Gender

What works for institutional transformation? Gender, inclusion, and diversity (GDI) in African agricultural research institutions and research

PREPARED BY GENDER AT WORK FOR AWARD

JUNE 21, 2021

Contents

Acronyms

3

Introduction
5

Structure of the paper
6

Methodology
7

PART 1: Gender, diversity and inclusion in agricultural research and development in Africa
8

1.1 Gender in African agriculture policy and research
8

1.2 Gender, diversity and inclusion in African agricultural research institutions
10

PART 2: What works for transforming (agricultural) research institutions?
13

2.1 Institutional leadership and strategic vision
13

2.2 GDI data and evidence
14

2.3 GDI integration plans
14

2.4 Integrating GDI in organizational policies and culture
15

2.5 Partnerships and networking
16

2.6 Strategies geared towards women and diverse researchers
17

PART 3: What works for transforming (agricultural) research?
19

3.1 Contextual gender and intersectional analysis
19

3.2 Research focus
21

3.3 Research methods
22

3.4 Power dynamics in research
23

3.5 From awareness to transformation: research and action
25

PART 4 – Extent of GDI Integration in the Research Institutes
27

4.1 Overall Status of Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Integration
27

4.2 Strengths and Good Practices
27

4.2.1 External factors influencing uptake of gender in research institutes
27

4.2.2 Gender champions
28

4.2.3 Mentorship
28

4.2.4 Multi-disciplinary, participatory action research
29

4.3 Challenges and Gaps
29

4.3.1 Strategic vision
29

4.3.2 Myth of gender neutrality in agricultural research institutes
29

4.3.3 Creating conditions for equitable agricultural research institutions
30

4.3.4 Lack of financial investments to sustain gender agenda
30

4.3.5 Applying an intersectional lens
30

PART 5: Towards a GRARD conceptual framework for institutional GDI transformation
31

1

5.1 How to use the Conceptual Framework? 32
5.1.1 Institutional Action Areas 33
5.1.2 Research Action Areas 35
Part 6: Monitoring progress towards institutional transformation 37
Annex 1 – Resource : Gender, Diversity and Inclusion in Internal Institutional Transformation of Agricultural Research Institutions 41
Annex 2 – Resource: Gender, Diversity and Inclusion in Research of Agricultural Research Institutions 43
Annex 3 – Summary of evidence-based reviews of transformation in research institutions 45
Annex 4 – The Gender-sensitive research cycle 52
Annex 5 – The Gender at Work Analytical Framework 54
References 57

2

Acronyms

AU African Union
AWARD African Women’s Agricultural Research and Development
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
CGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research
CIFOR Centre for International Forestry Research
CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
EC European Commission
EDI Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
EIGE European Institute for Gender Equality
EU European Union
GDI Gender, Diversity and Inclusion
GRARD Gender-Responsive Agricultural Research and Development
GTA Gender Transformative Approaches
ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (World Agroforestry Centre)
IDRC International Development Research Centre
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IWDA International Women’s Development Agency
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LERU League of European Research Universities
NARI National Agricultural Research Institutions
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
R&D Research and Development
R&I Research and Innovation

3

SDG Sustainable Development Goals
STEM Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNRISD United Nations Research Institute for Social Development
WEF World Economic Forum

4

Introduction
African Women in Agricultural Research and Development (AWARD) promotes inclusive, agriculture-driven prosperity for the African continent by strengthening the production and dissemination of more gender-responsive agricultural research and innovation1 that contributes to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 5) on achieving gender equality, empowerment, and social inclusion at all levels. Gender equality is at the core of AWARD’s mandate as an essential goal, a fundamental value and a critical building block for agricultural transformation and rural development in the continent.

This paper argues that agricultural transformation cannot take place without the transformation of research institutions themselves, acknowledgement of their specific circumstances and the power they hold in how agricultural research is framed and who carries out and participates in the research.

In 2017, AWARD launched the Gender Responsive Agricultural Research and Development (GRARD) initiative to support efforts made by African agricultural research institutions to heighten awareness on gender equality in agricultural research and policy development and promote a culture of systematic gender integration in internal and external processes.

The GRARD initiative has sought to support institutional change in selected African National Agricultural Research Institutions (NARIs) 2 to “leverage the talents of diverse teams and grow their ability to support and conduct research that is more inclusive, better targeted, and better designed to respond to the needs and priorities of men and women across agricultural value chains”.3

Using a flexible and responsive approach, the initiative has focused on strengthening the prioritization of gender integration in the workplace and in the overall research process. The gender-responsive approach built on learning from the AWARD Fellowships and mentoring programs which indicated that in addition to
efforts to build the capacity of women agricultural scientists, changes in the organization culture, structure and processes of African agricultural research institutions were equally needed to

1 https://awardfellowships.org/
2 The eight GRARD partners are: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) (Ghana); Mekelle University (Ethiopia); Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR); Pwani University (Kenya); Lilongwe University of Agriculture & Natural Resources (LUANAR) (Malawi); Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta (FUNAAB) (Nigeria); Nelson Mandela African Institute for Science and Technology (NMAIST) (Tanzania); andTanzanian Agricultural Research Institute (TARI).
3 African Women in Agricultural Research and Development. A Decade of Advancing Inclusive Agricultural Research: The AWARD Story. 2018: 48.
5

create a more conducive environment for African institutions to prioritize and embrace gender in both policy and practice and thereby strengthen research quality.

This paper seeks to provide a contribution to the GRARD initiative by identifying evidence about “what works” in two inter-related but distinct areas of focus: 1) how to build gender, diversity and inclusive (GDI) practices, processes, and culture within agricultural research institutions; and 2) how to better integrate GDI considerations into
research practice. The paper reviews evidence and lessons from global and African contexts drawn from recent theoretical research, conceptual models, and measurement frameworks. The analysis combines primary data from key informant interviews with six out of eight of GRARD NARI partners from East and West Africa. While the sample is small, the findings serve to enrich and contextualize the review to the realities of, and status of GDI integration, in such institutions in Africa.

Based on this evidence, the paper proposes a conceptual framework to guide efforts by agricultural research institutions to better integrate GDI into their internal functioning and into the research they do, complete with results indicators or metrics to assess progress and provide a basis to ensure accountability on GDI institutional processes.

Structure of the paper
The paper is organized into five parts.

Part 1 describes the current state of GDI in agriculture research in Africa. This helps to frame key issues and questions that need to be addressed in the conceptual framework for GRARD interventions.

Parts 2 and 3 review the global literature and evidence of what works to a) transform internal
organizational culture, policy and practice in research institutions, and b) transform research content, policy and practice, respectively.

Part 4 summarizes the findings with NARIs on extent of GDI integration in their institutes.

Parts 5 and 6 present the proposed GRARD conceptual framework and related monitoring framework, with practical suggestions on how these frameworks can be picked up and use agricultural research institutes.

6

Before turning to the literature on what works, we describe the methodology of the review.

Methodology
This paper draws on an extensive literature review across several disciplines including but not limited to research organizations and institutions, organizational development, agriculture, international development, gender and intersectionality drawn from peer-reviewed journals, academic and non-academic databases, and grey literature.

The literature was analyzed for:

▪ Evidence of effective strategies (or challenges) either from or applicable to research institutions or bodies, particularly in science and social sciences;
▪ Evidence of effective strategies (or challenges) in agricultural research institutions or research institutions working on agriculture in Africa; and
▪ Descriptions of the change pathways needed for GDI integration in institutions and in research.

The analysis also built on extensive experiential knowledge of gender and organizational change of the Gender at Work team.

While perspectives and experiences from the Global South were specifically sought, it should be noted that only a few of the studies focus on agricultural research institutions and even fewer specifically relate to the African context. A small body of Southern-based and African researchers in this field have begun to examine GDI issues in management and leadership in the African context. Akobo and Damisah, for instance, examined the varying social identities that influence workplace policies and practices in African institutions and found that gender remains a key sociocultural determinant of inequality in African organizations due to the ongoing patriarchal cultures across many African countries.4 They also found that racial and ethnic stereotypes and divisions outside organisations affect people’s behaviour and attitudes in the workplace. For example, in South Africa, race, ethnicity and gender along with HIV are key identity markers of oppression and discrimination within organizations and the wider context. In Eritrea, gender, age, class and political views are more valued in terms of job performance rather than merit or experience. In Kenya, ethnic diversity has led to favouritism for recruitment and training opportunities based on ethnic affiliations and what is defined in the article as African notions of ethnocentrism, traditionalism, communalism and social teamwork, both positive and negative forces. They note the “need to examine the connection between national cultural values and managing diversity in the workplace”.5 These authors recommend the development of diversity management policies and practices relevant to African institutions.

The literature on gender and research institutions is more significant, currently, than that on intersectionality and on diversity and inclusion. Finally, most of the literature reviewed focuses on either a) integration of GDI within organizational culture and practices (of research institutions) or b) GDI integration into research processes. Few looked at both dimensions in an integrated way. We look at these two sets of literature with the purpose of building a holistic or integrated conceptual framework for institutional transformation of agricultural research

4 Akobo, L. and O. Damisah. Diversity Management Discourse: An African Perspective. African Journal of Business Management, Volume 12, Issue 13: 2018.
5 Akobo and Damisah, 2018: 403.
7

institutions. In addition, the limited documentation on effective strategies and change pathways in the African context are, in part, addressed in the data from interviews with GRARD partners (presented in Part 4). Annex 2 provides an annotated summary of key sources from the literature review.

PART 1: Gender, diversity and inclusion in agricultural research and development in Africa
This section provides a brief overview of contextual factors that shape initiatives to support institutional change or transformation of African agricultural research institutions.

1.1 Gender in African agriculture policy and research

The African Union (AU) Heads of state have signed the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP).6 The overall objective of CAADP is to improve livelihoods, food security, and environmental resilience in Africa around four mutually reinforcing pillars to boost low agricultural productivity for Africa’s development. These pillars are:

▪ Extending the area under sustainable land management;
▪ Improving rural infrastructure and trade-related capacities for market access;
▪ Increasing food supply and reducing hunger; and
▪ Agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoption.

Specifically, CAADP supports country-driven agricultural development strategies and programs within African Union countries to harmonize investments to generate 6 per cent annual growth in agricultural output.7 However, the CAADP is largely gender-blind. As such, the CAAPD fails to align with continental policies for gender equality, notably the African Union’s (AU) Agenda
20638 which emphasizes women and youth empowerment as a catalyst to Africa’s development and which calls for women to “[…] be fully empowered in all spheres, with equal […] rights to own and inherit property, sign a contract, register and manage a business. Rural women will have access to productive assets, including land, credit, inputs and financial services”.9

For example, African countries that signed on to CAADP commitments are expected to provide Country Biennial Reports (BR).10 The guidelines have only three gender-sensitive indicators out of 43 indicators: the proportion of men and women engaged in agriculture with access to financial services, the percentage of rural women with access to productive assets in agriculture (to measure women’s empowerment in agriculture) and the growth rate of minimum dietary diversity for women. No indicators track paid versus unpaid labour effects on women and men’s roles and participation in agriculture. And, despite only having three gender-sensitive indicators to report on, in the 2018 country reporting, “many countries did not do well on reporting on

6https://au.int/en/caadp
7 In 2014, AU states signed the Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods, which reinforces CAADP principles/fundamentals. It serves to support governments to develop national and regional agricultural policy documents.
8 https://au.int/en/agenda2063/continental-frameworks
9 Ibid, 2.
10 New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). CAADP Country Implementation Under the Malabo Declaration: Guidelines. April 2016.
8

gender-related indicators due to lack of data—and it is unclear whether progress has been made or not.”11
This problem was highlighted in the the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System’s (ReSAKSS) 2019 Annual Trends and Outlook Report. ReSAKSS, established in 2006 under CAADP, provides data and related analytical and knowledge products to facilitate CAADP benchmarking, review, and mutual learning processes.12 In the report, a gender lens was applied to key issues that must be addressed to fully achieve CAADP goals. The Report concluded that the main gap in the African agricultural sector is better gender data. Specifically, the report noted the need for better data on rural women and girls to:

▪ understand all of women’s work;
▪ help improve women’s productivity and food security and nutrition; and
▪ better understand and more effectively tackle poverty.13

The report calls for sex disaggregation of key indicators and for the strengthening of partnerships between data producers and policymakers for more effective policy to advance gender equality.

In terms of the integration of GDI in agricultural research, countries are beginning to revise their science funding programs to be more gender-sensitive. South Africa revised its science funding policy in research to include funding specifically on gender dimensions in scientific research and to ensure that all funded research includes the gender dimension, including in research design and evaluation.14 However, much remains to be done, including in ensuring researchers have the knowledge and skills they need to conform with such policies. In an internal gender audit commissioned by the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) in 2018-2019, most staff interviewed affirmed that they should address gender inequalities in their work, but stated that they lacked sufficient knowledge and capacity on gender-based analysis and how to address power inequalities in agricultural research.15 This is echoed in the results of a 2017 evaluation of gender in CGIAR research institutions in which “CGIAR managers…stated that they lacked knowledge and skills in working effectively through a diversity lens”.16

The challenge remains that most studies investigating labour, land and agricultural productivity trends in Africa have paid little attention to differentiating research results by gender and or age, let alone by other social markers.17 Manyire and Apekey, for example, postulate that African research institutions are embedded in a value system of seeing agriculture as an impersonal activity and as focused on markets or value addition. At the same time, in many African

11 Quisumbing, A.R., et al. Meinzen-Dick, and J. Njuki, eds. Gender Equality in Rural Africa: From Commitments to Outcomes. ReSAKSS 2019 Annual Trends and Outlook Report. International Food Policy Research Institute: 2019: 2.
12 The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) facilitates the work of ReSAKSS in partnerhips with the
African Union Commission (AUC), the NEPAD planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA), leading regional economic communities, and Africa-based CGIAR centres. See: https://www.ifpri.org/publication/resakss-regional-strategic- analysis-and-knowledge-support-system
13 Quisumbing, A.R., R.S. Meinzen-Dick, and J. Njuki, eds., 2019.
14 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Telling SAGA: Improving Measurement and Policies for Gender Equality in Science, Technology and Innovation. 2018: 92.
15 Drucza, K., M. Tsegaye and L. Azage. Doing Research and “Doing Gender” in Ethiopia’s Agricultural Research
System. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). 2019.
16 Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Evaluation of Gender in CGIAR. Rome, Italy: Independent Evaluation Arrangement (IEA) of CGIAR. 2017.
17 Quisumbing, A.R., R.S. Meinzen-Dick, and J. Njuki, eds., 2019.
9

contexts, informal subsistence agriculture is the main source of livelihood and is intimately tied to the gendered social organization of life and culture. They go on to argue that inequities, exclusions and unfavourable inclusions have their genesis partly in the colonial and post- colonial development frameworks which excluded and/or unfavourably included rural areas, agriculture, smallholder farmers, females in general and female farmers in particular, in the general development process.18

1.2 Gender, diversity and inclusion in African agricultural research institutions

In research, GDI in the scientific workforce can enhance creativity, innovation and new science perspectives to research and development.19 However, in terms of gender parity for example, women make up just under a third of researchers worldwide. In African countries, there is wide variation in the number of female scientists, with the proportion of female researchers below 25% in Central and West African countries; between 25% and 35% in East African countries; and between 35% and 41% in countries in Southern Africa.20

The Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) initiative provides sex-disaggregated data on agricultural researchers in developing countries. ASTI data shows the following numbers for male and female agricultural researchers in the countries of the GRARD initiative.21 These statistics show a general alignment with the UNESCO figures for all researchers stated above, except for the much lower percentages of female agricultural researchers in Ethiopia (10%).

