Content uploaded by Marianne Achiam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marianne Achiam on Oct 26, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
1
Institutional
Guidelines
How to make your organisation
more gender inclusive
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
2
Institutional Guidelines
How to make your organisation more gender inclusive
Author: Marianne Achiam, University of Copenhagen
Contributors: Hypatia partners, third parties, Advisory Board and Gender Panel.
1. Summary 2
How to use this document 2
2. Introduction 3
Aim 4
3. The Hypatia Model 5
4. Transforming Institutions for Gender Inclusion 7
Transforming gender inclusion capacity at the institutional level 9
Transforming gender inclusion capacity at the interactional level 10
Transforming gender inclusion capacity at the individual level 11
Supporting the transformation of gender inclusion capacity from the ‘outside’ 12
5.AfrmativeActionsforGenderInclusion 13
6. Background 14
Gendered institutions 14
Institutional transformation 14
Afrmativeversustransformativeactions 15
7. References 17
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
3
1. SUMMARY
In addition to contributing to social justice,
the inclusion of a broader diversity of
women and men in science will give Europe an
important competitive advantage. However,
research shows that many institutions involved
in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) education have built-
in gender excluding mechanisms. This means
that attempts to increase girls’ and women’s
participation in STEM requires a transformation
in the cultures and capacities of STEM
institutions.
Institutional transformation can take place
through the gradual development of the
institution’s capacity to develop, realise,
and evaluate gender-inclusive activities.
This development involves the institution’s
internal organisation as well as its external
activities. Building gender inclusion
capacity involves action at the individual,
interactional, and institutional levels, and
can be constructively supported by external
actors.
The project Hypatia is based in this four-
tier conception of institutional capacity.
The present document draws on the collective
experiences of Hypatia partners, third
parties, Advisory Board and Gender Panel as
well as on recent research on institutional
change, gender inclusion, and STEM education
to formulate a set of concrete guidelines to
guide the transformation of STEM institutions
towards gender inclusion. It targets two main
audiences:
• Staff members, educators and managers of
schools, science centres and museums,
industry and research institutions who are
involved in STEM education
• Decision-makers and stakeholders in STEM
education at the local, regional, national
or international level
In the following, we give concrete suggestions
for building institutional capacity for gender
inclusion, directed towards these target
audiences.
How to use this document
The Introduction – Section 2 - offers readers
who are unfamiliar with Hypatia a brief
rationale for the project and for the need for
institutional change.
For readers interested in the Hypatia Model
for gender inclusion in institutions, Section 3
discusses the four-tier perspective used in
Hypatia. This section focuses especially on
Hypatia’s National Hubs, an innovation that
served to coordinate, support and guide the
gender inclusion initiatives in the project.
For readers who wish to directly access
suggestions for how to transform an
institution’s gender inclusion capacity,
Section 4 offers concrete suggestions to
institutions at the level of individual staff
members, staff teams, management, and external
stakeholders.
Section 5offerssuggestionsforafrmative
actions that can be taken by individuals to
affect an institution’s capacity for gender
inclusion from the bottom up.
For readers interested in a more in-depth
discussion of the research that informs
the present document, Section 6 provides a
detailed and referenced discussion of gender,
institutions, and science education.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
4
2. INTRODUCTION
The most important rationale for achieving
equity in science, technology, engineering
and mathematics is that of social justice.
However, a number of other reasons can be
given as well, e.g. those related to the
environment, to empowerment, to economic
issues, and to diversity in science (Achiam &
Holmegaard2015).Particularlywithrespectto
diversity and economy, research shows that the
inclusion of a broader diversity of women and
men in science will give Europe an important
competitive advantage. More diversity will
strengthenthescienticendeavourthrough
a more effective utilisation of the human
capital.
However, unequal power relations and male-
centred notions of science remain commonplace
in science education institutions (Ash &
Lombana, 2013; Feinstein & Meshoulam, 2014;
Waylen, 2014; Weiner & MacRae, 2014). This
results in an on-going exclusion of girls and
women from science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM). And even if STEM
education activities are changed to become more
gender inclusive, attempts to increase girls’
and women’s participation in STEM will not be
successful if science education institutions
themselves do not change (European Institute
ofGenderEquity[EIGE],2016;Šidlauskienė&
Butašova, 2013). For this reason, the present
document focuses on transforming institutions,
rather than just targeting education
activities.
