Gender equality regimes and evaluation regimes in Europe and their implications for policy design and evaluation.

PURPOSE: This article starts from the assumption that it is important for the evaluation of gender equality interventions in RTDI (Research, Technology Development and Innovation) to consider its context regarding gender equality regime and evaluation culture because this context does influence effects and long term impacts of such activities. It aims to provide key characteristics for the differentiation of gender equality regimes and evaluation regimes to be considered when designing policy interventions or evaluating specific gender equality interventions in RTDI. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: After a literature review of relevant typologies for welfare state and gender equality regimes, it was analysed to which extent the seven EFFORTI countries correspond to certain typologies based on the data basis of the context research performed in the EFFORTI project. For this context research, international/national and qualitative/quantitative data regarding the relevant framework conditions were firstly collected for each of the EFFORTI countries and secondly compared in a cross-country analysis. FINDINGS: The research showed that when it comes to gender equality policies, most EFFORTI countries can either be assigned to the Social-Democratic category or Conservative Equal Employment Regime category in the typology of von Wahl (2005), with the latter type tending to provide less favourable conditions for women in the general labour market as well as women in RTDI (e.g. overtime culture). In how far these different types of context can have an impact on the evaluation of interventions can be exemplarily illustrated using case studies carried out as part of EFFORTI. Connecting the typologies for gender equality policy with evaluation regimes has not proved fruitful, as the two discourses have only begun to converge in recent years. The evaluation regimes and cultures of the respective countries have therefore been described independently. However, it was shown that countries with more expertise in certain areas (e.g. gender, evaluations) developed more routinized and institutionalised procedures in the respective field. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Considering the different framework conditions is relevant when it comes to evaluation as different national contexts might require different policy and designs of activities, but might also shape the interventions' effects. This article therefore aims to provide support in this regard for future evaluations of gender policies.

Integrating the gender dimension in teaching, research content & knowledge and technology transfer: Validating the EFFORTI evaluation framework through three case studies in Europe.

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research is one of the six European Research Area (ERA) priorities. Integrating the gender dimension in research content and teaching is one of its three objectives. It is arguably the objective where least progress has been made. In this article we contribute to the evidence base by applying the EFFORTI evaluation framework to three empirical case study interventions that aim to integrate the gender dimension in tertiary education and research content. Comparison is based on an evaluation of the design of the intervention, those factors that have enabled/ hindered its implementation as well as an assessment of outcomes and impacts. The findings of the case studies highlight the importance of design, specifically regarding resources, legal status and the definition and operationalisation of the gender concept. Implementation hinges on top-level institutional commitment and mainstreaming gender studies with support of a central unit and crucially gender competence. A lack of recognition and status of gender studies and subsequent innovations was seen to hamper implementation. Outcomes and impacts included an increased awareness and interest in gender, increased gender competence, a push towards gender equality regarding representation and organisational change as well as an improved accreditation process and more and better research.