Country Male Female Total % female researchers
Ghana 471.4 127.4 598.8 21.28%
Ethiopia 2707.7 316.9 3,024.6 10.48%
Kenya 811.2 344.9 1,156.1 29.83%
Malawi 125.9 32.4 158.3 20.47%
Nigeria 1061.4 441.0 1,502.4 29.35%
Tanzania 553.8 231.2 785.0 29.45%

In addition, data from ASTI shows that African women researchers are over-represented at the lower levels of research systems and under-represented in managerial positions. A 2017 gender

18 Manyire, H. and A.D. Arucpekey. Mainstreaming Gender Equality in African Agricultural Research and Development: A Study of Constraints and Opportunities. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa. 2013: 2. 19 https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures.
20 UNESCO, 2018: 41. Note that statistics on diversity in the research workforce worldwide are not available or could not be located by the research team.
21 International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2020 Global Food Policy Report: Building Inclusive Food
Systems, Annex on Food Policy Indicators: Tracking Change. 2020. See also the Women in African Agricultural Research Portal https://www.asti.cgiar.org/gender
10

evaluation of CGIAR’s 15 research centres also confirms this: it revealed that women made up only 30 per cent of leadership, managerial, scientific and professional roles, and only 21 per cent of senior management and senior principal scientist roles.22

The phenomenon of female participation going down with career progression has been called the “leaky pipeline”.23 One example of the differential experiences and perceptions of the workplace environment by male and female agricultural researchers, that contributes to the leaky pipeline, is drawn from the 2017 CGIAR gender evaluation mentioned above which showed that men, as compared to women, expressed significantly more satisfaction with their careers and professional development opportunities. Male researchers felt more integrated within networks of influence and social networks, and experienced a greater sense of “fit” and comfort in the workplace. Men felt more appreciated and positive about how their research institution and CGIAR broadly was tackling GDI issues.24

As AWARD itself notes about its fellowship program,

African institutions struggle with recognizing, accommodating, and creating continual growth opportunities for women scientists. This limits the potential of fellows and the ability of the institutions they work in to engage fully with the agricultural transformation agenda. It points to the need to encourage agricultural research institutions to provide gender equitable environments that offer professional and leadership opportunities to both men and women.25

Improved policies that acknowledge and address GDI issues are obviously an important factor when it comes to increasing diversity and inclusion at all levels in the agricultural research workplace. There is growing evidence that leadership diversity in science fields can lead to more inclusive, socially just and gender responsive workplace policies and interventions, such as improved policies for parental leave and childcare. As these factors reinforce each other, the lack of leadership diversity in agricultural research institutions may be in part caused or at least not helped by the lack of such policies.

Policies on their own, however, do not guarantee increased diversity. Where policies to foster equity in the workplace do exist, contradictions often remain between internal policy objectives and actual practices at managerial and operational levels. In the CGIAR gender evaluation some factors that may have led to this policy and practice gap included the limited use of proactive approaches to recruitment and professional development of women; insufficient messaging about how gender and diversity enhances organizational performance; and a lack of explicit strategies and performance indicators for change.26

It has been 25 years since governments, UN system and national governments and organizations adopted “gender mainstreaming” as a strategy to address gender inequality, now often referred to as gender integration. Over the last decade, the spotlight has shone on research institutions, including agricultural research institutions, to illuminate how they can support, or confound, progress in advancing gender equality as integral to sustainable

22 CGIAR, 2017.
23 Beintema, N. An Assessment of the Gender Gap in African Agricultural Research Capacities. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, Volume 2, Issue 1: 2017: 1.
24 CGIAR, 2017.
25 AWARD, 2018: 47.
26 CGIAR, 2017.
11

development. The next two sections outline key findings from the literature to support agricultural research institutions in their efforts to integrate GDI in their workplaces (Part 2) and in their research (Part 3). Annex 1 provides more detailed summaries of frameworks and lessons learned from key documents from the literature review.

While many organizations will find they adopt similar strategies, it is important to note that GDI integration will look different in each institution. Each agricultural research institution will determine its own vision for institutional transformation and its own pathway towards that change. As the Gender-Net Analysis Report of 2015 has noted (a European Commission- funded review of gender in 52 academic and research institutions),

Structural change is unique and individual for each institution and is linked to institutional and national frameworks – there is no “one-size-fits-all” model.27

Parts 2 and 3 provide suggestions for areas that research institutions can reflect and act on, but it is important to recall that research institutions do not exist in a vacuum. Their efforts at structural change can be helped or even hindered by various elements of the enabling environment. The global enabling environment for gender equality comprises the various multi- lateral agreements and conventions of the United Nations and the African Union. At the national level, the policy and legislative context can also be a significant driving force for stimulating structural change in research institutions.28 This is explored further below.

27 Vinogradova, O., Y. Jänchen and G. Obexer-Ruff. Gender-Net Analysis Report: Plans and Initiatives in Selected Research Institutions Aiming to Stimulate Gender Equality and Enact Structural Change. Gender-Net Analysis Report. 2015: 10.
28 See for example: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Toolkit for Mainstreaming and
Implementing Gender Equality: Implementing the 2015 OECD Recommendation on Gender Equality in Public Life. 2015.
12

PART 2: What works for transforming (agricultural) research institutions?
The last two decades of studies and research in gender equality in science and technology show that if we want to implement change, the focus must shift from individual support measures to the structural transformations of institutions – from “fixing the women” and “fixing the numbers”, to “fixing institutions”. The first step is to convince countries that no policy is gender-neutral and that gender-blind instruments are detrimental to science.29

The theme of structural transformation of research institutes as a necessary condition for gender integration runs through this paper. This section looks at what the literature reveals about effective strategies for internal institutional transformation, while Part 3 explores the factors that contribute to gender (or GDI) responsive or transformative research.

2.1 Institutional leadership and strategic vision

Institutional change does not happen without political will. Political will can be defined as the “ways in which leaders use their position of power to communicate and demonstrate their support, leadership, enthusiasm for and commitment” 30 to working toward GDI in the organization. Research institutions’ leaders play a critically important role in modeling engagement and desired behaviours:

This includes how leaders communicate their commitment to gender mainstreaming, demonstrate their support, encourage staff, strengthen the position of the gender mainstreaming support structure, and how they set a good example by implementing
gender mainstreaming in their daily work routines, decision‑making processes and all
other activities.31

In addition to communicating their commitment to GDI, leaders must develop and communicate a strategic vision.32 An official statement on GDI defines the organisation’s overall vision of GDI, makes its commitment clear, and embeds GDI in an organization’s general mandate. It serves as the organisation’s general framework for activities such as setting concrete GDI objectives and developing action plans.33

In constructing the organizational vision, the European Commission recommends avoiding a “deficit-model perspective (as if women needed more teaching than men), and instead adopt a structural change perspective. In this way, even actions directly addressing individual women

29 UNESCO, 2018: 6.
30 Inter-Action. The Gender Audit Handbook A Tool for Organizational Self Assessment and Transformation. 2010: 13.
31 European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). Institutional Transformation: Gender Mainstreaming Toolkit.
2016b: 12. As well, it can be very effective to identify one senior leader to “play the role of visionary, monitor implementation of organizational-wide policies, support strategic learning and ensure coordination”, in Henry, S.K., J. Sandler, L. Passerini and G.L. Darmstadt. Taking on the Gender Challenge in Organizations: What Does It Take?
Journal of Global Public Health: 2015. See also: Vinogradova, O., Y. Jänchen and G. Obexer-Ruff, 2015.
32 Henry, S.K., J. Sandler, L. Passerini and G.L. Darmstadt, 2015: 8.
33 EIGE, 2016b: 12.
13

can take on a structural character in that they can produce modifications affecting the entire organisation, in cultural, but also in organisational and normative terms”.34

Coe et al., argue that an “inclusive leadership” paradigm is critical to developing the kind of organizational culture most conducive to structural change in institutions. Developing inclusive leadership means including GDI among core competencies of leaders, including cultural intelligence and self-awareness of implicit bias, core competencies that are valuable for all members of the scientific community. Inclusive leaders have a profound impact on their organizations, including on how researchers interact and relate with their colleagues, and how they frame and design research.35

Inclusive leadership would recognize the importance of shared leadership, as well. The studies consulted revealed examples of shared leadership such as internal networks of GDI champions, who support structural change implementation and who can meet periodically with organizational leaders to brief them on progress.

2.2 GDI data and evidence

Many institutions have found that a key driver for action on GDI is evidence of inequalities. The creation of an evidence base, for instance through gender disaggregated data on recruitment, retention, promotion, pay, and committee representation36 is essential to raise awareness of GDI issues, explain the rationale for structural change, and serves as the basis for the design of plans and initiatives.37 The use of evidence ensures the soundness of proposed plans, instilling confidence within the institution about such plans, policies and programs. Evidence can build momentum to introduce management practices that recognise and aim to mitigate or overcome gender and other barriers through strengthened approaches to recruit, retain, develop, successfully manage and use the talents of diverse staff.

2.3 GDI integration plans

Along with a strongly communicated vision, most studies also underline the need for organizational GDI plans.38 Such plans should be comprehensive across the institution, embedded in its existing structures and management procedures, and sustainable.39 Given the “complexity of equality, diversity and inclusion outcomes in an organizational context”40, institutions must be prepared to be both flexible and resilient.41 And, while there is no single type

34 Vinogradova, O., Y. Jänchen and G. Obexer-Ruff, 2015: viii. As well: “Many advocates, including women in academic science and medicine, are tired of initiatives that focus on women as being the problem, and which assume a masculine heteronormative view of the world, requiring women to achieve a set of behaviors and measures that have been defined, determined, and continued to be measured by systems that are inherently sexist and racist by design,”, in Coe, I.R, R. Wiley and L-G Bekker. Organisational Best Practices Towards Gender Equality in Science and Medicine. The Lancet, Volume 393, Issue 10171: 2019.
35 Coe et al, 2019.
36 Vinogradova, O., Y. Jänchen and G. Obexer-Ruff, 2015: 14-15.
37 Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Research and Innovation: International Review.
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). 2019.
38 See for example Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019 and Vinogradova, O., Y. Jänchen and G. Obexer-Ruff, 2015. 39 European Commission (EC). Structural Transformation to Achieve Gender Equality in Sciences (STAGES) Guidelines. 2015. See also Vinogradova, O., Y. Jänchen and G. Obexer-Ruff, 2015; Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019; European Commission (EC). Directorate General for Research and Innovation, Toolkit: Gender in EU-funded Research. 2011:11.
40 Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019.
41 EC, 2011: 11.
14

of plan that is used, or is applicable, across research institutions, studies consulted consistently identified the following key factors of an effective plan:

▪ High quality of measures and actions, tailored to the challenges of the institution and including actions targeting the transformation of both institutional policies and organizational culture;
▪ Well-defined roles, well-understood expectations about such roles, responsibility at all levels, and accountability at the highest levels;
▪ Establishment of responsible structures with proper mandates, such as Gender Units;
▪ Allocation of sufficient, strategically-planned human and financial resources;
▪ Clear accountability at different levels of the organization, ensuring that “people and teams articulate specific results and targets for their work on gender equality themselves”42;
▪ A strong results framework with measurable indicators and clear targets, along with robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that is embedded into the institution’s existing performance management system; and
▪ A communications strategy that includes a range of attractive and compelling messages and use different media to reach audiences effectively.43

Across all these factors, the point made most emphatically in the literature reviewed is that of the accountability of leadership to agreed commitments and expectations. Most, if not all, sources consulted stress the importance of integrating a robust accountability framework to determine “the extent to which it is “walking the talk” in terms of integrating GDI considerations into programs and organizational structures”.44 Accountability starts at the top: the demonstrated political will by institutional leaders to support GDI is foundational to structural change, as are accountability policies that hold senior managers responsible for promoting GDI.45

2.4 Integrating GDI in organizational policies and culture

Structural change requires attention to both formal and informal organizational dimensions. As Coe et al explain, while “organizational climate” refers to “the meanings ascribed to organisations policies, practices, and procedures”, “organizational culture” is comprised of “the shared values and beliefs that influence workplace and employee behavior”. They argue that “climate and culture must be addressed together because efforts to build a good climate will be unsuccessful if the policies conflict with the beliefs, assumptions, and values of an organization”.46

Thus, gender integration must be anchored “in the formal rules and policies of an organisation,
i.e. the organisation’s mandate, procedural rules and job descriptions”47, including “the clear assignment of related tasks and responsibilities to staff members…and making gender

42 Henry et al, 2015: 8.
43 Adapted from Vinogradova, O., Y. Jänchen and G. Obexer-Ruff, 2015: 9; Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019; Henry et al, 2015; EC, 2011: 11; EC, 2015.
44 Inter-Action, 2013: 13.
45 Vinogradova, O., Y. Jänchen and G. Obexer-Ruff, 2015: 39.
46 Coe et al, 2019: 587. See also Inter-Action, 2010: 13: Organizational Culture is comprised of the “norms, customs, beliefs and codes of behavior in an organization that support or undermine gender equality – how people relate; what are seen as acceptable ideas; how people are “expected to behave” and what behaviors are rewarded”.
47 EIGE, 2016b: 12
15

mainstreaming methods and tools a mandatory part of an organisation’s standard procedures. This may include approaches such as setting incentives and applying sanctions if necessary.”48 The creation or strengthening of key human resource policies, such as work-life balance, equal pay, anti-harassment, child and eldercare policies, may at times be initiated due to the concerns of female staff. However, as such policies have become more common in research and other institutions, their benefits to male staff are increasingly understood and championed. As with all policies, lack of clarity about their intent, or inconsistencies in their application, are common challenges that limit their effectiveness in contributing to structural change.49 Some organizations are paying more attention to tracking the uptake of such policies to ensure that men are encouraged to avail of existing family friendly policies to shift stereotypes about caring responsibilities.

