1) The document discusses ways that research funders can support integrating the gender dimension in research. It provides examples of steps funders can take like requiring researchers to consider sex and gender issues in applications and providing guidelines and checklists. 2) The WWTF (Vienna Science and Technology Fund) implemented several measures like including gender criteria in evaluations, providing applicant information and training decision makers. Lessons included building internal knowledge and adapting practices to their context. 3) Exchanging with research performing organizations (RPOs) is important but often informal. Opportunities exist to better understand different perspectives and find solutions through dialogue. The WWTF found that a holistic, learning-based approach helped support gender mainstreaming

1. Gender Dimension in Research
What can be done by research funders to
support the integration of the gender
dimension in research?
“This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
and innovation programme under grant agreement No 741128”. This presentation
reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible
for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.”
22nd March 2021
Donia Lasinger, WWTF

2. Context
2
Who we are
Private regional non-profit funder
Our mission: support excellent
scientific research in Vienna in
thematic priorities
Embedded as a small but/and flexible
organization in a wider context
→ Individual measures (GM) already
in place, but no systematic approach
What we did
Collection & analysis of best practice examples
of other inter/national RFOs+ lessons learned
Implementation of several gender equality
aspects throughout the funding cycle: gender
in content + extensive information
since 2003:
over 200 Mio. €
spent
Donia Lasinger, WWTF

3. Gender dimension in research
3
…consideration of sex, gender and diversity in the design, implementation, evaluation
and dissemination of research.
Why?
A growing number of studies show that this has the potential to make research more
ethically sound, more rigorous and more useful and not considering it can lead to
poor results and missed opportunities. Extrapolation of research results to the population
as a whole (when actually only apply to a portion of the population) is inaccurate and
could lead to serious implications.
“Investing in a gender-sensitive approach to the research content makes for higher quality
and validity” (Toolkit Gender in EU-Funded research, European Commission)
Donia Lasinger, WWTF

4. What can RFOs do?
4
Raising awareness by including the criterion in the evaluation (basic+applied)
• Consideration when writing an application via an obligatory question: e.g. is
the research question or the approach likely to introduce sex-specific and
gender-related biases in findings?
• Brief explanation in case there is no potential biological sex and/or gender
dimension to be considered in the proposed research
Extensive information of applicants
• Example: checklists, guidelines, personal consultation
Extensive information of decision bodies, e.g. juries
• Example: include an evaluator with gender competence
Donia Lasinger, WWTF

5. Example: Checklist Irish Research
Council (IRC)
5
Does your proposed research programme involve any of the following (yes/no)?
• Humans as the research focus
• Animals as the research focus
• Human samples and/or data
• Humans involved as consumers, users, patients, or in trials
• Research on animals, animal samples and/or data
• Research outputs with implications for end-users or consumers
If you have answered NO, please explain why there is no potential biological sex and/or
gender dimension to be considered in your proposed research.
If you have answered YES, indicate how potential biological sex and/or gender issues will be
handled. In particular, you are asked to reference the points mentioned in the ‘Checklist for
sex/gender in research content’ in the Irish Research Council’s GUIDE FOR APPLICANTS 2014.
Donia Lasinger, WWTF

6. Example: Checklist WWTF
6
Idea phase
• If the research involves humans as research objects, has the relevance of gender to the research topic been analysed?
• If the research does not directly involve humans, are the possibly differentiated relations of men and women to the research
subject sufficiently clear?
• Have you reviewed literature and other sources relating to gender differences in the research field?
Proposal phase
• Does the methodology ensure that (possible) gender differences will be investigated: that sex/ gender differentiated data
will be collected and analysed throughout the research cycle and will be part of the final publication?
• Does the proposal explicitly and comprehensively explain how gender issues will be handled?
• Have possibly differentiated outcomes and impacts of the research on women and men been considered?
Research phase
• Are questionnaires, surveys, focus groups, etc. designed to unravel potentially relevant sex and/or gender differences in your
data?
• Are the groups involved in the project (e.g. samples, testing groups) gender balanced?
• Is data analysed according to the sex variable? Are other relevant variables analysed with respect to sex?
Donia Lasinger, WWTF

7. Lessons learned
7
Building up internal knowledge and a gender-friendly culture inhouse
(setting the scene, “female laboratory mice”?)
• Provide evidence that there is need for action
• Awareness raising, internal discussions, workshops and trainings
• Context: intensive analysis of other RFOs
Adapt the lessons learned to the own context
• Legal status, size, funding volume, structures,…
Implementation and sustainability
• Window of opportunity
• Include the aspects throughout the proposal (not just a checkbox) and the
whole funding cycle (programme design, call execution, project evaluation ex-
ante + ex-post, project execution)
• Extensive information and transparency (scoring system)
• Learning by doing, mutual learning
• Extensive exchange with stakeholder, e.g. RPOs
Donia Lasinger, WWTF

8. Toolkit: Gender in EU-funded
research (European Commission)
8

9. Exchange between RFO-RPOs I
9
Structured questionnaire & selected interviews with 19 RFOs
• Great variety: country, size (FTEs), geographical scale, type of funding
(basic/applied), legal status (public/private), fields of funding,…
• One topic: interdependence RFOs-RPOs
Insights:
• Formal representatives of RPOs are in most RFOs’ governance structures
(advisory/scientific boards/councils)
• Clear policy dialogue regarding GM between RFOs & RPOs is exception
• Informal communication seems to be the more frequent mode of
exchange on GM
Exchange between RFOs & RPOs is important but less often & informal!
Donia Lasinger, WWTF

10. Exchange between RFO-RPOs II
10
Opportunities and challenges – a dialogue example
RPOs:
• “RFOs can simply set the scene by funding female researchers doing gender
research only”
• “Just fund research fields with the right starting base”
• …
RFOs:
• “A poor starting base cannot be changed by more funding”
• “How many more rules should be included until they are followed? What are
the “right” incentives?”
• …
Be aware of different logics, goals and structures, i.e. “walking in
each other’s shoes” and mutual testing & learning!
Donia Lasinger, WWTF

11. Conclusion: WWTF journey
11
Supporting factors
• Private organization: fewer restrictions
than public RFOs
• Not first mover: other organizations
have paved the way
• Best practice examples: evidence for
need for action
• Constant exchange with context
partners (RFOs, RPOs, others…) and
internal
• Resources (EU-project!)
• Holistic approach: implement
measures whole funding cycle and
several aspects of GM for
sustainability
Impeding factors
• Private also means not having to fulfill
the public requirements (political
background is crucial)
• Different challenges applied vs. basic
research
• Takes time: learning by doing as there
is no one-fits-all solution (start even if
“the perfect” measures are not (yet)
found)
Donia Lasinger, WWTF

12. Useful links
12
• Gender in research Toolkit” by Yellow Window:
https://www.yellowwindow.com/genderinresearch
• CIHR Key considerations for the appropriate integration of sex and gender in
research: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50835.html
• CIHR Sex and Gender Online Training Modules: https://www.cihr-irsc-igh-
isfh.ca/
• Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) Guidelines:
https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s4107
3-016-0007-6.pdf
• Stanford University Gendered Innovations:
http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu
• Best practice examples of gender mainstreaming in Research Funding
Organizations:
https://gmbh.wwtf.at/upload/GEECCO_report_best_practice.pdf
• Overview and assessment of gender criteria for funding programmes:
http://www.geecco-
project.eu/fileadmin/t/geecco/geecco/material/GEECCO_WP7_Report_Overvi
ew_and_assessment_of_gender_criteria_for_funding_programmes.pdf
Donia Lasinger, WWTF

13. Thank you
13
Donia Lasinger, WWTF