of various certification

systems (many of the results are re-proposed in the report prepared for EIGE naturally) –

The result was the Learn4Dev Quality Scorecard which is a much more detailed and

comprehensive version of the ITC-ILO marker. We are now lobbying and

advocating with training units in bilateral and multilateral donors so that it can be

applied to any learning programme they run. Our idea is that gender-sensitivity (or more)

is an important element for overall quality of any training done in the field of

development cooperation. . It is not an easy task and we meet a lot of resistance but we

have managed to work and apply it in two quite important “mainstream” courses.

In all cases what is clear is that : a checklist is useful but you need to accompany with a

self-reflection and capacity development process if you want to have good results. Also,

you need to present it as a tool to help enrich and improve the relevance of substance and

not as a straight- jacket or even worse to make people feel they are “wrong”. I do not

need to say how personal people get when it comes to discussing gender issues (or how

they react with denial – gender fatigue etc.)…..

More on certification of trainers / experts themselves later! Sorry for the long post.

109. Dennis Lucy Aviles Irahola | 18/09/2013, 16:49 EEST (+03:00)

Most people participating in the ILO certification course were from developing countries

(like me) and got considerable fee reductions. There are other kind of certifications, as

extensively described here, which are for sure the same good, it must not be an ILO

certification.

To Indre's question about certification, I think we have to give the concept the meaning it

deserves. A certification doesn't ensure anything else than a person having passed a test

(theoretical and practical) on certain issue. If I would hire a gender trainer, this would be

just another issue to consider, together with experience, association to women's or social

organizations, familiarity with the culture or core topic the client is working in, gender

studies, etc. The certification, in my view, is not cyclical or lineal, we are the ones who

build up experience and are open or not to new processes :-)


Dear colleagues,

I'm sorry to leave you now. Thank you all for inspiring insights, experience and ideas.

I'm looking forward to meeting you here tomorrow!

Veronika


Thanks Benedetta for sharing the three examples of "quality checklists". Does anyone

else have experiences of these or others? It is an interesting point made by Benedetta

that "a checklist is useful but you need to accompany with a self-reflection and capacity

development process if you want to have good results." Do others have views on this or

examples to share?


Apologies, the post below from Benedetta was accidentally deleted. Here it is again:

Dear colleagues

Thank you for the points about ILO training courses, however I think we should maybe

dealt with them separately as in general our courses are directed to build organisational

rather than individual capacity. The PGA (advanced) course you are mentioning is the

only one that offers a Certification and therefore of great interest for individual

consultants. There I agree with you we must find ways to make them more accessible

while covering the costs. The reason for establishing the PGA Certification process was

exactly because the ILO (not only ITC-ILO but also ILO Geneva) had been training - in

short courses, often donor-supported - a large number of people who did not necessarily

have the depth of experience necessary to become a good quality gender audit facilitator

(which is a different professional profile from a trainer). We realised that we needed to be

able to guarantee that those we train are "entering" into institutions with due care and use

the methodology according to the ILO values, standards and methods the Certification

process was the only way we have to do it. Being ILO Certified does not mean you are a

better trainer or gender expert than a non-certified one. Expertise in gender analysis is an

entry requirement for the Certification process. Certification means that your gender

analysis skills and experience are recognised as appropriate to perform organisational

analysis and that you are able to use the PGA methodology, lead the participatory process

in an inclusive way, identify strong and weak points negotiate the results, prepare a good

quality report etc.

Again I totally agree it would be great if this type of certification of skills could be

managed in a way that is more accessible. Maybe we should look at how professional

associations in other fields certify their professionals?


Rachel thanks for the point about cyclic (or even sinusoid) rather than linear processes! I

am trying to link quality with change processes and participatory change monitoring born

from "positive deviance"... this is taking us a little aside far from the topic of discussion

but closer to where I think we can have some good result in organisational change.

I am sorry I have to leave the discussion. I look forward to tomorrow.

warm regards to everyone



Dear colleagues



















quality report etc.




Thank you for your answer. Yes, I agree with you on looking at professional associations.

Earlier I mentioned example on how psychologists do certification through bodies at the

local level and stnadards set by European psyhcologists'a association


Dear All,

I am very sorry to leave you in a very interesting stage of the discussion, which I hope

will continue tomorrow at the same pace. There's lots of incredibly resourceful

experiences around us, which we should take into account when trying to create some

change.

As a PS, I wanted to share with you a Madrid Declaration on Gender+ Training:

http://www.quing.eu/files/madrid_declaration.pdf

The Declaration was proposed as a way forward by the QUING/OPERA team after it

became clear that establishing strict and wide-spread standards is really complicated.