Most sources point to staff training on gender and diversity issues as a key component of structural transformation.50 As with most of the strategies highlighted in the literature, it is important to ensure that such trainings are not “one-off” initiatives, but rather integrated into the day-to-day operations and culture of the organization. One study consulted noted examples of individuals unable to enact new skills or attitudes within the current context due to workload, organisational culture or lack of senior management buy-in.51

Attention must also be paid to the informal workings within the institution, such as “how managers address gender issues in meetings, how the objective of gender equality is kept on
the agenda and how gender equality staff members are involved in decision‑making.52 Spaces
and networks53 for all staff to discuss, understand and integrate GDI issues are critical in this
regard, in particular as they facilitate collaboration across the organisation (for example, GDI professionals and senior management) and within senior management (for example, board members presenting a unified approach to support female board members’ decision-making power).54 As Coe et al. note “creating safe spaces for conversations about gender and diversity in scientific and social scientific research must be an explicit goal in improving organizational culture and is a key responsibility of academic and scientific leadership”.55

2.5 Partnerships and networking

Many of the studies consulted emphasize the importance of cooperation with external stakeholders.56 Collaboration with external subject-matter experts and organizations bring needed expertise and credibility, and can fill resource gaps when needed.57 Initiating and supporting communities of practice for knowledge sharing between research institutions is also beneficial. Those seeking to foster institutional transformation should also consider relationship building with external actors who are positioned to influence and support internal institutional transformation. Although not often top of mind in relation to resources for gender equality, there

48 EIGE, 2016b: 12
49 Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019.
50 See Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019 and EC, 2011: 11.
51 See Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019.
52 EIGE, 2016b: 23
53 EC, 2011: 11.
54 Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019.
55 Coe et al, 2019: 588.
56 EC, 2011: 11; Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019.
57 EC, 2015; Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019.
16

is significant research indicating that connecting to progressive social movements, including women’s movements, can create external pressure on institutions, particularly governmental institutions, to support GDI transformation.58 Similarly, the recognition or support of research institutions by national or local authorities can play a key role in building internal support for structural change by raising the status and visibility of such change.59

2.6 Strategies geared towards women and diverse researchers

Research institutions have employed a variety of interventions geared towards supporting women researchers and other diverse groups of researchers. In terms of recruitment and career development, “positive or affirmative action measures can improve the representation of women in funding award schemes and access to higher education, as well as reducing bias towards women in recruitment (for example, shortlisting)”.60 The majority of the research institutions in the Gender-Net study cited above reported that they set targets (quotas were rare) to promote women researchers and to ensure better representation of women researchers in leadership and decision-making positions.61 Quotas continue to be a controversial issue for many institutions. Quota based hiring processes can speed up progress towards equality but is often seen as a challenge to the status quo and a loss of power by the dominant group.62 For
in-career women researchers, the Gender-Net report highlighted strategies for facilitating in-
/outgoing mobility for women researchers as effective in supporting career progression.63

Some research institutions have introduced GDI guidelines to ensure greater diversity on panels and among participants at research symposia and other convenings. For example, funders and conveners of symposia are increasingly being asked to adopt gender-conscious peer review committee and speaker selection committee recruitment policies. This might include evidence of commitment to gender parity in conference codes of conduct as part of standard prerequisite for financial support.64 Encouraging organizations to share widely with one another names of potential women reviewers and speakers makes it easier for them to be identified.

Mentoring is almost universally cited as a key strategy to support women and diverse researchers, a very powerful and flexible instrument that institutions are using to attract, retain and empower the advancement of women researchers. Increased inter-institutional cooperation through mentoring initiatives has also been found to have a positive effect on outcomes for women researchers.65 AWARD’s own data shows that the majority (90%) of fellows in their fellowship program indicated that the mentoring relationship was beneficial or very beneficial in aiding them to attain specific career-related goals. AWARD’s mentorship model has been shown to provide benefits to the mentee, mentor, and to the institution level. The inclusion of content related to the importance of gender responsiveness in the sector can

58 Weldon, S.L and M. Htun. Feminist Mobilisation and Progressive Policy Change: Why Governments Take Action to Combat Violence Against Women. Gender and Development, Volume 21, Issue 2, 2013.
59 EC, 2015: viii.
60 Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019.
61 Vinogradova, O., Y. Jänchen and G. Obexer-Ruff, 2015: 47.
62 Coe et al, 2019: 591.
63 Vinogradova, O., Y. Jänchen and G. Obexer-Ruff, 2015.
64 Coe et al, 2019: 590.
65 Vinogradova, O., Y. Jänchen and G. Obexer-Ruff, 2015: 45-48. See also Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019.
17

further enhance the impact that a mentoring initiative can have.66

In addition to one-on-one mentoring, the establishment of networks and affinity groups has also been found to have positive impact in some areas, although in some cases, the lack of senior managers in such affinity groups may limit the utility of these networks in improving career progression.67

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, creating the conditions that welcome and nurture leadership by women and diverse researchers in research institutions is critical. As noted above, women are under-represented in leadership positions in research institutions globally and in African research institutions specifically. UNESCO’s STEM and Gender Advancement (SAGA) Project, found that women in leadership positions are essential as catalysts for change, as they serve to empower other women in the same professions and act as role models.68 The literature review highlights that it is important for research organizations to reflect on definitions of ‘leadership’ and on future methods for recognising and rewarding innovation, commitment and collaborative practice.69

66 Mukhebi D. et al. Strengthening Mentoring Partnerships for African Women Scientists in the Agricultural Research and Development System in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, Volume 2, Issue 1: 2017.
67 See for example Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019; EC, 2015.
68 UNESCO, 2018.
69 See Chapter 8 on “Leading Organisations” in Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, 2019.
18

PART 3: What works for transforming (agricultural) research?
Much research is still gender-blind or gender-biased. This happens, for instance, when research results are extrapolated to the population as a whole without due consideration of the sample composition…Sex and gender are fundamental determinants of the organisation of life and society. Therefore, recognising and taking into account these differences is paramount in scientific knowledge creation.70

Research institutions wishing to build an enabling environment for transforming agricultural research must ensure the integration of GDI considerations. This involves taking deliberate steps to analyse research agendas and endeavour to introduce or strengthen practices for GDI- integrated research. To do so means respecting principles of inclusion and fairness, and contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’s objectives for equality of all women and men.

Addressing both women’s and men’s realities in research, and devoting more resources to “gender-specific research to fill knowledge gaps”71 also improves the quality of agricultural research, not only for diverse women, but for all of society.72 Research results that are more varied and more societally relevant73; validity and utility are increased74. As well, gender integration in research results in improved competitiveness of research institutions.75

The literature on integrating GDI into research suggests five main issues that research institutions need to take into account. These are briefly explored in the sections below.

3.1 Contextual gender and intersectional analysis

Over the last three decades, critiques of systematic biases in research and in the field of agriculture research have discussed male-biased assumptions and gender and diversity related data gaps.
Examples include assuming male farmers’ interests represent all farmers, the over-focus on the male- female binary and assumptions about the ‘household’ as being male-headed and/or as a unit of cooperation.76 These biases are consistent with patriarchal biases in societies, which in Africa may be endogenous and/or the result of contact with colonial systems.

In other words, agriculture, though having a strong technical dimension, is a human, social and cultural system. Thus, for agricultural research to bring value to society, and to do so in a way

70 European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), Gender Equality in Academia and Research: GEAR Tool, 2016c: 8.
71 EC, 2011: 1.4.
72 International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Research Quality Plus, 2016.
73 See EIGE, 2016c: 8 and UNESCO, 2018: 14.
74 EC, 2011: 1.4-1.6.
75 See EIGE, 2016c: 8 and UNESCO, 2018: 14.
76 Feldman, S. Feminist science and epistemologies: key issues central to GENNOVATE’s research program. GENNOVATE resources for scientists and research teams. CDMX. Mexico: CIMMYT 2018.
19

that contributes to greater GDI, an understanding of the social, political, and institutional context in which individuals and households are embedded is critical. Social norms regarding GDI are part of that context and influence behavior in profound ways. More than individual attitudes and personal beliefs, social norms shape expectations of what it is to be a man or a woman.77 Such norms, and the barriers they create, are often invisible in research.78 Including gender analysis as a key part of the process in identifying research questions79 is critical in ensuring that the ensuing research is both inclusive and effective.

A good understanding of the needs and aspirations of men and women smallholder farmers, fisher folk and livestock keepers and/or consumers can help to guide the focus of the research. A broad gender analysis, as well as inclusive consultations can point to key crops or livestock that men and women have preference for. It also sheds light on the different and multiple objectives that men and women have in agriculture.80

Gender-responsive research, at a minimum, acknowledges the gendered social norms that operate in the context being researched and, ideally, include questions and methods that seek to interrogate these norms and their effect on individuals, households and communities in the research design. Research institutions need to provide opportunities for research and even support staff to learn about gender issues, and to strengthen their competency to integrate gender considerations skillfully into their research:

The focus should be on how to identify gender issues in their key areas of research, how to integrate these into the research and implementation process and how to conduct
gender sensitive research. This type of training goes deeper into how gender affects the program or the outcomes of the program, what key research questions relating to gender teams need to ask, how they address these in the research or implementation process and how they track gendered outcomes.81

77 See Chapter 2 in Hillenbrand E. and M. Miruka. “Gender and Social Norms in Agriculture”, in 2019 Annual Trends and Outlook Report: Gender Equality in Rural Africa: From Commitments to Outcomes. RESAKSS Annual Trends and Outlook Report. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2019.
78 Several recent studies discuss how African research institutions, as products of colonial and post-colonial systems,
may perpetuate discriminatory social norms. See for example Drucza, K., M. Tsegaye and L. Azage, 2019; and CGIAR, 2017.
79 Ideally, research institutions might conduct contextual gender and intersectional analyses in order to identify research questions/areas of focus. It should be noted that such analyses should also be used as an early step once research has begun.
80 Njuki, J. Critical Elements for Integrating Gender in Agricultural Research and Development Projects and
Programs. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, Volume 1, Issue 3: 2016: 105. As an example: “Beef cattle rearing may be of cultural and economic importance to men, a focus on dairy cattle can meet women’s needs for regular income while meeting the multiple objectives of income from sale of milk, nutrition and manure for crop production”.
81 Njuki, 2016: 107. See also EC, 2015 for suggestions stemming from their STAGES project which piloted Gender
Action Plans in four universities and one applied research institute, including promoting “new courses and research
20

In addition to strong contextual gender analysis, intersectional analysis is critical. An intersectional analysis looks at how gender intersects with other factors of social differentiation and systems of power, such as age,
socioeconomic status, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation and disability to create experiences or patterns of discrimination or exclusion.
Intersectionality recognises that gender is only one of many social determinants that affects inequalities of opportunity and outcomes for diverse groups of women and men. An intersectional analysis is a tool to help identify the most salient features of disadvantage in specific settings and what change pathways are needed for equality and diversity.82

While intersectionality has become increasingly recognized in research and development, “applied intersectional analysis in empirical studies remains rare and its connections with agriculture largely unexplored”.83 A key barrier is its conceptual complexity in terms of how to quantify and
qualify multiple social categories and multilevel analysis.84 While this paper’s purpose is not to provide an overview of the best gender-based or intersectional analysis tools to explore social norms influencing researcher biases or the contexts in which research is done, see the text box for a few relevant tools.

3.2 Research focus

The literature review suggested that greater use of GDI analysis to understand contextual social norms will improve the validity of research. It should also lead to the identification of new areas of focus for research itself. For example, the effects of gender bias in the selection of research focus are numerous:

If research questions are framed in a way that wrongly assumes no sex differences, or that the research is ‘gender-neutral’, opportunities for innovation may be missed, outcomes may advantage one sex over the other, or (result in) mistakes that limit the validity of the conclusions made…Similarly, if stereotypical beliefs exist about gender roles, innovations may be ‘gender-specific’ in ways that do not benefit all users.
Researchers should be aware of potential gender and sex differences in their specific field, should consult widely, and encourage participation/inclusion of different

integrating gendered methods of analysis” and organizing “internal and external events on the integration of the gender perspective in research”.
82 Colfer, Carol J. Pierce, Basnett, Bimbika Sijapati and Markus Ihalainen. Making sense of ‘intersectionality:’ A
manual for lovers of people and forests. Occasional Paper 184. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. 2018. See also: IDRC, 2019: 1 and LERU, 2015: 10-11.
83 Tavenner, K. and T.A. Crane, 2019: 316.
84 Multilevel analysis captures the effects between and across various levels of society, including global and national policies and institutions and micro levels of community, household and individual or self.
21

perspectives in research design. They should determine whether any differential effects will arise in the development phase of their research question.85

Biases have affected the topics that agricultural research has traditionally focused on. Transforming the research agenda in agricultural research thus requires an analysis of what topics are being prioritized for research. IDRC, for example, has used a “gender categorization system” for assessing research projects since 2017 (see box below).86

A continuum such as this one can be used by research institutions in a variety of ways, for example, as part of the research proposal assessment process, for tracking research implementation, or for evaluating research outcomes. IDRC and others are revisiting their framing of gender continuums to ensure they are cover broader diversity and inclusion dimensions.

3.3 Research methods

Along with the issues of context and research focus, better integration of GDI considerations into research must also
consider the research methods used for data collection and analysis. We have already described how in intersectional analysis, single categories such as sex, race, age and income can be layered together to identify multiple factors of inequality to distinguish, even among the most marginalized, differences in social positionality in agricultural systems. Understanding the production and contestation of these intersecting systems of inequality by individuals and social groups – in other words, ensuring that the voices of women and young people or other marginalized groups are heard in the research 87 – is a key part of strengthening GDI integration in research”.88

Integrating qualitative methods into research design is one way to strengthen research methodologies to better understand people’s lived realities. Such methods include focus group

85 League of European Research Universities (LERU). Gendered Research and Innovation: Integrating Sex and Gender Analysis into the Research Process. Advice Paper No. 18: 2015: 10-11.
86 IDRC, 2019: 4.
87 Njuki, 2016: 105.
88 Bauer, G.R. Incorporating Intersectionality Theory into Population Health Research Methodology: Challenges and the Potential to Advance Health Equity. Social Science and Medicine, Volume 110, 2014.
22

discussions, key informant interviews, case studies and narrative methods as well other novel participatory methods for data collection and analysis that involve research participants.