Institutional transformation is not easy;
however, it is possible. An institution
can build its capacity to develop, realise,
and evaluate gender-inclusive activities.
This capacity-building involves both the
institution’s internal organisation and
its external activities. It takes place
through negotiations between the individual,
interactional, and institutional levels, and
with support from surrounding structures such
asinuentialstakeholdersorpolicydecisions
(Šidlauskienė&Butašova,2013;Verbiest&
Erculj, 2006; Waylen, 2014).
Figure 1
To be successful, efforts to transform institutions must
permeate four levels. From the bottom: Staff members, in
groups or individually, can initiate gender inclusion activities,
but require the support of management. The management
and the efforts of the institution as a whole can again be
supported at the societal level by decision makers and
stakeholders.
The project Hypatia is based on this four-tier
conception of institutional change (Figure 1).
The present document draws on the way gender
inclusion capacities were built in Hypatia’s
participating institutions during the project,
and it offers a set of concrete suggestions to
guide and support similar processes in other
institutions. We realise that all institutions
are unique, and consequently there is no
standardised blueprint for dealing with change
(EIGE, 2016). Still, a broad range of research
on institutions including schools, museums,
research institutions and industry support the
suggestions given here.
Finally, anyone who has attempted to make
institutional change knows that there is no
magic wand that can cause such change to occur
overnight: Organisational change takes time and
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
5
work. In other words, the present document
cannot make a difference alone; it requires a
sustained and concerted effort on the part of
its readers to adapt its suggestions to the
institutional reality they face and to follow
them through.
Aim
The aim of the present text is to provide staff
members, managers, and decision-makers in
STEM education with concrete and operational
guidelines on how to change the way science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics
is communicated. The guidelines target the
internal organisation of STEM education
institutions, their external activities,
and their overarching support systems and
networks. We address both those institutions
whose primary objective it is to disseminate
and communicate science (i.e. schools and
museums) and those institutions whose secondary
objective is to disseminate and communicate
science (industry and research institutions).
We draw on the knowledge generated in the
Hypatia project as well as existing literature
on institutions and gender, and on the insights
and expertise of Hypatia’s Gender Panel and its
Advisory Board.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
6
3. THE HYPATIA MODEL
A key goal of the Hypatia project was to engage
schools, museums, research institutions, and
industry in more gender-inclusive ways of
communicating STEM. Hypatia aimed to meet this
goal in a sustainable way: Not only would the
involved institutions continue their gender-
inclusive practices after the conclusion of the
project, but other institutions would take up
the challenge, and implement gender inclusion
throughout their practices as well. Among
the innovations of Hypatia, and of central
importance to the development and continuation
of the project’s gender inclusion initiatives
are its National Hubs.
The National Hubs were created and coordinated
by the project’s museum partners and third
parties. They consisted of a number of
different stakeholders situated within the
national discourse on science education and
gender and included panels of teenagers who met
regularly. As the Hypatia project progressed,
the Hubs acted as links between the involved
institutions (schools, museums, industry and
research institutions) as well as disseminating
Hypatia’s gender inclusion insights through the
collective networks of the Hub members. But
perhaps most importantly, the Hubs functioned
as critical actors by giving girls and boys a
voice, mobilising institutions and their staff
members for change, and offering external
support for transformative gender inclusion
initiatives. In Section 4, we give concrete
examples of how the National Hubs supported
institutional transformation in Hypatia.
As discussed in more detail in the Background
section (Section 6) of this document, the role
of critical actors can be decisive for building
institutional capacity for gender inclusion.
Thus, the innovation of the National Hubs may
well represent the strongest contribution of
Hypatia to transforming the way STEM subjects
are communicated to girls and boys across
Europe. The Hypatia Hubs were established in
the 14 European countries who participated in
Hypatia and are designed to be sustainable
after the completion of Hypatia (Oron & Halevy,
2018). We suggest that in other countries, the
role played by the National Hub as a critical
actor may well be incorporated into the
activities of existing national STEM education
networks (see examples in Table 1) to support
gender inclusion transformation.