Self-regulation could be an option. How far can it take us?

See you all tomorrow!


Thank you so much. I really liked the discussion. Now the end of business day, have to

leave the discussion



Apologies, the post below from Benedetta was accidentally deleted. Here it is again:

Dear colleagues











http://www.quing.eu/files/madrid_declaration.pdf









quality report etc.




I would like to thank you for the overview of Quality Assurance Systems and

Certification (Prepared by Marianne Dauvellier and Thera van Osch) - very interesting –

many examples I did not know of...

I will tell you, briefly, about the work being done in Iceland with regards to an equal pay

standard – that has already been published.

A special certification system has been developed with appropriate stakeholders to certify

the implementation of the policy of wage equality and gender equality. The equal pay

standard (ISO standard), was developed in cooperation with Icelandic Standards (IST),

the national standards body of Iceland. The project is led by the Ministry of Welfare

(ministry for gender equality) in cooperation with the Icelandic Confederation of Labour

and Confederation of Icelandic Employers . I sat on the board of the technical committee

issued the task of finding common ground – and writing the equal pay standard.

A lot of the work involved finding ways to work around the possibility of overlooking

gender dimension (power relation) – when analysing pay gaps.

This is all good and well – but now we are working in writing regulations determining the

qualification of those involved in accreditation of the standard (companies tasked with

determining if firms/organizations meet the requirements put forth in the standard) .

This work is under-way so I can not give you much info – but included in the “up-

coming” regulation are provisions on what accreditors should be capable of doing. This

includes:

0. Accreditors should comply with ISO 19011, an international standard that sets

forth guidelines for management systems auditing. (As well conforming with the

requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems

– the ISO/IEC 17021)

1. It follows that accreditors shall have taken a course provided by “government”

and that course functions as a type of diploma. The content of this course is

further described so as to secure a “gender studies” aspect - if you will.

This is of course rather problematic – but aims to provide legitimacy for the equal pay

standard – as well as to acknowledge the importance of look analytically into reasons for

pay-gaps rooted in the gendered system.

Regards, Tryggvi

118. UN Women Global Training Centre | 18/09/2013, 18:14 EEST (+03:00)

Good morning from our side of the world! This is UN Women Global Training Centre in

Santo Domingo joining the first day of the discussion. We are aware that the discussion

has moved forward and we apologize for any cross posting as we will be reading with

much interest all your comments. However, in order to move to the second part of the

discussion we will post our comments on the first question on why is there a need to

introduce quality assurance mechanism.

There is a lot of training being done of very diverse quality with very diverse results. For

UN Women GTC the quality of gender training is directly linked to tits desired end

result/impact: ie, gender equality. Therefore we refer to “Training for Gender

Equality” (TfGE).

For us, TfGE is a transformative process that aims to provide knowledge, techniques and

tools to develop skills and changes in attitudes and behaviors. We envisage it as a long

term continuous process that requires political will and commitment from all parties

involved (both decision makers and trainees) with the objective of creating an aware,

competent and gender equitable society.

Is the idea of standardisation of gender training relevant in your country or

context?

In the UN System, and in the countries where UN Women works there is wide diversity

of training in terms of content, quality and scope, not always with clear results. TfGE is

implemented in an incredible variety of socioeconomic and political contexts and

cultures. Standardizing represents therefore a major challenge. Rather than

standardization seen as one size fits all training, we foresee a minimal quality common

denominator. What does this mean? We propose identifying and defining minimal criteria

including:

· Response to international norms and agreements (starting with CEDAW, Beijing

Platform, regional agreements, resolutions, etc.).

· Relevant to the context and needs of the audience (content, examples and case

studies, trainers, language and methodology).

· State of the art knowledge on the specific topic.

· Learner centered, participatory and transformative methodologies.

· Competent, culturally sensitive trainers that can respond to the needs of the audience

and training objectives.

What is the problem that certification mechanisms would seek to address?

Certification mechanisms could respond to the need to ensure quality in diverse contexts.

At the same time diversity makes it very difficult to have a standardized certification.

Other challenges are the moral and technical authority/credibility of the certifier and the

recognition/acceptance of the certification by other institutions and trainees.

Who or what should be ‘standardised’? For example gender trainers, gender

training courses, gender training organisations?

We understand that certifying trainers would be the easiest. For UN Women Global

Training Centre the ideal authority to standardize trainers would be a pool of renowned

institutions working in TfGE that commonly develops minimal criteria for that purpose.