At a minimum, according to the literature review, data needs to be disaggregated by sex and/or gender. And whatever the particular characteristics of the mixed methodological approach that is used, researchers need to consider to what degree they are able to produce data on GDI issues. Henry et al (2015) analysed benchmarking criteria for gender integration for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and proposed four types of “gender data”:

▪ data to make women and girls visible;
▪ data about gender gaps and disparities;
▪ evidence of what works to increase gender equality and women’s empowerment; and
▪ data on the links between improvements in gender equality and enhancing the achievement of other development goals.89

Finally, it is also important to ensure that dissemination of research findings integrates GDI considerations explicitly:

The differences in outcomes based on sex and/or gender and the potential interaction between them should be described. Sex-disaggregated data should be published. If there are no such data or no differential outcomes, this also needs to be clearly mentioned. Often, no mention is made of potential sex or gender differences, thus making it unclear whether they do not exist, or have simply not been studied.90

3.4 Power dynamics in research

Gender and intersectional approaches in research include explicit consideration of how knowledge is defined, the issue of its ownership, and of how research “subjects” are involved in the research process – from design, to implementation, to dissemination. This question is particularly important when it comes to the ownership and use of research by women, female and male youth and other marginalized groups. This focus on power imbalances is rooted in the feminist research paradigm which “seeks to remove power imbalances inherent in research processes and correct for biases that shape what we know”,91 including correcting for the “gendered manifestation of power, both in the topic for research and the way in which the research is conducted”.92

The one-way dissemination of knowledge which is often found in science, when practiced in any social context or institution with existing hierarchies can exacerbate or increase knowledge ‘monopolies’. Without addressing power, in other words, the means of producing, controlling and using knowledge stays in the hands of the privileged few and in fact, prompts bias”.93

89 Henry et al, 2015: 6.
90 LERU, 2015: 10-11.
91 International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Using Research for Gender-Transformative Change: Principles and Practice, n.d.: 3.
92 International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA), Feminist Research Framework, 2017: 13.
93 Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), CARE International, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). The Gender and Inclusion Toolbox: Participatory Research in Climate Change and Agriculture. 2014: 10.
23

This focus on power imbalances in the research process itself is one that challenges how research has traditionally been defined.
For example, co-production (participatory research processes that involve research “subjects”) places a high priority on social change and community-benefit and therefore can represent a trade-off for researchers in terms of publishing goals.
Conversely, traditional forms of academic reward can result in the ‘usefulness’ of research from the perspective of communities becoming peripheral to the research process.94 Other challenges exist as well. For example, African feminist researchers, for example, have noted the ethical dilemmas involved in respecting their research subjects’ privacy while
wishing to help tell and honour their stories.95 Co-production does, however, produce non- negligible benefits such as the improvements to research quality that flow from a broadening of the definition of what constitutes relevant and valid knowledge.96

In addition, according some of the literature reviewed, researchers must consider their own positionality, and that of their research participants, in relation to others. Positionality is the consideration of the “location” or “position” of an actor or group in relation to others distinguished by ethno-racial, gender, class, geographical and other terms. “The “position” of an individual or group within intersecting systems of opportunity and adversity relates to their “strategic interests” in relations of difference and power involving decision making or control over resources”.97 Researchers should practice reflexivity to question their own biases and

94 Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, Closing the Relevance Gap: Lessons in Co-Developing Gender Transformative Research Approaches with Development Partners and Communities. 2015.: 9.
95 Mama, A. What Does It Mean to Do Feminist Research in African Contexts? Feminist Review, Volume 98, Issue
1: 2011.
96 Some research organizations are exploring the use of participatory approaches to reap these benefits. For example, the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) has developed an intersectional framework for agricultural related research in forest management that puts an emphasis on “investigating how certain knowledge traditions are included, privileged or marginalized and the social, material, psychological and political ramifications for different social groups”. See Colfer, C.J.P., B.S. Basnett B.S. and M. Ihalainen, 2018: 8.
97 Colfer, C.J.P., B.S. Basnett B.S. and M. Ihalainen, 2018: vi.
24

assumptions as a researcher. As the research participants, the researcher is equally embedded in systems of power and privilege differentiated by gender, class, ethnicity, disability and so on.

3.5 From awareness to transformation: research and action

A more thoughtful and systematic integration of GDI considerations into research will constitute an important contribution to the transformation of societal inequalities. This would include:

▪ contextual analysis of social norms;
▪ building GDI considerations into research questions;
▪ selecting GDI-specific research questions;
▪ incorporating methods that aim to uncover gendered experiences; and
▪ addressing the power dynamics inherent in research.

Research institutions can go a step farther. Research institutions can – and do – promote research projects that aim to be transformational, by incorporating explicit change objectives around GDI.98

Gender transformative approaches (GTA) are programs and interventions that create opportunities for individuals to actively challenge gender norms, promote positions of social and political influence for women in communities, and address power inequities between persons of different genders. GTAs create an enabling environment for gender transformation by going beyond just including women as participants.
GTAs are part of a continuum of gender integration, or the integration of gender issues into all aspects of program and policy conceptualization, development, implementation and evaluation.99

GDI transformative approaches in research bring a more “activist” definition of research which requires that research objectives be explicitly focused on change and a reckoning with the power dynamics in traditional research. As with the issue of grappling with power dynamics in research, feminist research
scholarship can and should be consulted to understand how they understand and integrate transformational change goals into research that remains rigorous and credible.100 In Africa, this

98 See for example Mullinax, M., J. Hart and A.V. Garcia, 2019.
99 Health Communication Capacity Collaborative, Gender Transformative Approaches: An HC3 Research Primer, n.d.: 1.
100 See for example Mama, A., 2011: 9.
25

scholarship and movement-building has allowed for “autonomous intellectual spaces and projects…(that) allow the articulation of research agendas and the development of methodologies attuned to local contexts, gender struggles and challenges”.101 These research agendas may be helpful to agricultural research institutions as they seek to move along the gender (and GDI) research continuum towards more transformative approaches.

101 Ibid: 9.
26

PART 4 – Extent of GDI Integration in the Research Institutes

This section highlights findings from key informant interviews (KIIs) with six out of eight NARI partners in the GRARD initiative. These interviews aimed to capture broadly the extent and practice of GDI integration in the NARIs to contextualize the proposed frameworks in this paper to the reality of the research institutes.102 Accordingly, the capacity domains of the proposed framework informed analysis of results.

Ten staff (3 men/7 women) from NARIs based in Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Kenya participated in the KIIs over Zoom between November 26th and December 22nd, 2021.103 Considering the limited number of interviews, the overall strengths, challenges and good practices discussed below offer a general picture of GDI integration and on key enabling factors for the purposes defined above.

4.1 Overall Status of Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Integration

All six NARIs had integrated gender equality considerations on a piecemeal basis. NARI senior management supported gender integration in theory by a gender or affirmative action policy but allocated limited to no funding to institutionalize gender equality. Major roadblocks are the lack of understanding of the value of gender to agricultural sciences and research and development among senior and organizational wide staffing. The absence of women in leadership, resources, gender considerations in program and budget planning and lack of knowledge from leadership and most staff continue to be major obstacles to consistent and organization-wide mainstreaming. GRARD respondents observed that limited availability of women at the research management level affects the appreciation and understanding of the particular barriers and issues of women in food systems. In research, gender sensitive to transformative projects were on a project-by-project basis, generally driven by donor requirements.

4.2 Strengths and Good Practices

4.2.1 External factors influencing uptake of gender in research institutes

The major catalysts to institutes taking on gender mainstreaming was external national government and gender-just donors and collaborator influences. Donor-driven conditionality for gender mainstreaming to access funding and prestige gained was common across the institutes. National government gender agendas and top-down accountability to comply with gender integration targets (i.e. need to report on male and female staff ratio) was another enabling factor.

102 The six GRARD partners interviewed were Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) (Ghana); Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta (FUNAAB) (Nigeria); Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) (Ethiopia); Pwani University (Kenya); Nelson Mandela African Institute for Science and Technology (NMAIST) (Tanzania); and Tanzanian Agricultural Research Institute (TARI) (Tanzania). Due to political instability at the time, Mekelle University (Ethiopia) was not included. Gender at Work had challenges reaching and confirming an interview with Lilongwe University of Agriculture & Natural Resources (LUANAR) (Malawi).
103 Two Gender at Work staff, both women, conducted the six interviews together. Out of the six interviews, two
interviews were with male staff only, three with female staff only and one institute with two female and one male staff. Four out of six of the interviews were with the gender leads of the institutes who had been AWARD fellowship Program Awardees.
27

Many took up a gender agenda when national gender policies and responsible line ministries required the institute to demonstrate adherence to gender parity quotas by regularly reporting on meeting gender-parity targets. Despite challenges, NARIs adopted affirmative action and positive discrimination to hire more women. For example, the Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research (EIAR) has an organizational wide gender policy. The government recently developed a Human Resources Policy that has a target of 50 percent women and men staffing for all national institutions. EIAR leadership must report on improvements in meeting this performance- based indicator.

Another important factor was engagement and support from women’s rights and gender-just networks, and collaborators (i.e. AWARD, CGIAR). Another external form was gender-aware donors like the World Bank, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who rewarded institutes financially for gender balance and promoting women’s leadership and increased representation. Eligibility for funding might depend on the institute demonstrating commitment to gender equality by way of a gender policy and responsible staff person. For several NARIs it was this donor-relationship and long-term funding for gender integration that enabled increased attention to gender equality internally and in research.

4.2.2 Gender champions

Many of the AWARD trained female scholars were the gender champions of the institute. They set up mentorship programs for junior researchers and for female secondary school students to encourage them to go into STEM fields. Some institutes had gender committees or a gender lead at central and decentralized levels that were formally recognized. Both female staff and male and female leaders at the institutes, who are respected for their scientific research capacity, have played key roles to bring forward a gender agenda. They have had to navigate male bias and mindsets to convince and lead on the importance of gender to scientific research excellence. Two KII participants from Tanzania’s Nelson Mandela African Institute for Science and Technology (NMAIST) were heads of Centres of Excellence at the University. They explained that their decision-making power and visibility contributed to sensitizing women and men to the importance of women’s leadership in science and agriculture.

4.2.3 Mentorship

The AWARD fellowships, mentorship program, gender and leadership training of women scholars and memorandums of understandings set up with senior management of the NARIs were key factors to building gender awareness and leadership among women scholars to then advocate for and even take on greater leadership in their universities and research institutes. AWARD’s approach of working with a largely male-dominated senior management of the NARI partners to understand and appreciate the importance of increasing women scientists representation in staffing and in student bodies and at leadership levels helped foster support among the NARI leadership to take on a gender agenda. Initiatives to boost retention of women researchers.

Among the GRARD partners, initiatives to increase young women scholars to join the institute and to draw young female students to STEM fields were deemed particularly important by key informants. These activities included addressing family-work life balance issues such as setting up a breast-feeding centre, a day-care centre, and a hostel for young female scholars to stay
28

with their young children and families. Others focused on promoting the visibility of women scientist such as the soapbox initiative in local communities to promote women and girls in science to affirmative action and ensuring female representation on selecting and hiring committees. Female AWARD fellows domesticated the AWARD mentorship program and acted as role models to female students and younger scholars to help them plan their career paths.

4.2.4 Multi-disciplinary, participatory action research

A major success across all the institutes was multidisciplinary research whereby pure scientists and social scientists worked together. Respondents described using client-oriented and participatory methodologies often in farmer training centres or sites. Once breeding or a technology is ready for dissemination, pure scientists collaborate with social scientists to ensure technology is adapted to the needs and interests of women and men farmers. Women respondents who were gender leads in their institutes, described male colleagues from the hard sciences asking them for tools to understand how to integrate gender into hard science research. Several interviewees highlighted that their institute recognizes the importance of gender and age-based equity, the need to support youth and young scholars and to understand the diversity of women, men, youth and older age farmers’ needs and interests. The challenge was the knowledge, skills and tools. Only one informant stated that their research institute systematically engaged with farmers using these distinctions to ensure technologies disseminated were relevant to different groups. The Tanzania Agricultural Research Institute described having an institutional research protocol for dissemination of technologies that requires use of participatory methodologies to sit and consult with women, men, youth and older generations on problem solving and use of technology.

In large part, across all the interviews, gender integration and degree of women’s empowerment in internal ways of working and in research was the central challenge for these partners. Very little to no mention was made of other social identity factors.

4.3 Challenges and Gaps

4.3.1 Strategic vision

Some institutes had formal policies, monitored, and reported on set quotas for promoting gender parity at Masters and PhD levels and in staff positions. However, most had limited or no broader vision of gender equality in the organizational vision, or a budgeted time-bound action plan or set of indicators to monitor progress. This lack of accountability was a major reason why gender equality integration remained isolated to a limited number of projects; select number of self- motivated gender equality champions, and men dominated student, teaching and leadership positions.

4.3.2 Myth of gender neutrality in agricultural research institutes

Half of GRARD’s institutions have a formal gender policy or gender-mainstreaming document while the other half are accountable to national gender policy requirements and report to respective ministries responsible. Regardless of these policies, most lacked human and financial resource allocation to institutionalize gender. Key informants attributed this to lack of understanding and awareness of the value of gender equality for women and men scientists and for research excellence. The interviews suggest that decision makers in these research
29

institutes are still largely men and male-biased and understand gender as only about women. They continue to see agricultural research as a gender-neutral set of fields and development sectors to which gender is not relevant.

4.3.3 Creating conditions for equitable agricultural research institutions

One of the common challenges expressed by key informants from GRARD partners was the limited pool of women scholars who often face difficult choices between work and family priorities. Scholarships and university job offers often fail to provide family-friendly conditions. These agricultural research institutes are themselves structured around patriarchal values and practices as reflected in the wider social environment. Men scientists are privileged over women scientists. Masculine norms and structures of valuing productive work at the exclusion of reproductive work are major roadblocks for women scholars who are often of reproductive age and mothers and wives. The institutes had some form of affirmative action such as hiring quotas, but faced the issue of only having a small pool of women scholars to choose from. In this environment, some women interviewed described male colleagues feeling unfairly treated.

4.3.4 Lack of financial investments to sustain gender agenda

While institutes had a gender lead, whether this role is formally or informally recognized, in both cases, limited to no funding was made available to them. These female staff were doing this work on their own volition and commitment.

4.3.5 Applying an intersectional lens

The GRARD partners discussed the challenges in promoting the importance of a gender and intersectionality lens to research. Lack of national data to demonstrate gender disparities in agriculture was a major bottleneck and needed for convincing senior leadership and male colleagues that gender matters to agriculture. Lack of capacity of researchers to conduct a gender-based analysis was another challenge. Women respondents explained the constant challenge they face of dispelling common misconceptions of gender among colleagues that it only concerns women or ends at the counting of women and men in an intervention or the disregard for the specific barriers faced by women farmers. Annex 3 provides an analysis of the enablers and disablers of institutionalizing gender equality in the NARIs.

30

PART 5: Towards a GRARD conceptual framework for institutional GDI transformation
This section puts forward a conceptual framework for institutional gender, diversity and inclusion (GDI) transformation that builds on the literature review of what strategies and dimensions of change contribute to gender, diversity and inclusions in research institutions. As noted previously, the literature review faced gaps in relation to Africa-based research institutions.
These gaps were partially filled during the project by the interviews conducted with NARI staff to gain their insights into successes and challenges for gender in agricultural research and research institutions.

The interviews indicated that a conceptual framework and monitoring tool that could support senior managers and gender champions identify their institute’s status and practice in the institutionalization of gender, diversity and inclusion would be of value. The conceptual framework presented below seeks to respond to this need.

The framework serves to bring into focus areas and pathways of change in research institutions, while the monitoring framework, in the following section, provides illustrations of markers or milestones for research institutions to track their progress on GDI. The conceptual framework does not provide a blueprint for change; instead, drawing on the literature and interview with NARIs, it offers ideas on what to pay attention to in agricultural research institutions as GDI strategies and interventions are being discussed and designed.

Specifically, it seeks to highlight the importance of contextually specific, multi-level activities, that are sustained over time. If nothing else, the literature review and practical experience shows that one-off activities that fail to address structural dimensions of inequality, will have only limited impact.

The proposed GRARD conceptual framework (See Figure 1) is comprised of nine action areas, five of which pertain to integrating GDI into research institutions or institutional action areas, with the remaining four pertaining to integrating GDI into agricultural research or research action areas. The conceptual framework also highlights the significance of external and contextual factors that influence opportunities and constraints for agricultural research institutes as they work towards institutional transformation for GDI.
Finally, the conceptual framework includes the gender change continuum, as a reminder that agricultural research institutions may be at different points along a continuum in how gender (or GDI) is being integrating into their research protocols, research questions and research methods from gender aware to gender transformative, and related to this, different perspectives on where they would like to be on the continuum.