Figure 2
The organisational structure of the Hypatia model. National
Hubs in the project’s 14 participating countries connect
and share information across the participating schools,
museums, industries, and research institutions.
National networks may take many forms but are
oftennon-protorganisationswithpartial
funding from the government. Examples include
thePortuguesenationalagencyCienciaViva,
which promotes new ways of teaching science
in schools and supports national science
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
7
Table 1
Examples of national science education networks or portals that could help sustain Hypatia’s existing
National Hubs, or function as the nucleus for new Hubs, supporting the development of gender inclusion
capacity in schools, museums, and industry.
Czech Republic Metodický Portál: Inspirace a
Zkušenosti učitelů
[Methodical Portal: Teachers’
Inspiration and Experience]
https://rvp.cz/
Denmark Astra www.astra.dk
Finland LUMA Centre Finland www.luma.
Norway Naturfagsenteret
[The Science Education Centre]
www.naturfagsenteret.no
Norway Museumsseksjonen in Kulturrådet
[The Museum Section in the Cultural
Committee]
www.kulturradet.no/museum
Europe Promoting Women in Science www.informatics-europe.org/news/297-women-
in-science.html
Portugal Ciência Viva - National Agency for
Scientic and Technological Culture
http://www.cienciaviva.pt/
Poland Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczej
Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego [Center
for Nature Education, The Jagiellonian University]
http://www.mzuj.uj.edu.pl
Italy Donne & Scienza http://ws.cab.unipd.it/
Israel National council for the promotion
of women in science
-
communication campaigns as well as a national
network of science centres and museums of
science and technology. Another example is
Naturfagsenteret, which supports science
education in Norway by offering funding for
teacher-driven initiatives to improve science
teaching, organising annual conferences for
science teachers, offering online teaching
materials, and holding science competitions for
children. Further examples of national networks
are shown in Table 1.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
8
4. TRANSFORMING
INSTITUTIONS FOR
GENDER INCLUSION
The following section presents concrete
suggestions for transforming the capacity
of institutions to provide gender inclusive
education experiences. Depending on an
institution’s phase of development (whether
it is at the beginning or advanced stages
of building its gender inclusion capacity)
anddependingonthespeciccircumstances
and possibilities of that institution, the
following suggestions or guidelines may be
more or less applicable. In other words, it is
notpossibletogivedenitiveanswerstohow
to develop an institution’s gender inclusion
capacity. It is always up to the local actors
- educators, scientists, designers, managers,
decision makers - to evaluate the suggestions
and decide on the best course of action for
their institution, bearing the societal and
cultural setting in mind.
The proffered suggestions target institutional
transformation. This means that they seek
to change gender exclusion practices by
restructuring the institution that generated
them. Accordingly, the suggestions are directed
towards the level of institutional management,
and external stakeholders because it is at
these levels that capacity-building can most
efcientlybeinitiated,facilitated,and
sustained (Figure 3). However, as discussed in
the Background (Section 6), capacity-building
must involve individuals at all levels of the
organisation to be effective. The main role of
management and external stakeholders is thus
to support capacity-building at these multiple
levels, in both top-down and bottom-up
processes.
Evenso,Section5offerssuggestionsfor
afrmativeactions.Afrmativeactionsare
suggestions aimed at generating gender
inclusive practices and activities without
disturbing the underlying institutional
framework (see Section 6 for a further
discussion of the differences between
transformativeandafrmativeactions).We
acknowledge that it is not always possible
or desirable to initiate institution-wide
transformation; in these cases, change can
sometimes be very gradually brought about by
the actions of individuals through bottom-up
processes. Accordingly, the suggestions offered
inSection5aretargetedtowardsstaffmembers
as individuals or in groups.
