Presentation held by Angela Zeller (Agence Nationale de la Recherche) during the webinar "How can RFOs fight gender bias", organised by SUPERA on 18 November 2020. More infos are available here: https://www.superaproject.eu/experience-exchange-between-research-funding-organisations/

1. How can RFOs fight gender bias?
Experience from ANR
18 November 2020
Speaker: Angela Zeller

2. Introduction: the gender issue for a funding agency
How to help reduce gender inequalities?
 Ensuring that calls for proposals are addressed to both women and men
 Ensuring fair treatment of projects submitted in response to calls for projects
 Ensuring that the evaluation criteria do not disadvantage women
 Promoting and giving visibility to work carried out by women

3. French legislative context
 Agreement of November 2018 on professional equality between women and men in
the public service
 Law No. 2019-828 of August 2019 on the transformation of the public service
provides for the implementation of an equality action plan (article 80)
 August 2019 referential of action plans relating to professional equality between
women and men in the public service
 Decree No. 2020-256 of March 2020 in application of article 80 of the law on the
transformation of the civil service
Obligation to implement an equality action plan for all public institution in
2020 or face financial penalties

4. A European project to support us: GenderSmart
 9 partners
 2 technical partners
 6 research and teaching organizations
 1 funding organization
 Objectives
 Development and implementation of a gender action plan in each partner
organization
 Dissemination of practices at national and international level
 Budget
 300 000 euro for the ANR
 Timeline
 1st January 2019 – 31 December 2022

5. Audit and self assessment from January to July 2019
 Data analysis
 Social Data
 Data on submission and funded projects
 Analysis of strategic and framework
documents
 Analysis of communication actions

6. Observations
 The ANR is already well advanced
 Many actions have been carried out
 Gender sensitive automatism
 The lack of formalization
 Lack of formalization of the effective consideration of gender in
communication or the organization of internal and external events
 Need to objectify
 Lack of data
 Go further in a structured way

7. Gender bias in evaluation and selection process: literature
review
Women are less well rated than men
 Unconscious bias
 Evaluators are mostly men
 Evaluation criteria favor men

8. Gender bias in evaluation and selection process: data analysis
Female
30,6%
Male
69,3%
NR
0,1%
% of male & female PIs
(phase 1, 2015-2018)
 Among the projects submitted to the generic call for proposals from 2015 to
2018, at the end of the process, the percentage of projects conducted by women
selected for funding is only 28.8% whereas at the end of stage 1 the percentage
is 30.6%.
Female
28,8%
Male
71,2%
NR
0,0%
% of male &female PIs
(funded projects, 2015-2018)

9. Gender bias in evaluation and selection process: data analysis
29,3% 30,2% 31,7% 31,3%
70,7% 69,8% 68,3% 68,7%
0,0%
10,0%
20,0%
30,0%
40,0%
50,0%
60,0%
70,0%
80,0%
90,0%
100,0%
2015 2016 2017 2018
Evolution of the % of male & female PIs per year
(submissions phase 1, 2015-2018)
Femme Homme
 General evolution from submitted projects led by women throughout the
different editions of the generic call for proposals. The proportion of projects
led by women increases constantly (phase 1)

10. Gender bias in evaluation and selection process: data analysis
The results of the selection regarding projects conducted by women increase
constantly. They represent 28.2% in 2015, and 30% in 2018.
28,2% 27,5% 29,2% 30,0%
71,8% 72,5% 70,8% 70,0%
0,0%
10,0%
20,0%
30,0%
40,0%
50,0%
60,0%
70,0%
80,0%
90,0%
100,0%
2015 2016 2017 2018
Evolution of the % of male & female PIs per year
(funded projects, 2015-2018)
Femme Homme

11. Gender bias in evaluation and selection process: data analysis
More and more women are submitting projects preferentially to the JCJC
instrument.
34,9% 36,7%
27,7%
23,5%
65,1% 63,3%
72,3%
76,5%
0,0%
10,0%
20,0%
30,0%
40,0%
50,0%
60,0%
70,0%
80,0%
90,0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018
JCJC PRC PRCE
% of male & female PIs per funding instrument and per
year
(selected projects, 2015-2018)
Femme Homme

12. Gender bias in evaluation and selection process: data analysis
Breakdown by ERC discipline (2015-2018)
Women Men
34,0
%
66,0
%
LS
21,1
%
78,9
%
PE
32,3
%
67,7
%
LS // PE
42,7
%57,3
%
SH
7,7%
92,3
%
LS // PE // SH
34,8
%
65,2
%
PE // SH
46,9
%
53,1
%
LS // SH
33,8
%
66,2
%
Transverses