31

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Transformative Change

5.1 How to use the Conceptual Framework?

The conceptual framework provides a comprehensive overview of the different factors and pathways that can contribute to institutional transformation for GDI in agricultural institutes. This section summarizes the institutional action areas and research action areas, with some insights into pathways of change that contribute to institutional transformation for GDI. Research institutes can use the framework to map their current strategies and gaps, and identify priorities for future activities in support of GDI that make sense in their context and aspirations.
How this framework is operationalized for each research institution will need to be determined in a process led by that institution. While there are common elements found in effective strategies to support institutional change, each research institution needs to map its own internal and external environment to understand, define and prioritize its own change pathway and identify benchmarks along way.
The conceptual framework proposes a multi-factorial and holistic approach to institutional change. A new or improved GDI policy will not, on its own, result in transformative change unless it is accompanied by changes in other action areas, such as resources, shifts in organizational culture and above all commitment by leadership to GDI. Many organizations often attempt well-intentioned but piecemeal approaches which are not necessarily coherent or
32

mutually reinforcing. The conceptual framework at a minimum can provide a way of understanding how interventions may fit together and where there may be gaps. Finally, few institutions are well-enough resourced to work simultaneously across all action areas of the framework. Identifying priorities, opportunities and taking a phased approach will be important. Resources 1 & 2 included in the Annexes, provide more detailed examples of actions for the 2 action areas and each of the 9 change domains and should be used side-by-side with the summaries below.
5.1.1 Institutional Action Areas
The outer circle of the framework includes 5 domains related to internally orientated strategies and interventions to support GDI in staffing, human resources policies, the vision and mission of the institute, and so forth, as distinct from integrating GDI specifically into agricultural research (the middle circle in Figure 1). Each of these areas draws on the literature/evidence review, interviews and experiential knowledge of what works. Accountability is not included as a stand- alone domain; instead, it is included in almost every domain and the importance of collecting data for accountability purposes has been highlighted in the literature review. A GDI strategy or action plan should included Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or other metrics to support research institutes track progress towards institutional transformation, based on their vision for GDI and specific commitments laid out in their strategy.

Coherent institutional vision for GDI This references the importance of a coherent vision for GDI, linked to the institution’s key mission, and clearly laid out in a document that is known by all staff members, senior management, Board and other governance bodies. The co- creation of this vision by institute staff and Board, starting with building a shared vocabulary around GDI, is a factor that can improve ownership. At the same time, as consistently shown in the literature reviewed, senior leadership commitment is a fundamental level for change, expressed and reinforced by a clear institutional vision.

Evidence for action (making the case for GDI) Disaggregated data on how the institute is performing on key metrics related to gender, diversity and inclusion is critical for determining priority interventions as well as for accountability purposes. Just starting to collect and share this data internally can build momentum for action. These metrics can relate to institutional GDI commitments and/or sector-wide benchmarking, as described in examples above from the EU and the UK.

Well- resourced GDI strategy/ action plan One of the common refrains from gender champions within research institutes, including in NARI’s, it that even were there is a gender strategy or action plan in place, with clearly articulated activities in support of GDI across a research institute, the resources allocated to their implementation is insufficient. Properly costed implementation strategies for priority GDI action areas are needed. This includes resources for ensuring accountability to commitments by monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the GDI strategy. It also includes resourcing for gender champions who typically do this work on top of their regular duties.
33

GDI in institutional policies This broadly framed domain refers to the suite of policies that are often the focus of internal efforts in support of GDI, such as human resources policies related to diversity, equal and fair hiring, compensation, and advancement policies, mentoring, promotion and professional development policies that anticipates and mitigates biases experienced by some staff, anti-harassment policies, flexibility working policies, parental and carers leave (not only maternity leave), mobility and travel policies, along with non HR areas such as communications and monitoring & evaluation which have GDI implications.

GDI in organizational culture Building a culture of inclusion where everyone feels comfortable, respected, and valued creates an enabling environment for GDI. Yet this is often the hardest kind of institutional change to achieve. Sometimes it seems easier to It requires shifting institutional structures that reinforce or even reward inequalities, and, at the same time, challenging and shifting individual attitudes or biases and behaviours of staff and researchers. As noted above one-off gender or diversity training courses may help to build some level of awareness, sensitivity, and empathy but sustained learning processes are more likely to help build understanding about the dominant identities that exist in institutional cultures of research institutes and help to shift institutional norms. Most important is building an awareness of individuals in their role in creating and sustaining an equitable culture.

These five domains in the outer circle of the conceptual framework speak to the findings from the literature review and the interviews with NARIs about what it takes to support integration of gender (and to some extent, diversity and inclusion) in the ways of working and staffing of research institutions. Implicit in this approach is that building a critical mass of women or other consistently marginalized groups in research institutes will both enable research institutes to ‘walk the talk’ on their stated commitments to gender equality and improve research quality by ensuring that diverse members of research teams will be empowered to bring unique and important perspectives to the research.
At the same time, the conceptual framework draws attention to external and contextual factors
that influence how gender, diversity and inclusion are addressed in research institutes. Interviews with NARIs reinforced the importance of external and contextual factors in shaping how and the extent to which gender, specifically, is taken up in their institutes. Many of these contextual factors can be likened to what is sometimes called the ‘gender regime’104 that shapes the system of gender and power relations at any given time and location. For example, the extent to which a national government prioritizes gender equality and creates incentive structures for positive action for gender equality in the form of targets within national research institutes, for example, can positively influence the uptake of gender these institutes. Similarly, the strength of national or regional women’s movements in calling for positive actions in support of gender equality and diversity, can create an enabling external environment for great attention

104 See S. Walby (2020). In Walby’s model, a gender regime is a set of interrelated gendered social relations and institutions that constitute a system, operating across four institutional domains: polity, economy, civil society, and violence.
34

to gender outcomes in research and research institutes. Likewise, the gender and social norms that shape diverse women’s access to and advancement through higher education in sciences and social sciences effect the pipeline for agricultural researchers in any given context. All these external and contextual factors are important for research institutes to map as part of their efforts to support GDI.
5.1.2 Research Action Areas

In addition to highlighting five institutional action areas, the conceptual framework proposed by GRARD goes further to emphasize four research action areas that support efforts to build an enabling environment gender or GDI responsive research. This is represented by the middle circle in Figure 1 of the conceptual framework.
As indicated by the arrows in the concentric circles, the institutional action areas and the research action areas can positively influence one another. That is, building an internal enabling environment, where diverse groups can thrive in a research institute can positively shape gender or GDI responsive research outcomes. At the same time, building and disseminating a strong body of research on how dimensions of GDI influence agricultural outcomes can support greater commitment to GDI policies within institutes.

Leadership for GDI in research This domain refers to the visible and sustained leadership of Research Heads in promoting the institute’s GDI vision through the research agenda. This includes allocation of budget envelopes to advance GDI in research. Research Heads can play a central role in ensuring accountability for the institute’s commitments for integration of GDI into agricultural research processes and outcomes and in showcasing agricultural research that provides new insights on gender, diversity and inclusion.

GDI in research methods Gender-based analysis is acknowledged as a key competency of all researchers, and this can be expanded to include research staff capacity to use intersectional analysis. There are also opportunities to integrate research methods, including participatory research methods, that provide scope for surfacing gender and other social norms and how they impact agricultural production. Conducting gender responsive or gender transformative research in agriculture and development may require methodological innovation to promote inclusion in research design, data collection and analysis and opportunities for use of new knowledge by those most impacted by the research.

GDI in research processes There are multiple ways that accountability to GDI in research processes can help to strengthen gender or GDI responsive research. The proposal approval stage could assess the degree of GDI integration in proposed research (research questions; the proposed methods; use of disaggregated data; the composition of research team, etc.). Likewise, evaluation of
completed research could include an assessment of the degree
35

of GDI integration in completed research, as well as GDI outcomes. A Gender Continuum could be used as a tool to rate proposals or research projects (see below).

GDI in research dissemination This domain refers to deliberate dissemination and communication of research findings that include GDI dimensions. This could also include recognition of the contributions and leadership of women and minority group scientists in producing the research. GDI responsive and transformative research also pays attention to ensuring that research findings are widely disseminated in ways that are accessible (language, format) by diverse agricultural communities, and not just shared through academic journals and conferences.

Many organizations have found it useful to plot their approach to gender along a change continuum such as the one included to the right of Figure 1.105
This type of continuum helps research institutes to frame not just the fact of their uptake of gender but to assess how they are integrating gender (or GDI). This continuum conceptualizes change from being gender blind to gender transformative at the other end of the continuum. Where a research institution or research team aspires to be positioned along the continuum, will help to determine which action areas and objectives to prioritize.
While there are standard definitions available for each point on the continuum, these need to be discussed and negotiated to ensure that these are specific to the context. Section 3.2 above, for example, described the Gender Continuum in Research used by IDRC where Gender responsive research is defined as research in which “gender is considered in the research project’s rationale, design, and methodology and is rigorously analyzed to inform implementation, communication, and influence strategies” whereas gender transformative research “Examines, analyzes, and builds an evidence base to inform long-term practical changes in structural power relations and norms, roles and inequalities that define the differentiated experiences of men and women” and “should lead to sustained change through action (e.g. partnerships, outreach, and interventions).”
The purpose of including the continuum in the GRARD conceptual framework is by way of a reminder that research institutes may want to clarify their aspirations for conducting research that is gender responsive or gender transformative – and monitoring the extent to which they are moving towards their aspirations by assessing research proposals, research design or research outcomes using these criteria.
In conclusion, the proposed GRARD Conceptual Framework provides one approach for agricultural research institutes to frame their discussions as they 1) reflect on current commitments, aspirations, and strategies in support of GDI and 2) map gaps and priorities they would like to fill. This paper does not provide specific tools for carrying out such a mapping

105 How far this continuum will be adapted to include other dimensions such as diversity and inclusion remains to be seen.
36

process. It is recommended that an external facilitator supports a process that engages a cross- section of staff in a reflective process.

Part 6: Monitoring progress towards institutional transformation

This section proposes some illustrative indicators for monitoring progress towards institutional transformation in support of GDI, aligned with the conceptual framework. These illustrative indicators or measures can be swapped and expanded based on each institute’s priorities and aspirations.
Consultation with NARIs suggested that agricultural research institutes are already collecting some of this information as part of their human resources systems or other organizational systems. Whatever the case, it is important to begin to think about what data it is easy to collect from existing sources, and what other data will be needed and who will be responsible for ensuring it is collected.
Typically, where there is a gender or diversity strategy in place, progress towards objectives and key performance indicators (KPI) with targets are reported annually to senior management and the Board, linked to other organization-wide reporting and accountability processes. It may be possible to include additional indicators related to the conceptual framework as part of this annual reporting process. While annual reporting is important, it is also advisable to set 3–5- year targets for each indicator. Regular reporting allows a research institute to observe changes over time – progress, lack of progress and setbacks — and to take additional measures as needed.

Table 1: Illustrative indicators for institutional action areas

37

Table 2: Illustrative Indicators for research action areas

The literature review pointed to evidence of the effectiveness of the adoption of sector wide GDI charters, such as the Athena SWAN Charter. The Athena Swan Charter is a framework used across the globe to support and transform gender equality within higher education (HE) and research.
One idea that has emerged during the GRARD project is the possibility of voluntary peer reporting across agricultural research institutes in Africa. An example of what this might look like, presented in a scorecard form, is offered below. Clearly, such an initiative would need to include the co-identification of relevant indicators across agricultural research institutes. Targets could be set at the sector level. Peer reporting can create positive dynamics for sharing strategies and learning about what works, as well as creating a sense of mutual accountability across a sector.

38

Domain Illustrative Indicator

Institute A Institute B Institute C

Coherent institutional vision for GDI

Evidence for action (making the case for GDI)

Well- resourced GDI strategy/ action plan

GDI in institutional policies

GDI in organizational culture

Leadership for GDI in research

GDI in research methods

GDI in research

Gender or GDI strategy/plan exists with budget allocations
m/f as % total staff m/f as % of senior research posts

Gender or GDI strategy/plan includes performance indicators, targets and reporting timelines
# new or strengthened policies to overcome biases in career advancement for women researchers and minority groups

Staff satisfaction levels, disaggregated by GDI dimensions of interest

Total amount of resources devoted to GDI in research budgets (as % of overall research budget)
#, reach (m/f) of training on gender analysis and/or intersectional analysis

# /total of research proposals approved

GDI plan exists, no budget attached

50% f staff; 50% m staff
10%f; 90% m senior research posts

No accountability framework for gender strategy/plan

2 new policies/actions (women’s research network; travel fellowship, including family allowances, to encourage women researchers to participate in regional/global events

80% of staff reported feel extremely valued in their workplace; 30% women researchers reported feeling extremely valued

2 % of total budget (amount in $)

No training or capacity building offered this reporting year

Gender Strategy exists with budget

70% f staff; 30% m staff
60%f; 40% m
senior research posts

Yes, tied to our research institute’s annual review process

3 new policies/actions (mentoring program; guidance on gender- responsive representation for seminars; parental leave policy, mandatory for male researchers)
75% of staff reported feel extremely valued in their workplace; 45% women researchers reported feeling extremely valued

20% of total budget (amount in $)

5 training sessions
reaching 30 staff (f=30/m=20)

No formal gender strategy

20% f staff; 80% m staff
5%f; 95% m
senior research posts

No gender strategy

1 new action to support mentoring of women researchers

80 % of staff reported feel extremely valued in their workplace; 10% women researchers reported feeling extremely valued

5% of total budget (amount in $)

1 training session reaching 5 staff (f=5)

processes

with strong GDI
components

2 out of 50 10 out of 50 3 out of 25

GDI in research dissemination

# of presentation made in peer spaces
(m/f) 3 presentations (m=) 5 presentations (f=5)

0 presentations

39

Again, the table above is for illustrative purposes and provides a glimpse of the kind of peer monitoring that could happen at the sectoral level, facilitated by AWARD. As follow up to this research and report, AWARD is exploring the feasibility of developing an Africa-wide monitoring function for progress towards GDI in national/agricultural research institutions. It is hoped that this paper and the conceptual framework provide steppingstones toward such an initiative.