Figure 3
Institutional transformation can be driven by initiatives at
the institutional level (i.e. management) that permeate the
interactional (staff team) and individual (staff member)
levels. These transformations can be critically supported by
stakeholders and decision-makers (National Hubs) at the
societal and cultural level. Bottom-up processes contribute
to the transformation process.
The suggestions are accumulated from the
Hypatia project, its Advisory Board and Gender
The director, senior staff and trustees -
or equivalent governing body - all need to
be active champions for change
Our Museum 2016:21
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
9
Panel, and from the following publications
about transforming schools (Choi et al.,
2017;Verbiest&Erculj,2006),museums
(Bienkowski, 2016; Cacace, Colonnello, & Olmi,
2011; Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004; Feinstein
& Meshoulam, 2014; Hein, 2010; McCreedy &
Dierking, 2013; Munley, 2013), research
institutions/industry (Choi et al., 2017;
Hill, Corbett, & Rose, 2010; Salminen-Karlsson
etal.,2016;Šidlauskienė&Butašova,2013),
and institutions in the public and private
sectors (EIGE, 2016; Elam & Terjesen, 2010; The
DelegationforEquityinWorkingLife,2015)
Transforming gender inclusion
capacity at the institutional level
The institutional level corresponds to the
decision-making level of the organisation in
question. This level is all-important for a
successful transformation: If the leadership
of the institution is not only supportive of
initiatives to build gender inclusion capacity,
but also demands that such initiatives take
place, institutional capacity for gender
inclusion can be effectively built. The
following suggestions may be employed by
management to help build capacity for gender
inclusion at the institutional level.
Phase of development Management can act by...
Beginning • Assessing the institution’s overall inclusion status*
• Setting up a team to coordinate gender inclusion initiatives
• Appointing a staff member as Gender Inclusion Ambassador and giving them
responsibility for disseminating information about gender inclusion
• Mapping the institution’s community of learners: Who are they, what are their needs,
what can the institution offer them?
Intermediate • Providing opportunities for staff professional development on gender inclusion
• Facilitating set-up of middle-management teams to guide gender inclusion initiatives
across the institution
• Organising educators, communicators, designers and other staff members involved in
dissemination and education in teams for peer-feedback and collaboration on gender
inclusion
• Implementing and enforcing gender inclusive practices in both formal and informal rules**
• Facilitating frequent opportunities for dialogue among girls and boys, educators,
designers, and management
• Not having a few special one-off events that target gender, but rather establishing an
on-going dialogue with a diversity of girls and boys and incorporate their voices into
institutional practices
Advanced • Actively seeking out partnerships with members of local communities to bring new
expertise and knowledge into institution
• Providing opportunities for rotating staff members’ roles and responsibilities within teams
• Ensuring that gender inclusion is at the heart of the institutional business model, and that
everyone knows it***
• Ensuring that mentoring is available for all staff members, female and male, to support
their advancement
* For instance, tools such as the free on-line
tool Of, By, For All (www.ofbyforall.org/
vision/) can help management assess the
inclusion status of their institution
** For instance, the science centre
Exploratorium in the US developed a set
of gender guidelines for exhibition design
that are implemented in all new exhibitions
(Dancstep & Sindorf, 2016)
*** For instance, the French science centre
Universcience has implemented staff
recruitment, reception and training
procedures to prevent the risk of
discrimination and enhance diversity.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
10
Transforming gender inclusion
capacity at the interactional level
Changing an institution’s capacity to be
gender inclusive also entails work at the
interactional level, that is, working to build
the collective gender inclusion capacity of
educators, leaders, and other staff members.
Building capacity at the interactional
level means establishing a shared vision
of gender equity and sharing norms and
practices about teaching and learning. The
following suggestions may be employed by the
institutional management to help build capacity
for gender inclusion at the interactional
level, that is, collectively among staff
members.
Phase of development Management can act by...