Without overlooking other already mentioned important factors for quality training, the

trainer plays a key role in ensuring the quality of the training and the impact on the

trainee.

Do you think standardisation or quality assurance could increase the provision of

gender training?

Quality assurance could increase the provision of gender training because it will

acknowledge the relevance of TfGE, improve the quality of all trainings and therefore

create a virtuous circle where the impact of TfGE will stimulate trainers, trainees and

decision makers to continue working towards gender equality. It is a continuous

reinforcing loop.

Finally, we recognize the complexity of implementing these ideas but we are optimistic

about this collective work in progress. Gender issues have never been easy to address and

TfGE is no exception. We will address on some of the challenges in later comments in

this discussion.

Looking forward to your comments,

UN Women Global Training Centre.










other topics.














Thank you for telling me this to clearify this Issue. I am sure your are doing

a great job!


Hello all

During today’s exciting vibrant discussion, it was very useful to hear perspectives of

people approaching the topic from different angles. Below is a summary of some of the

main points we felt emerged.

In the morning we explored why quality assurance mechanisms are needed (and we had

interesting additions to this topic later in the day when UN Women joined us).

There was some recognition that training is currently of diverse quality with diverse

results. A range of possible reasons emerged for the development of quality assurance

mechanisms, the overarching one being about improving gender equality outcomes,

focusing on transformative behaviour change.

We also heard that quality assurance mechanisms could be of benefit to trainers in their

negotiations with those commissioning training, and in turn, assist those commissioning

training to understand more about quality training and the outcomes it could achieve. A

focus on quality assurance also has the potential to increase and enhance the provision of

gender training.

However, questions were raised about what quality actually means and how it relates to

effectiveness. Quality should mean not just ticking boxes around process; training should

be transformative, embedded in organisational learning, and result in better gender

equality outcomes. Further, participants noted that we shouldn’t just discuss what quality

means, but who defines it, who sets the standards, monitors and evaluates it.

There was discussion around what standardisation means in both principle and practice

and a resistance to any idea that standardisation might cause training to become fixed and

inflexible, limiting the ability to tailor training for different contexts. There is no “one

size fits all” training method, content etc.

During the afternoon we moved to discussing the quality assurance mechanisms for

gender training - those already in place and potential models. Several examples were

raised, ranging from: quality checklists for training in institutional settings; the creation

of standards and/or minimum criteria for gender training and competencies for gender

trainers, for example as set by institutions or groups of institutions, or gender trainers

themselves; certification (of trainers and/or training); databases of selected trainers who

meet certain criteria; and spaces and networks for reflection and learning among trainers.

Out of this discussion came a number of questions and dilemmas, including how to

embed the idea that quality assurance is about more than just certification. It needs to be

part of a learning and organisational development process. Participants began to consider

the desirability of approaches that are “bottom up” as opposed to “top down”.

When considering different approaches to quality assurance, questions were also raised

around the options that are currently regarded as legitimate by commissioners of training,

and those which may not be seen as sufficient. Which quality assurance mechanisms

would serve skilled gender trainers, the participants and gender equality outcomes?

Tomorrow we’ll move on to look at some of these mechanisms in more detail, and with

your help, assess their advantages and disadvantages. However, it’s not too late to share

your concrete examples with us, and we look forward to hearing more of these tomorrow,

when we'll start at 9am Central European Time.

Jenny and Hazel

121. UN Women Global Training Centre | 19/09/2013, 00:33 EEST (+03:00)

Regarding concrete mechanisms for quality assurance, the UN Women Global Training

Centre has developed a participatory quality assurance methodology for the course

design. Through this methodology a group of experts and practitioners (and sometimes

end users as well) is involved in the definition and development of content from a very

early stage, revising and giving feedback in the definition of the topics and the design of

the course content. They accompany the whole process ensuring collective learning and

bringing in the different perspectives.

This methodology takes the form of Expert Group Meetings, Peer reviews (online or face

to face) and Expert Group Readings that contribute in different stages of the process

(concept note, outline, first draft, final draft, etc.). The participatory nature is crucial for

UN Women in order to ensure that diversity in terms of contexts, development levels,

gender equalities realities (legislations, roles, participation, etc.) is factored into the

courses. It is time consuming, requires negotiations and may involve additional costs.

From our perspective this approach is coherent with the fundamental principles of gender

equality. We aim to “walk the talk” in all our activities.

We look forward to continuing this interesting discussion tomorrow with more details.

quality assurance mechanisms for gender training in the … · importance if gender mainstreaming...

Documents