40

Annex 1 – Resource : Gender, Diversity and Inclusion in Internal Institutional Transformation of Agricultural Research Institutions
Action Areas Actors may include Illustrative Objectives Illustrative Results Indicators
1. Coherent Vision for Institutional Gender, Diversity and Inclusion • Senior leadership
• Board members
• HR department
• External experts • Creation or strengthening of a clear and shared institutional vision for GDI aligned to institutional mandate
• Allocation of adequate budget envelope to advance institutional GDI
• Strengthening of capacity of institutional leaders to promote GDI
• Ensuring visibility of institutional commitment to GDI • Existence of institutional GDI vision statement
• Evidence of adoption of sector-wide GDI charters (such as the Athena SWAN Charter)

• Total amount of financial resources devoted to GDI; % of such resources as proportion of overall institutional budget (operational and in research)
• #, frequency of GDI training for institutional leaders; # of leaders attending training (m/f)
• #, frequency of internal communications/events on the importance of GDI led/endorsed by senior leadership
• #, frequency of external communications (e.g. public statements) on the importance of GDI by senior leadership
• # of staff demonstrating awareness of leadership commitment to GDI (e.g. through a survey, KIIs)
• Evidence of mobilization of external expertise to assist in the creation of institutional vision
2. Making the Case for Action (evidence base) • HR department
• GDI Audit Committee
• Senior leadership
• Staff
• External experts • Implementation of a GDI Audit
• Implementation of a policy review
• Creation of a cross-representational GDI Audit Committee
• Implementation of a communication strategy of audit results • Existence of GDI audit report, including disaggregated statistics on GDI in the workplace (e.g. recruitment, retention, promotion, pay, etc.) and data on staff perceptions and experiences (e.g. from survey)
• Existence of policy review report (on national, regional and international GDI policies and legislation that are applicable to agricultural research institutions)
• Existence of GDI audit committee; # of committee members (m/f)
• Evidence of mobilization of external expertise for assistance with audit and/or policy review
• #, frequency of external communication on audit process and results/led by senior leadership
3. (Well- resourced) Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy/Action Plan

NOTE: This strategy will address some or many elements found in Tables 1 and 2 • GDI Committee
• HR department
• Senior leadership
• Staff
• External experts • Creation or strengthening of institution’s GDI expertise capacity
• Design and implementation of GDI Strategy/Action Plan (includes workplan, roles and responsibilities, results framework, data collection and monitoring plan)
• Allocation of adequate financial resources to implement the Strategy • Evidence of recruitment of an institutional GDI Officer and/or creation of a GDI Strategy Committee or Working Group; # of members (m/f), representation of different job-grade levels and departments
• Existence of Strategy and related documents (budget, workplan, results framework, data collection and monitoring plan)
• Total amount of financial resources devoted to strategy development and implementation; % of such resources as proportion of overall institutional budget
• # of internal consultations with staff held during strategy development; # of staff consulted (m/f) by job-grade level, by departments
• Evidence of mobilization of external expertise to assist with strategy development, consultations, and/or implementation/monitoring
4. Gender, Diversity and Inclusion in Institutional Policies • HR Department
• Senior leadership
• External experts • Creation or strengthening of internal policies and programs to promote GDI in the workforce
• Creation or strengthening of policies and programs to support women’s and minority’s groups leadership
• Creation of responsible staff for safeguarding and anti-harassment prevention and case management • # of new or strengthened policies and programs that advance GDI at all levels including recruitment, retention, promotion (including targets/quotas); pay equity; work-life balance; safeguarding and anti-harassment; programs that explore and challenge and transform discriminatory norms, etc.
• # of new or strengthened policies and programs that promote leadership by women and representatives of minority groups at all levels (e.g. mentoring, training, peer support, fellowships, female scholarships including family allowances, internal and external visibility)
• Evidence of new or strengthened staff performance metrics on GDI competencies
• Evidence of mobilization of external experts to assist with the review and creation of new or improved institutional policies

Action Areas Actors may include

Illustrative Objectives Illustrative Results Indicators

5. Gender, Diversity and Inclusion in Organizational Culture

Integration of Gender, Diversity and Inclusion into Agricultural Research Agenda and Processes

• Senior leadership
• HR Department
• GDI Committee
• Staff
• External experts

SEE TABLE BELOW

• Creation or strengthening of institution’s internal GDI expertise capacity
• Strengthening of staff capacity to promote GDI
• Strengthening of internal mechanisms to support an organizational culture that promotes GDI

• Evidence of recruitment of GDI Officer or GDI Unit; # of GDI experts on staff (m/f)
• Evidence of creation of GDI Committee or Working Group; # of members (m/f)
• #, frequency of GDI training for staff; # of staff attending training (m/f)
• # of internal GDI champions (m/f)
• # of staff meetings held on GDI issues; # of participants (m/f)
• # of GDI awards created; # of staff (m/f) receiving such awards
• Evidence of mobilization of external expertise to assist with the design of workforce and women’s leadership initiatives
• Evidence of implementation of new or improved family-friendly initiatives (i.e. day care services, breastfeeding spaces, all-female hostels, family residence)

42

Annex 2 – Resource: Gender, Diversity and Inclusion in Research of Agricultural Research Institutions

Action Areas Actors may include Illustrative Objectives Illustrative Results Indicators
1. Leadership for Gender, Diversity and Inclusion in Research

Note: Some/many elements may be addressed as part of Domain 1 of Table 1 • Research Heads
• HR Department
• External experts • Creation or strengthening of a clear and shared vision for GDI in the research agenda
• Allocation of adequate budget envelope to advance GDI in research
• Strengthening of capacity of Heads of Research to promote greater integration of GDI in research
• Ensuring visibility of commitment to GDI in research • Existence of GDI in research vision statement
• Total amount of resources devoted to GDI in research budget(s); % of such resources as proportion of research budget(s)
• #, frequency of GDI training for research unit leadership; # of research unit leaders attending training (m/f)
• #, frequency of internal communications/events on the importance of GDI in research led/endorsed by Heads of Research
• #, frequency of external communications (e.g. public statements) on the importance of GDI in research by Heads of Research
• # of research unit and affiliated research centre staff demonstrating awareness of leadership’s commitment to GDI in research (e.g. through a survey, KIIs)
• Evidence of mobilization of external expertise to assist in the creation of vision
2.Gender, and Diversity and Inclusion in Research Methods, including Intersectional Analysis • Research staff
• Research Unit GDI Officer
• External experts • Creation or strengthening of research
unit’s internal GDI expertise capacity
• Strengthening of research staff capacity to conduct or use intersectional analysis
• Strengthening of research staff capacity in research methods to better integrate GDI issues
• Strengthening of availability of guidance and tools on research methods that support greater integration of GDI • Evidence of recruitment of a GDI Officer and/or GDI Unit and/or creation of a GDI in Research Working Group within the research unit
• #, frequency of training on intersectional analysis; # of research staff attending training (m/f)
• #, frequency of training on GDI research methods; # of research staff attending training (m/f)
• # of research quality evaluations demonstrating effective integration of GDI dimensions in research (both for research proposals and for completed research)
• # of research unit staff reporting (e.g. through surveys, KIIs) increased ability to integrate GDI into research (e.g. use of qualitative and participatory methods; use of disaggregated data by sex, age, marital status, wealth, ethnicity, disability); understanding of key issues such as knowledge power dynamics)
• # of documents (reports, guidance, tools) created or made available to researchers on GDI issues in agriculture
• # of inter-agency meetings on GDI in research; # of participants (m/f)
• Evidence of mobilization of external expertise to assist in capacity strengthening (for example, for GDI training, to offer a learning series on GDI in agriculture, etc.)
3.Gender, Diversity and Inclusion in Research Proposal Approval and Research Evaluation Processes • Research staff
• Research Unit GDI Officer
• External experts • Strengthening of the proposal approval stage to better assess the degree of GDI integration in proposed research (for elements such as the proposed research issue or question; the proposed types of methods; whether disaggregated data will be collected and analyzed; the composition of research team, etc.)
• Strengthening of the evaluation stage for completed research to better assess the degree of GDI integration in completed research, using elements as described • # of GDI dimensions assessed in research approval protocols/tools
• # of GDI dimensions assessed evaluation protocols/tools for completed research
• Evidence of actions taken to strengthen research proposals to better integrate GDI considerations
• Evidence of processes to document and share lessons learned from completed research to better integrate GDI considerations
43

Action Areas Actors may include Illustrative Objectives Illustrative Results Indicators
above, as well as assessing the effect of research on GDI outcomes
4.Gender, Diversity and Inclusion in Research Dissemination and Use • Research staff
• Research Unit GDI Officer
• External experts
• Research end users • Creation or strengthening of research unit practice on dissemination and communication of research findings that include GDI dimensions
• Recognition of the contributions and leadership of women and minority group scientists • # of presentations with GDI dimensions made in the agricultural research space; # given by women and minority group scientists
• # of presentations with GDI dimensions made to other stakeholders; # given by women and minority group scientists
• # of presentations made that highlight the contributions and leadership of women and minority group scientists
• # of GDI research awards created; # of research unit staff (m/f) receiving such awards

44

Annex 3 – Summary of evidence-based reviews of transformation in research institutions

1. Name of report Year Authors
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Research and Innovation: International Review. https://www.ukri.org/files/final-edi-review- international/
2019 Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
Scope/Data sources
Focused research on: 1) what works in the international interventions that have been implemented by organisations comparable to UKRI, which have proven effective, or less effective, and 2) measuring success – how is the effectiveness of EDI interventions measured and are there methods that are particularly useful for the international R&I landscape?
To understand ‘what works’ across a range of R&I contexts (such as research funding, policy, employment, doctoral study) an evaluation framework was applied to a total of 109 sources covering 130 interventions. The geographic coverage was wide: “the majority of the research conducted within the US (52 out of 130, or 40.0%). Roughly one third of the remaining interventions were from Europe (31 interventions, or 23.9%), whether this be from research conducted within a single European country (25 sources) or multiple European countries (six sources). There was representation of work from Australia (six interventions), Canada (five interventions) and New Zealand (four interventions). However, the representation of sources from other regions including Africa (five interventions, three in Tanzania), South America (no interventions) and Asia (four interventions, all from India), was relatively low in comparison.” (p. 15)
Key findings & Lessons learned
The overall findings identified which interventions were more likely to be effective than others (p: 6):
• evidence that positive or affirmative action measures can improve the representation of women in funding award schemes and access to higher education, as well as reducing bias towards women in recruitment (for example shortlisting);
• more confidence in the evidence around diversity training programmes and diversity management policies; in contrast, the effectiveness of family-friendly policies, career development programmes and employer engagement and outreach through EDI committees and advisers was mixed;
• evidence of positive impact in some areas (for example, improving the experiences and support for women and underrepresented staff through networks and affinity groups) but not in others (for instance, the lack of senior managers in such affinity groups limits the utility of these networks in improving career progression); these examples suggest the importance of understanding the impact of not only creating new policies and programmes but also considering their uptake and sustainability
• successful interventions tended to involve collaboration across and within organisations (such as forming internal support networks or creating communities of practice around an external scheme or framework); they also have commitment from senior management and embed EDI awareness and initiatives into organisational culture
The review also explored what factors contributed to the effectiveness of interventions, to answer why some interventions were more successful than others. While noting that reasons for success are highly specific to the intervention in question, some commonalities could be found between the interventions (pp. 36-27):
• collaboration: across the organisation (for example, EDI professionals and senior management) and within senior management (for example, board members presenting a unified approach to support female board members’ decision-making power)
• leadership: senior management committed to intervention and diversity management strategies integral to their effective integration
• strategic alignment and drivers: alignment with organisational or sector strategy and/or sector strategy or policy acting as a driver for the intervention
• community: interventions created positive relationships and networks for the individuals concerned
• evidence: use of evidence to design an intervention programme (for example, use of active forms of instruction), to raise awareness of EDI issues and to track progress and success of the intervention after implementation project management and accountability: having well-defined goals, expectations and roles

2. Name of report Year Authors
Telling SAGA: Improving Measurement and Policies for Gender Equality in Science, Technology and Innovation. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266102 2018 UNESCO
Scope
This paper discusses the STEM and Gender Advancement (SAGA) Project (2015 to present), a global UNESCO project supported by the Government of Sweden through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) to offer governments and policymakers a variety of tools to help reduce the current global gender gap in STI fields existing at all levels of education and research.
The SAGA methodology provides a suite of innovative tools to address these challenges, identify gaps in the policy mix and collect STI gender-related statistics and indicators to improve STI policies and measurement of gender equality in STI. The report discusses the successful outcomes of the SAGA methodology and tools in participating countries of which out of the first eight country pilots, the Gambia and Sudan were involved. The initiative helped create gender units within STI ministries and new government positions on equality, diversity and inclusion. Furthermore, in countries without national plans and strategies dedicated to gender equality in STI, the implementation of the SAGA project was considered an important step in highlighting the state of the current situation to mobilize the attention of key stakeholders on the matter. Eventual outcomes should be an increase in the number of women in science and participating in the scientific enterprise. The SAGA has a holistic conceptual framework of seven different areas and related interventions and measurements to overcome gender gaps in STI, increase the number of women researchers and achieve gender equality and to support policy-makers worldwide in setting up, implementing and monitoring gender equality policies in STI.
Key findings & Lessons learned
What has been measured to make a difference per domain in the SAGA framework:
1. Social norms and stereotypes: Out of the eight countries in the pilot, while these countries acknowledged the importance of addressing negative gender norms and sector-segregation, very few had policies in this domain. SAGA found that very few women are in leadership positions in the STEM-fields, including research institutes, but are essential as catalysts for change, as they serve to empower other women in the same professions and act as role models. While policies, programs and initiatives to address negative biases and stereotypes in the STEM field have brought some change, evidence must see whether efforts internal to research institutes and those outside of them are enough to tackle deep-rooted biases.
2. Primary and secondary education: UNESCO’s framework links gender, diversity and inclusion to a life cycle perspective – from the learner, to their family and peers, to the school level and then to society is useful for understanding interventions that help increase girls’ interest in STEM education. For the GRARD framework purposes, the SAGA framework and piloting in eight countries demonstrates that African agricultural institutes may have a role to play in early interventions to promote girls and young women to enter into science fields dominated by men.
3. Higher education: In the case of the Gambia, as in many African countries, gender parity in primary, secondary and post- secondary education has been a priority with efforts to address gender stereotyping in curriculums, including in agricultural technical colleagues and university level programs. These kinds of priorities of national governments and inter-ministerial initiatives between for example, the Ministry of Education and Ministries of Gender and Ministries of Science and Technology, are points of leveraging to enable research institutes to support greater participation and leadership of women in their institutes
4. Career progression: Due to the standards of their society (social norms), women frequently have to manage a day job (their S&E career) while at the same time completing the majority of household responsibilities. The age of entry on the labour market corresponds to motherhood for many women. There are few measures set in place to help all women be able simultaneously to work and take care of the household. In some countries it was observed that the work cycle is designed on the basis of male life trajectories more than on women’s. Actions related to pregnancy, parental, maternity and paternity leave and request for extension of scholarship were seen as good practice producing positive effects.