Beginning • Not assuming all staff have the same understanding of gender inclusion, nor that they are
aware of their own presumptions about gender
• Encouraging staff to share knowledge and build common understanding*
• Investing in trust, caring relationships and respect
• Conducting eld visits to gender inclusive institutions
• Reading and distributing literature about gender inclusion
Intermediate • Planning team meetings to promote the exchange of experiences between teams, and
promote gender inclusion dialogue**
• Celebrating gender inclusion successes
• Introducing the concept of a ‘critical friend’ - a colleague dedicated to providing
personalised feedback on activities - which can help build a shared understanding of
inclusion and equity
• Formulating gender inclusion guidelines and including them in all new projects and
initiatives
• Organizing initiatives proposing positive and balanced gender equity stories involving
young female and male researchers***
Advanced • Leading innovative gender inclusion projects
• Promoting gender inclusion as a core value
* For instance, the team involved in the
Hypatia project at the Science Gallery in
Ireland regularly updated the rest of their
colleagues on the project, resulting in
formal and very informal conversations
about gender, gender initiatives, and female
representation in STEM.
** For instance, staff members at the Greek
science centre Noesis schedule and
prioritise regular discussions of gender
inclusivity during their annual staff
meetings to help maintain attention to
inclusion and equity.
*** For instance, at the Science Gallery in
Ireland, the events team devotes time to
researching and reaching out to speakers
to ensure a more equal gender balance at
public events.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
11
Transforming gender inclusion
capacity at the individual level
Changing an institution’s capacity to be
gender inclusive entails developing the
personal, individual capacity of educators or
staff members. This individual development
can happen when management offers staff
members opportunities to actively, critically,
andreectivelyconstructandre-construct
knowledge about gender and gender inclusion.
When staff members and educators examine their
own practices and carefully assess their
notions about gender in these practices, their
capacity for being gender inclusive is built.
The following suggestions may be employed by
institutional management to help build capacity
for gender inclusion among individual staff
members.
Phase of development Management can act by...
Beginning • Initiating conversations with individuals about what gender inclusion is, how to know if
education activities are inclusive, and what to do if attempts to be gender inclusive fail
• Initiating conversations with individuals about hidden or difcult-to-see exclusion
mechanisms
• Providing staff members with gender inclusion resources (reports, web sites, journals, and
activities)*
• Stimulating and rewarding staff members who take gender inclusion initiatives (e.g.
professional development)
• Inviting staff members to share their thoughts about gender and inclusion in staff
meetings
• Providing staff members with opportunities to visit other institutions or work in external
networks that specically address gender inclusion
Intermediate • Providing individuals with training opportunities about gender inclusion in science
education**
Advanced • Developing a professional development programme for individual staff members,
connected to the vision and policy of the institution
* For instance, the Hypatia Toolkit (www.
expecteverything.eu/hypatia/toolkit/) offers
a wide range of ready-to-use activities
aimed at teenagers, and contains gender
and facilitation guidelines for
implementation by teachers, informal
learning organisations, researchers and
industry.
** For instance, the science centre
Experimentarium (Denmark) developed a
Teacher Professional Development activity
that targets gender awareness in teaching.
This activity (Gender Inclusiveness
in your Science Teaching, see www.
expecteverything.eu/hypatia/toolkit/) is
easily adaptable to educators in other
settings as well.
**
For instance, the science museum
NEMO in the Netherlands offers staff
members a workshop on awareness of
gender-inclusion and the development
of more gender-inclusive programmes
(e.g. workshops, teaching materials and
exhibitions). The explainers are similarly
trained on how to facilitate in a more
gender-inclusive way.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
12
Supporting the transformation
of gender inclusion capacity
from the ‘outside’
The society and culture within which an
institution exists is a strong determining
factor of what that institution can do.
Stakeholders in society can positively
inuenceinstitutionalchangebyexposing
the institution to new kinds of knowledge
and expertise and broadening the circle of
knowledge-producers, thereby creating a new
distributed model of knowledge production. The
following suggestions target the actions of
so-called critical actors, that is, external
stakeholders or groups of stakeholders who
are committed to supporting institutional
transformation. As mentioned, in Hypatia the
NationalHubswereestablishedtofullthis
role (see Section 3), but in countries that
were not part of Hypatia, existing national
networks could function in a similar way (see
Table 1).
Phase of development National Hubs or critical actors can act by...