13. Gender Equality Plan: Elaboration
 Based on:
• Audit’s results
• 3 collaborative workshops with the executive committee, the head
of impact unit and the prevention assistant
 The structure:
• Three main areas
o Culture and organisation
o Human resources
o Research funding
• For each area we have identified 4-5 axes
Gender as an object of research Sex and / or gender dimension in projects regardless of the scientific field

14. Gender Equality Plan: Structure
 Culture and organisation
 Institutionalise the GEP
 Incorporate equality in values
 Objectify possible inequalities
 Communicate
 Train and raise awareness
 Human Ressources
 Recruitment
 Remuneration
 Career management
 Professional life/ private life
 Sexual harassment/ sexism
 Funding research
 Call for proposals (AAP)
 Incorporate the sex and/ or gender dimension in the research project
 Evaluation
 Impact

15. Gender Equality Plan: Focus on Funding Research
 Call for proposals (AAP)
Actions
Entity(ies)/person(s) in
charge
Indicators/
deliverables Timetable
3.1.1: Word the calls for proposals in compliance with the drafting
rules set out in the specific guide (1.4.5)
DOS Guide 2021
3.1.2: Incorporate the sex and/or gender dimension when drafting
scientific areas for calls for proposals
DOS AAPG wording 2021
2020 (for 2021
edition)

16. Gender Equality Plan: Focus on Funding Research
 Incorporate the sex and/or gender dimension in the research
project
Actions
Entity(ies)/person(s) in
charge
Indicators/deliverables Timetable
3.2.1: Raise the awareness of scientific communities to the issues on
taking this into account under the ANR Tour, on the website, etc.
DOS_EM, DICO
Number of awareness-raising
actions
In application
and to be made
systematic
3.2.2: Ask project leaders to describe in their scientific document how
they take the sex and/or gender dimension into account in their
research projects: test phase launched on the generic AAP 2020
DOS_EM Export of specific tab
In application
and to be
analysed
3.2.3: Prepare feedback after analysing the test phase
GenderSmart project team,
DOS_EM
Consolidated document July 2020
3.2.4: Ask project leaders to describe in their scientific document how
they take the sex and/or gender dimension into account in their
research projects: test phase launched on the 2020 generic AAP: make
standard for all calls for proposals launched by the Agency based on
feedback from AAPG 2020
DOS_EM
Paragraph to be incorporated
in the AAP wording
2021/2022
3.2.5: Introduce an evaluation criterion on whether or not this sex
and/or gender dimension is taken into account in research projects
submitted to the Agency's AAP
CDS, DOS_EM Drafting the criterion 2022

17. Gender Equality Plan: Focus on Funding Research
 Evaluation
Actions Entity(ies)/person(s) in charge Indicators/deliverables Timetable
3.3.1: Strive for parity when constituting evaluation committees by
mobilising networks or databases such as AcademiaNet. This objective
must, however, be put into perspective according to the scientific
communities involved
DOS/DGPIE
Proportion of women in the
committees
In application
3.3.2: Identify potential biases in evaluation using a quantitative and
qualitative methodology (indicators, observation, surveys of committee
members, etc.)
GenderSmart project team Report
In application
and to be
made
systematic
3.3.3: Test anonymisation of applications in a call for proposals DOS Feedback 2022

18. Gender Equality Plan: Focus on Funding Research
 Impact
Actions Entity(ies)/person(s) in charge Indicators/deliverables Timetable
3.4.1: Develop indicators to measure the scientific production of women
and men
Studies Unit, impact analyses,
DOS/DGPIE
Methodology document 2023
3.4.2: Develop indicators to identify who are the spokespersons for the
results of research projects
Studies Unit, impact analyses,
DOS/DGPIE
Methodology document 2023
3.4.3: Develop indicators to collect gender-disaggregated data on the
status of project leaders and scientists involved in the project
Studies Unit, impact analyses,
DOS/DGPIE
Information rate 2021

19.  Validation:
 Executive committee : December 2019
 Staff representative: March 2020
 Board of directors: July 2020
 Dissemination
 Presentation to all staff in July
 Website (in french)
Gender Equality Plan approval

20.  Analysis on whether the sex and / or gender dimension has
been integrated or not in projects submitted to our Generic
Call phase 2.
 Conference « Gender in Research: evaluation and knowledge
production »  15 Decembre 2020
https://live.eventtia.com/fr/gendersmartanrcirad
To conclude