46

3. Name of report Year Authors
Gender-Net Analysis Report: Plans and initiatives in selected research institutions aiming to stimulate gender equality and enact structural change https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/gender-net_d2- 6_mapping_initiatives_selected_institutions.pdf
2015 Vinogradova, O., Y. Jänchen and
G. Obexer-Ruff.
Scope
This report summarizes the results of a pilot transnational research policy initiative funded by the European Commission to understand the impact of initiatives and award schemes in 52 selected European research institutions to stimulate gender equality and enact structural change. The mixed methods research focused on what EC partners considered to be the five “essential elements of structural change” namely (p.7):
• Anchoring gender equality issues at leadership level;
• Identifying decision making structures and procedures;
• Recruiting, retaining, and advancement of women researchers, including leading positions;
• Improving work environment, work-life balance and dual careers;
• Facilitating in-/outgoing mobility for women researchers.
Key findings & Lessons learned
National legal and policy framework for fostering structural change: a gender-responsive national policy context (i.e. creation of legal and policy frameworks, initiatives, and awards for promoting gender equality in S&T) is a significant driving force for stimulating gender equality and enacting structural change in research institutions.
Networks and linkages: another external factor that “activates structural change dynamics and builds critical mass” is transnational and inter-institutional cooperation between the selected institutions. This includes collaboration on implementing their gender equality policies, sharing of best practices, external networking which were found to be key for exchanging experiences of the change process and the lessons learned. Similarly, “reaching a critical mass of institutions committed to gender equality through structural change” was found to be a key success factor (pp. 8-9).
Prerequisites of structure change are defined: i) strategic management (i.e.vision and strong commitment from top leadership); ii) a strategic gender equality/action plan (GEP) with a clear set of targets; iii) corresponding measures and actions tailored to the challenges of the respective institution; iv) adequate human and financial resources for its implementation; and v) proper monitoring and accountability mechanisms for achieving these objectives.

The report emphasizes the results of structural change depend on the following factors related to the GEP:
• the transformative and sustainable nature of the GEP
• the quality of its measures and actions
• the translation of the GEP across the whole institution
• the establishment of responsible structures with proper mandate
• the allocation of sufficient, strategically-planned resources, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms

47

4. Name of report Year Authors
European Commission (EC). Structural Transformation to Achieve Gender Equality in Sciences (STAGES): Guidelines. 2015. https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/guidelines_stages_1.pdf.
2015 European Commission
Scope
In 2010, the European Commission introduced the project STAGES. The overall purpose of STAGES was to launch strategies for structural change in research organisations to address the many and interconnected layers of the problem of gender inequality in science from an integrated perspective. This focus on “structural change” was the outcome of research on gender and organizations (including authors cited in the introduction to this section), which identified key sets of problems: lack of transparency of decision-making (power); institutional practices limiting women’s career opportunities; unconscious gender bias in assessing excellence and in peer review processes; gender bias leading to “cognitive errors in knowledge, technology and innovation”; and human resources policies and practices that penalize women.
The STAGES project involved applying different self-tailored Gender Action Plans geared towards introducing gender-aware management at all levels in four universities and one applied research institute. STAGES also involved the continuous monitoring, evaluation and cross-cutting analysis of the process activated in each institution in order to draw some conclusions
Key findings & Lessons learned
This research identified six fields of action, which were discussed by the partners, with the contribution of the project’s International Board of Scientific Advisors, as essential elements of a structural change process, which are presented in the form of guidelines. The six fields of action and related activities are the following (pp 27-28), with some highlights selected here from each field:
1. Collecting data and monitoring gender equality
a. Mapping Available Information: Collect existing data and information, take advantage of on-going surveys and reprocess the results of past ones;
b. Producing New Information: Identify new indicators and analytical tools to monitor gender equality;
c. Building Action on Information: Put the collected data and the new knowledge at the basis of the Action Plan to several purposes: awareness-raising, action design, negotiation, and so on;
2. Engaging leaderships
a. Connecting Gender Equality to Institutional Strategies: Frame gender equality actions to address emergent priorities and widely recognised challenges of the organisation;
b. Gaining Internal Legitimacy Through External Support: Involve motivated external institutions and experts to provide advice and support to the Action Plan and to act as testimonials for the wider relevance of the equality issue.
3. (Gender) Policy-making and institutionalisation
4. Networking and empowering women to take action
a. Establishing or Supporting Networks For Gender Equality: Involve researchers and staff in the change process through networks;
5. Integrating gender in education and research

48

5. Name of report Year Authors
Organisational Best Practices Towards Gender Equality in Science and Medicine. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140- 67361833188-X/fulltext
2019 Coe, I.R, R. Wiley and L-G Bekker
Scope
This recent article surveys approaches and insights that have helped to identify and remove systemic bias and barriers in institutions of science and medicine and proposes tools that support organizational change towards gender equality.
Key findings & Lessons learned
Based on their survey, the authors argue that “organizational culture and climate play a key role in the extent to which organizations are able to attract, retain and promote women and girls in science… Organizations must look to their culture and climate to address this lost potential.” (p. 587)
They define organizational climate as “the meanings ascribed to that organisations policies, practices, and procedures, and should reflect and support organizational culture” which they define as “the shared values and beliefs that influence workplace and employee behavior”. They argue that “climate and culture must be addressed together because efforts to build a good climate will be unsuccessful if the policies conflict with the beliefs, assumptions, and values of an organization.” The authors describe strategies that have been effective in shifting organizational culture and climate towards gender equality such as legislation, allyship, leadership by scientific societies, professional development of core competencies in equity principles, and inclusive leadership. They also acknowledge that organizational change towards gender equality is part of the broader societal challenge of reducing gender stereotypes and negative gender norms and empowering men to embrace gender equality as a goal that also serves their interests. (pp. 587-588).
The authors also argue that positive organizational culture will not produce the desired results if policies and procedures are not organized around collective goals and beliefs. Only by addressing and shifting organizational culture and climate can diverse women feel “welcome, safe, supported, successful and respected”.
“Many advocates, including women in academic science and medicine, are tired of initiatives that focus on women as being the problem, and which assume a masculine heteronormative view of the world , requiring women to achieve a set of behaviors and measures that have been defined, determined, and continued to be measured by systems that are inherently sexist and racist by design.”
Inclusive leadership, the authors argue, is increasingly needed to affect organizational change and that this needs to start with the leadership of academic and research institutions. Inclusive leadership is already recognized as an essential aspect of

49

6. Name of report Year Authors
Gender Equality in Academia and Research: GEAR Tool.
https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear
2016 European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)
Scope
The toolkit is based on findings of a mapping and identification of good practices for integrating gender equality in research and higher education institutions conducted by the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), in cooperation with the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. The toolkit provides a definition of “Institutional change (or ‘structural change’ as known in the past) is a strategy aiming at removing obstacles to gender equality that are inherent to the research system itself and at adapting practices of institutions. Within an institutional change approach, the focus is on the organisation.” (p. 6)
Key findings & Lessons learned
Based on the findings from the national fieldwork at EU Member State level, the following main impact drivers for effective integration of gender in research and higher education institutions were identified (p. 11):
1. Senior leadership and management support;
2. A well-equipped and well-located gender equality body;
3. Involvement of different categories of stakeholders (inside and outside the organisation);
4. Embedment into existing structures and management procedures;
5. Setting clear targets and practical objectives;
6. Flexibility and resilience;
7. Availability of sex-disaggregated data;
8. Developing competences;
9. Monitoring and evaluation practices.
The GEAR Toolkit describes the need for thorough monitoring and evaluation strategies in order to link more systematically the institutional measures to the positive impact of gender integration, as well as to show evidence and benefit of the
50

7. Name of report Year Authors
Taking on the Gender Challenge in Organizations: What Does It Take?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26857439/
2015 Henry, S.K., J. Sandler, L. Passerini and G.L. Darmstadt.
Scope
This article is based on research commissioned by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to distill lessons from organizations
that had been through multiple iterations of gender equality and women’s empowerment strategies and policies.
Key findings & Lessons learned
This review looks more closely at key ingredients for the integration of gender into the main business or work of organizations (i.e. programmes, policies, research and organizational culture), rather than a specific focus on EDI within organizations only (staffing, recruitment and supportive organization culture for retention, promotion, etc.).
From the analysis, the authors identify five key “ingredients” required to gain sufficient traction and to be effective in
integrating a gender perspective into the work of complex organizations (p. 1):
• A clear vision of success and a strong results framework with measurable indicators
• High-level, consistent, and visible support;
• An intentional approach deeply rooted in the organizational culture and competencies;
• Accountability at all levels;
• Both adequate financial and technical resource allocation to effectively implement and monitor and evaluate results.
Specific insights from the review related to measurement are of relevance to GRARD. The authors recommend “a limited number of measurable indicators and include a system for reporting and accountability at a very senior level”. They also note the effectiveness of holding both individuals and teams accountable for progress on their commitments. “Helping people
and teams to articulate specific results and targets for their work on gender equality themselves and then tracking progress
and making this visible” is in their view critical to success. (p. 8).
The review highlights different dimensions of leadership. For example the authors note the importance of high-level leaders who make their support on GE consistent and visible both internally and externally; the value of an internal network of gender champions, a different form of leadership, who meet periodically with organizational leaders to brief them on progress has also supported improved implementation, learning and results; and having a respected individual in a leadership capacity who can “play the role of visionary, monitor implementation of organizational-wide policies, support strategic learning and ensure coordination” (p. 8).

51

Annex 4 – The Gender-sensitive research cycle

In this model, there are nine key moments in the four phases of the research cycle that provide opportunities for integrating gender into research. The following are some useful key questions that can be asked in each of the four phases of the research cycle in order to strengthen gender integration:

Research ideas 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 (e.g. in a specific work package)?
● Have possibly differentiated outcomes and impacts of the research on women and men been considered?

52

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?

Dissemination phase:
● Do analyses present statistics, tables, figures and descriptions that focus on the relevant gender differences that came up in the course of the project?
● Are institutions, departments and journals that focus on gender included among the target groups for dissemination, along with mainstream research magazines?
● Have you considered a specific publication or event on gender-related findings?

Source: Toolkit Gender in EU-funded Research, European Commission, Directorate General for Research and Innovation, 2011)

53

Annex 5 – The Gender at Work Analytical Framework
The Gender at Work Analytic Framework (see Gender at Work) provides insights into the levels of change that are likely to support institutional transformation of research institutes. The Figure shows the dimensions of change in a research institution or other organization.

The top two quadrants are concerned with individuals – their access to resources and their consciousness of gender and diversity inequality and power imbalances. The bottom two quadrants are systemic. The bottom right quadrant is about the formal rules that facilitate a gender and diversity agenda. The bottom left quadrant is about informal social norms and deep structures. The deep structure is a collection of values, history, culture and practices that form the basis of institutional/organizational choices and behaviors and are gendered, often unquestioned, and kept in place by power structures. This includes social norms or the commonly held beliefs within a social group as to how members should behave. Norms result in a pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to conform to the shared social expectations of
an important reference group, and affect the acceptance and encouragement of women’s decision-making and agenda setting; values or behaviours that are exemplified in social, informal, and work relationships between women and men and other social groups; and reward structures. Simply put, transformation requires impactful, coordinated effort in four broad areas:
(i) consciousness and awareness; (ii) access to resources and opportunities; (iii) informal cultural norms and deep structure; and (iv) formal policies, laws and institutional arrangements. The framework makes visible dimensions of gender equality and the extent to which shifts in different domains have occurred. These can apply both at the level of internal institutional practice and culture, as well as in how research is carried out and whose perspectives and interests are included in research programs.

The literature review highlighted that initiatives in research or academic institutions have largely engaged the third quadrant of more equitable policies and frameworks, as well as the closely related second quadrant of reducing access barriers to women’s full participation. Efforts in quadrant two have yielded growing representation of women in agricultural research institutes, however addressing attrition from the pipeline continues to be a challenge. Engagement with quadrant one – developing consciousness and awareness around issues of gender transformation – and quadrant four – shifting cultural norms and deep structure – remains underdeveloped. Across all quadrants, focused attention on intersecting and diverse identities and experiences that compound marginalization for particular groups needs to be kept in focus.

Using the Gender at Work framework, drawing on the interviews undertaken, the table below outlines the enabling and disabling factors to institutionalize gender equality internally and in research and development in National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) in Africa.

54

Enablers and Disablers of Institutionalizing Gender Equality
Enabling Factors and Good Practices
Consciousness, Capabilities

• Soap box initiative to reach female youth to consider STEM studies
• Networking and exposure of women scientists
• Capacity building in gender analysis and its links and relevance to the research process
• Backstopping the gender focal persons
• Role modeling of AWARD and other women scientists
• Status/competence of women researchers as of men Resources

• Donors reward institute financially for gender balance
• AWARD fellowship program (All six NARIs)
• AWARD mentorship program becomes domesticated into institutes
• Availability/knowledge of relevant gender frameworks/tools
• Cross-representative gender committee meeting regularly to monitor and track gender policy application
Informal Norms & Exclusionary Practices

• Senior leadership acknowledges gender-based barriers to women’s participation, largely reproductive roles – invest in breast feeding centres and hostels
• Multidisciplinary research is effective – pure sciences and social scientists (for dissemination of technology)
• Collaborations within and outside the country
• Women’s scientists’ network
• Emerging appreciation of the added value of gender approaches
• Motivation of working from a gender perspective
• Policy implementation
• Gender Practices at field level/internships Formal Rules and Policies

• Gender policies and action plans with gender committee or focal points at each sub-regional research institute
• Effective affirmative action/positive discrimination at project and institutional level
• Equal opportunity
• Encouraging women applicants
• Curriculum is gender sensitive
• Gender audits to inform strategic directions and enhance institutional confidence in understanding the problem at hand
• Milestones – to achieve – MoU/Vision
• Gender sensitive monitoring and evaluation
• Research assessment protocols in some of the institutions highlight the relevance of gender
• Working environment – family friendly/child friendly
• “Gender Regulations” to deal with cases of sexual harassment
Disablers and Gaps
Consciousness, Capabilities

• Lack of knowledge of gender data methods for pure sciences
• Generic gender analysis training may not be useful but rather what may be useful is the training that is directed towards understanding the global value chain in agriculture production including the application of technology and the gendered implications at the different levels of the value chain.
• Understanding women’s technological preferences and needs did not seem to be a major issue for most of the institutions
• Low profile of women researchers
• Limited reflection on diversity and inclusion – human rights/constitutional issues Resources

• Lack of financial and human resource prioritization of senior leadership
• Limited availability of women at the research management level affects the understanding of the issues of women in the food systems
• Project funding and limited institutional budgetary allocation to gender work
• Limited national level studies (mappings) of gendered effects of agricultural technologies as justification for a gendered approach to agricultural technologies research
Informal Norms & Exclusionary Practices Formal Rules and Policies

• Have a gender policy but no budget

55

56

References
Acker, J. Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations. Gender and Society, Volume 4, Issue 2: 1990. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/089124390004002002.

—. Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class and Race in Organizations. Gender and Society, Volume 20, Issue 4: 2006. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0891243206289499.

African Women in Agricultural Research and Development. A Decade of Advancing Inclusive Agricultural Research: The AWARD Story. 2018. https://awardfellowships.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/06/Final_AWARD@10_report_2018.pdf.

Akobo, L. and O. Damisah. Diversity Management Discourse: An African Perspective. African Journal of Business Management, Volume 12, Issue 13: 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326659871_Diversity_management_discourse_An_Afr ican_perspective.

Bauer, G.R. Incorporating Intersectionality Theory into Population Health Research Methodology: Challenges and the Potential to Advance Health Equity. Social Science and Medicine, Volume 110, 2014.

Beintema, N. An Assessment of the Gender Gap in African Agricultural Research Capacities. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, Volume 2, Issue 1: 2017. https://agrigender.net/uploads/JGAFS-212017-1-Paper.pdf.