Beginning • Directing attention to issues of inequity and gender exclusion in STEM education
• Providing access to target audience (girls and boys) and gives them
a voice*
• Facilitating dialogue and exchange of ideas about gender inclusion across institutions
Intermediate • Supporting initiatives that address identied gender inclusion issues, including local ‘satel-
lite programmes’**
• Sharing up-to-date knowledge on research, related programmes and events
Advanced • Acting as ambassadors in their own institutions, disseminating
insights and visions
• Providing advocacy for gender inclusion policy at the local, regional and national levels***
• Contributing to holding institutions accountable for changing gender
exclusion practices
* For example, Hypatia’s National Hubs
established Youth Panels in each
participating country. These Youth Panels
gave staff members and management
direct access to the target audience of
Hypatia and gave youth a strong voice
in each institution’s gender inclusion
initiatives.
**
For example, the Institute of Physics
offers to train dedicated staff members,
Gender Champions, in schools across the
UK. These Gender Champions work with
educators, management, and students
to tackle gender bias locally (Institute of
Physics, n.d.).
***
For example, in Hypatia the French Hub
served provided access to specic types
of key targets such as the annual meeting
of the French national association of
museums or the French society of physics.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
13
5. AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS
FOR GENDER INCLUSION
Although Hypatia advocates for actions that can
transform the gender inclusion capabilities of
institutions (suggestions in section 4), we
acknowledge that institutional transformation
may not always be immediately achievable.
In such cases, the implementation of gender
inclusion practices and initiatives by
individuals - even without a shared vision of
gender equity - may gradually lead to changes
in the formal rules of the institution. In the
following, we offer suggestions for initiatives
that can promote gender inclusion in STEM
activities. These guidelines are directed at
the level of the individual staff member or
smaller groups of staff with some degree of
autonomy.
As an individual staff member, you can make a difference in your institution by...
Paying attention to gender stereo-
types in your practices
Think critically about whether and how (often hidden) ideas about gender inuence
your work and that of your colleagues, and call attention to these ideas
Making suggestions about how to
introduce and implement gender in-
clusion
Give your colleagues and management concrete suggestions from your ‘frontline’
experiences on how to introduce and implement gender inclusion in STEM educa-
tion and communication practices
Counteracting automatic
gender beliefs and attitudes
Introduce colleagues to a variety of role models (female and male) in STEM ca-
reers, and point out the lack of gender difference in performance and prociency
across STEM subjects
Engaging your colleagues
in discussions about gender,
inclusion, and STEM
The gradual building of a shared conception of gender and inclusion among staff
members can be the rst step to changing institutional practices from the bottom
up
Finding initial support
from staff members in key
positions
If you can nd key actors in your institution who share
your gender inclusion concerns and viewpoints, you can begin
accumulate commitment that can eventually be taken up by
management
Embed already-developed
resources in your practice
Utilise the gender-inclusive activities presented and explained in the
Hypatia Toolkit in your STEM education and dissemination activities
http://www.expecteverything.eu/hypatia/toolkit/
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
14
6. BACKGROUND
The following sections provide an in-depth
orientation to the research that has informed
theHypatiaprojectandspecicallythe
suggestions presented in Section 4 of this
document.
Gendered institutions
Gender is an inherent feature of institutions.
It permeates the experiences of women and
men within the institution, the relationship
between the institution and its actors, and
the outputs of the institution (Thomson, 2018;
Weiner & MacRae, 2014). Institutions can be
gendered in two ways: at face value, i.e.
one gender dominates among the positions of
power in the institution (Schwarzer, 2010)
and in substance, i.e. they are governed
by mechanisms that result in gender bias
(Waylen, 2014). These mechanisms are often
based on accepted ideas about femininity
and masculinity, ‘for example, associating
masculinity with rationality, power, boundary
setting and control, and conversely associating
femininity with its opposite - passivity, care,
emotion and irrationality’ (Waylen, 2014, p.
215).Gendernormssuchastheseoftenremain
hidden, yet become gradually naturalised in
institutional ‘ways of doing’ (Elam & Terjesen,
2010).