Bonner, P. and A. Wangalachi. Designing effective leadership capacity development programs for women agricultural researchers in Africa, Journal of Gender, Agricultural and Food Security, Vol. 2., Issue 1, 35-55, 2017.

Britton, D.M. The Epistemology of the Gendered Organization. Gender and Society, Volume 14, Issue 3: 2000. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/089124300014003004.

Coe, I.R, R. Wiley and L-G Bekker. Organisational Best Practices Towards Gender Equality in Science and Medicine. The Lancet, Volume 393, Issue 10171: 2019. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67361833188-X/fulltext.

Colfer, C.J.P., B.S. Basnett B.S. and M. Ihalainen. Making Sense of “Intersectionality”: A Manual for Lovers of People and Forests. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Occasional Paper 184: 2018.

Connell, R. Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press. 2002.

Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, Closing the Relevance Gap: Lessons in Co-Developing Gender Transformative Research Approaches with Development Partners and Communities. 2015. https://www.gov.uk/dfid-research-outputs/closing-the-relevance-gap-lessons-in-co-developing- gender-transformative-research-approaches-with-development-partners-and-communities.

57

Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Evaluation of Gender in CGIAR. Rome, Italy: Independent Evaluation Arrangement (IEA) of CGIAR. 2017. https://cas.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/pdf/CGIAR-Gender-Evaluation-Report-Annexes-A-E- 2.pdf.

Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Framework for Gender, Diversity and Inclusion in CGIAR’s Workplaces, CGIAR System Organization. 2020. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/108036/GDI-Framework- Feb.2020.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y.

Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), CARE International, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). The Gender and Inclusion Toolbox: Participatory Research in Climate Change and Agriculture. 2014. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/45955/CCAFS_Gender_Toolbox.pdf?sequenc e=7.

Danielsen, Katrine, Wong, Franz, McLachlin, Dana; Sarapura, Silvia, Typologies of change – Making sense of gender integration in agriculture and food security research. IDRC, Ottawa: Canada. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/57120/IDL- 57120.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y.

Djoudi H. et al. Beyond Dichotomies: Gender and Intersecting Inequalities in Climate Change Studies. Ambio, Volume 45, Suppl. 3: 2016. https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/ADjoudi1602.pdf.

Drucza, K., M. Tsegaye and L. Azage. Doing Research and “Doing Gender” in Ethiopia’s Agricultural Research System. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). 2019. https://repository.cimmyt.org/handle/10883/20515.

Drucza, K., M. Tsegaye, W. Abebe, D. Giref, L. Abebe. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Gender Audit. CIMMYT, Ethiopia: Addis Ababa. 2017. https://repository.cimmyt.org/bitstream/handle/10883/19679/GENDER%20AUDIT.pdf?sequence
=1&isAllowed=y.

Equal Measures 2030, Harnessing the Power of Data for Gender Equality: Introducing the 2019 EM2030 SDG Gender Index. 2019. https://www.equalmeasures2030.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/07/EM2030_2019_Global_Report_English_WEB.pdf.

European Commission (EC). Directorate General for Research and Innovation, Toolkit: Gender in EU-funded Research. 2011. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/c17a4eba-49ab-40f1-bb7b-bb6faaf8dec8.

European Commission (EC). Structural Transformation to Achieve Gender Equality in Sciences (STAGES): Guidelines. 2015. https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/guidelines_stages_1.pdf.

European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). Gender Analysis. 2019 https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/mh0319271enn_002.pdf.
58

European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). Gender Equality in Academia and Research: GEAR Tool. 2016a. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gear.

European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). Institutional Transformation: Gender Mainstreaming Toolkit. 2016b. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gender- institutional-transformation/step-1-creating-accountability-and-strengthening-commitment.

European Institute for Gender Equality. Promoting Gender Equality in Academia and Research Institutes: Main Findings. 2016c. https://eige.europa.eu/publications/promoting-gender-equality- academia-and-research-institutions-main-findings.

European Institute for Gender Equality. Towards Effective Gender Training: Mainstreaming Gender into the Policies and Programmes of the Institutions of European Union and EU Member States: Good Practices in Gender Training. 2011. https://eige.europa.eu/publications/good-practices-gender-mainstreaming.

Feldman, S. Feminist science and epistemologies: key issues central to GENNOVATE’s research program. GENNOVATE resources for scientists and research teams. CDMX. Mexico: CIMMYT.

Ferguson, K.E. The feminist Case Against Bureaucracy. Temple University Press. 1984. Gender at Work. What is Gender at Work’s Approach to Gender Equality and Institutional Change? n.d. http://gender.careinternationalwikis.org/_media/resource_3_rao_2006_gender_at_work_integrat ed_framework.pdf.

Health Communication Capacity Collaborative. Gender Transformative Approaches: An HC3 Research Primer. n.d. https://healthcommcapacity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Gender- Transformative-Approaches-An-HC3-Research-Primer.pdf.

Henry, S.K., J. Sandler, L. Passerini and G.L. Darmstadt. Taking on the Gender Challenge in Organizations: What Does It Take? Journal of Global Public Health: 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26857439/.

Hillenbrand E. and M. Miruka. “Gender and social norms in agriculture”, in 2019 Annual Trends and Outlook Report: Gender Equality in Rural Africa: From Commitments to Outcomes.
RESAKSS Annual Trends and Outlook Report. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2019.
http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/133472/filename/133680.pdf.

Holvino, E. Intersections: The Simultaneity of Race, Gender and Class in Organization Studies. Gender, Work and Organization, Volume 17, Issue 3: 2010.

IDRC, Transforming gender relations: Insights from IDRC research. IDRC, Ottawa, Canada. https://issuu.com/idrc_crdi/docs/wd_13_000_gender_e-file_en.

Inter-Action. The Gender Audit Handbook A Tool for Organizational Self Assessment and Transformation. 2010. https://www.interaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Gender-Audit- Handbook-2010-Copy.pdf.
59

International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Research Quality Plus. 2016. https://www.idrc.ca/en/research-in-action/research-quality-plus.

International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Transforming Gender Relations: Insights from IDRC Research. 2019. https://issuu.com/idrc_crdi/docs/wd_13_000_gender_e- file_en?e=34655515/70235030.

International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Using Research for Gender Transformative Change: Principles and Practice. n.d. https://www.idrc.ca/sites/default/files/sp/Documents%20EN/using_research_for_gender- transformative_change.pdf.

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2020 Global Food Policy Report: Building Inclusive Food Systems, Annex on Food Policy Indicators: Tracking Change. 2020. https://ebrary.ifpri.org/digital/collection/p15738coll2/id/133646.

IFPRI. Gender Agriculture and Assets Program: A Technical Resource Guide. 2014.

International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA). Feminist Research Framework. 2017 https://iwda.org.au/assets/files/FeministResearchFramework_online_minustemplates-1.pdf.

League of European Research Universities. Gendered Research and Innovation: Integrating Sex and Gender Analysis into the Research Process. Advice Paper No. 18: 2015. http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/LERU_AP18_Gen dered%20research%20and%20innovation_final.pdf.

Leder, S. and C.E. Sachs. “Intersectionality at the Gender-Agriculture Nexus. Relational Life Histories and Additive Sex-Disaggregated Indices”, in Gender, Agriculture and Agrarian Transformations. Routledge. 2019. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333136489_Intersectionality_at_the_gender- agriculture_nexus_Relational_life_histories_and_additive_sex-disaggregated_indices.

Mackay, F. and M.L. Krook, eds. “Introduction: Gender, Politics, and Institutions: Setting the Agenda”, in Gender, Politics, and Institutions: Toward a New Feminist Institutionalism. Palgrave Macmillan. 2011.

Mackay, F., M. Kenny and L. Chappell. New Institutionalism Through a Gender Lens: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism? International Political Science Review 31(5) 573–588 .2010 New Institutionalism Through a Gender Lens: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism? (sagepub.com). Accessed January 29, 2020.

Mama, A. What Does It Mean to Do Feminist Research in African Contexts? Feminist Review, Volume 98, Issue 1: 2011. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1057/fr.2011.22.

Manyire, H. and A.D. Apekey. Mainstreaming Gender Equality in African Agricultural Research and Development: A Study of Constraints and Opportunities. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa. 2013. http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/313434/Gender_equality_report_Ver05_lowres%20(2).pdf.

60

Moody, J. and A. Aldercotte. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Research and Innovation: International Review. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). 2019. https://www.ukri.org/files/final-edi-review-international/.

Molefi, M, O’Mara J. and A. Richter. The Center for Global Inclusion, Global Diversity & Inclusion Benchmarks: Standards for Organizations Around the World. 2021 https://centreforglobalinclusion.org/downloads/

Mukhebi D. , E. Otunga, M. Mentz and A. Wangalachi Strengthening Mentoring Partnerships for African Women Scientists in the Agricultural Research and Development System in Sub- Saharan Africa. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, Volume 2, Issue 1, 77-105: 2017. http://agrigender.net/uploads/JGAFS-212017-5-Paper.pdf.

Mullinax, M., J. Hart and A.V. Garcia. Using Research for Gender Transformative Change: Principles and Practice. International Development Research Centre (IDRC). 2019. https://ajws.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Gender-Transformative-Research.pdf.

New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). CAADP Country Implementation Under the Malabo Declaration: Guidelines. April 2016. https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/31251-doc- the_country_caadp_implementation_guide_-_version_d_05_apr.pdf.

Njuki, J. Critical Elements for Integrating Gender in Agricultural Research and Development Projects and Program. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, Volume 1, Issue 3: 2016. http://agrigender.net/uploads/JGAFS-132016-6-Paper.pdf.

Nkomo, S.M. A Post-Colonial and Anti-Colonial Reading of “African” Leadership and Management in Organization Studies: Tensions, Contradictions and Possibilities. Organization, Volume 18, Issue 3: 2011. https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/orga/18/3.

Nordehn, Caitlan and Deborah Rubin, Gender and Climate Change: Synthesis of IDRC’s support to Climate Change Research, Ottawa, Canada: IDRC. (2018).

O’Mara J. and A. Richter. Global Diversity and Inclusion Benchmarks: Standards for Organizations Around the World. The Center for Global Inclusion. 2017. https://centreforglobalinclusion.org/downloads/.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Evidence for Action: Gender Equality and Economic Growth (Draft). 2010. http://www.oecd.org/development/gender-development/45568595.pdf.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Toolkit for Mainstreaming and Implementing Gender Equality: Implementing the 2015 OECD Recommendation on Gender Equality in Public Life. 2015. https://www.oecd.org/gov/toolkit-for-mainstreaming-and- implementing-gender-equality.pdf.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) 2019 Global Report. 2019. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/bc56d212- en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/bc56d212-en.

61

Pépina, A. et al. Fostering Gender Equality in Research Institutions Through Transformational- Gender Action Plans. 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268977961_Fostering_Gender_Equality_in_Research
_Institutions_through_Transformational-Gender_Action_Plans.

Quisumbing, A.R., et al. Meinzen-Dick, and J. Njuki, eds. Gender Equality in Rural Africa: From Commitments to Outcomes. ReSAKSS 2019 Annual Trends and Outlook Report. International Food Policy Research Institute: 2019. https://ebrary.ifpri.org/digital/collection/p15738coll2/id/133470.

Quisimbing, A.R., et al. Reducing the gender asset gap through agricultural development: A technical resource guide. 2014. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/128594/filename/128805.pdf.
Quisumbing A.R. and L. Pandolfelli. Promising Approaches to Address the Needs of Poor Female Farmers: Resources, Constraints and Interventions. World Development, Volume 38, Issue 4: 2010. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X09001806.

Rao, A. and D. Kelleher. Institutions, Organisations and Gender Equality in an Era of Globalisation. Gender and Development, Volume 11, Issue 1: 2003. https://genderatwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Institutions-Organisations-and-Gender- Equality_Gender-and-Development_Rao_A_D_Kelleher_ARTICLE.pdf.

—. Is There Life after Gender Mainstreaming? Gender and Development, Volume 13, Issue 2: 2005. https://genderatwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Is-There-Life-After- Mainstreaming_Gender-and-Development_Rao_AD_Kelleher_ARTICLE.pdf.

—. Unravelling Institutionalized Gender Inequality. Gender at Work. 2002. https://genderatwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Unravelling-Institutionalized-Gender- Inequality_AWID_Rao_A_D_Kelleher_ARTICLE.pdf.

Rao, A., R. Stewart and D. Kelleher. Gender at Work: Organizational Change for Gender Equality. 1999. https://genderatwork.org/portfolio-item/organizational-change/.

Rodriguez J.K., E. Holvino, J.K. Fletcher and S.M. Nkomo. The Theory and Praxis of Intersectionality in Work and Organizations: Where Do We Go From Here? Gender, Work and Organization, Volume 23, Issue 3: 2016. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwao.12131.

Sarapura Escobar, S. and R. Puskur. Gender Capacity Development and Organizational Culture Change in the CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems: A Conceptual Framework. The WorldFish Center, Working Papers, Number 40481: 2014. https://ideas.repec.org/b/wfi/wfbook/40481.html.

Schmidt, E.K and M. Cacace. Setting Up a Dynamic Framework to Activate Gender Equality Structural Transformation in Research Organizations. Science and Public Policy, Volume 46, Issue 3: 2019. https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/46/3/321/5138293.

Tavenner, K. and T.A. Crane. Beyond “Women and Youth”: Applying Intersectionality in Agricultural Research for Development. Outlook on Agriculture, Volume 48, Issue 4: 2019.

62

https://www.ilri.org/publications/beyond-%E2%80%9Cwomen-and-youth%E2%80%9D- applying-intersectionality-agricultural-research-development.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for the Advancement of Women. Aide-mémoire: Expert Group Meeting Enhancing Participation of Women in Development through an Enabling Environment for Achieving Gender Equality and the Advancement of Women, 2005.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Telling SAGA: Improving Measurement and Policies for Gender Equality in Science, Technology and Innovation. 2018. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266102.

United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). Policy Innovations for Transformative Change: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2016. https://www.unrisd.org/80256B42004CCC77/(httpInfoFiles)/2D9B6E61A43A7E87C125804F003 285F5/$file/Flagship2016_FullReport.pdf.

Veneklasen, L. and V. Miller. A New Weave of Power, People & Politics: The Action Guide for Advocacy and Citizen Participation. Warwickshire: Practical Action Publishing. 2007.

Vinogradova, O., Y. Jänchen and G. Obexer-Ruff. Gender-Net Analysis Report: Plans and Initiatives in Selected Research Institutions Aiming to Stimulate Gender Equality and Enact Structural Change. 2015. https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/gender-net_d2- 6_mapping_initiatives_selected_institutions.pdf.

Walby, S. Varieties of Gender Regimes, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, Volume 27, Issue 3, Fall 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxaa018

Weldon, S.L and M. Htun. Feminist Mobilisation and Progressive Policy Change: Why Governments Take Action to Combat Violence Against Women. Gender and Development, Volume 21, Issue 2, 2013.

World Economic Forum (WEF). The Global Gender Gap Report. 2016. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GGGR16/WEF_Global_Gender_Gap_Report_2016.pdf.

63