For institutions involved in science and
science education, the situation may be
exacerbated. This is because in spite of the
perception science has of itself as objective
and gender-neutral, a growing body of research
points out how the roots of western science are
deeply embedded in the symbolic masculine and
how this relationship persists, hidden behind
androcentricnotionsofscienticobjectivity
(Harding, 1986). This means that whether a
science institution’s educational ‘output’ is
its primary (schools and museums) or secondary
(industry and research institutions) raison
d’être, the experiences of young science
learners in that institution are most likely
gendered as well. This again means that
those learners (girls or boys) whose gender
identitiesdonottcomfortablywithin
narrowlydened‘scienticmasculinity’are
required to exchange major aspects of their
gender identity for the masculine version,
or face exclusion (Faulkner, 2000; Harding,
1986). Institutional action is thus required to
ensure a greater diversity of youth, including
a greater presence of girls, in STEM (Crasnow,
Wylie,Bauchspies,&Potter,2015;Šidlauskienė
& Butašova, 2013).
If the goal is to change the ways science
education institutions develop and implement
science education activities, what form should
these efforts take? Kinsley (2016) points out
thatwhileafrmativeactionstargetthenal
product or outcome, transformative actions seek
to correct inequitable outcomes by targeting
the root causes. In other words, to change
science education in a sustainable way, it
is necessary to focus on the institutions
themselves, not just their education
activities.
Institutional transformation
Institutional transformation requires
initiativesonmorethanonelevel.Verbiest
and Erculj (2006) suggest that to transform
schools, a four-tier approach is necessary,
where the capacity for change is considered at
the levels of the individual educators, the
interactions between educators and leaders,
theschoolorganisationitself,andnally,
the structures that surround the organisation.
Comparable, multi-tiered model are presented
by others (e.g. Bienkowski, 2016; Salminen-
Karlssonetal.,2016;Šidlauskienė&Butašova,
2013; Waylen, 2014); indeed, these models align
with the conceptualisation of gender in Hypatia
as co-constituting, and being co-constituted
by, conditions and constraints at the
individual, interactional, institutional, and
societal/cultural levels (Achiam & Holmegaard,
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
15
2017). The effectiveness of considering all
four levels or tiers in promoting institutional
transformation is that the change is not
just driven by external actors or enforced
from a management level; rather, individuals
throughout the organisation are empowered
and encouraged to take leadership roles, and
gradually come to share power, authority and
responsibility(EIGE,2016;Verbiest&Erculj,
2006).
At the individual level, the personal capacity
of educators or staff members is developed
throughactive,critical,andreective(re)
constructionofknowledge(Verbiest&Erculj,
2006). Individual capacity for gender-inclusive
teaching is built when educators critically
examine their teaching practices and carefully
assess their own notions about gender in these
practices.
At the interactional level, the collective
gender inclusion capacity shared by educators,
leaders, and other staff members in an
institution can be built by establishing a
shared vision of gender equity, and sharing
norms and practices about teaching and learning
(Verbiest&Erculj,2006).Forexample,studies
show that museum staff members may have
quite different ideas about what constitutes
gender equity (Feinstein & Meshoulam, 2014;
Tlili, 2008); unless these differences are
reconciled and a shared vision established,
itwillbedifculttochangethecapacityof
the institution for creating gender inclusive
activities. On the other hand, research shows
that the emergence of a shared vision of gender
equity can drive the establishment of new ways
of working that can gradually become informal
rules for the institution in a bottom-up
process (Ash & Lombana, 2013; Waylen, 2014).
At the institutional level, the capacity for
gender inclusion can be developed through
initiatives that affect the conditions
for personal and interpersonal capacity
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
16
building. In other words, if the leadership
of the institution is not only supportive of
initiatives to build gender inclusion capacity,
but also demands that such initiatives take
place, institutional capacity for gender
inclusion can be built. However, leadership
aloneisnotsufcienttoensurechange.
Studies show that even though new ways of
working (with gender) are created and enforced
by management, defenders of the status quo may
use ambiguity and gaps in these procedures
to resist change (Waylen, 2014). Accordingly,
capacity building requires simultaneous bottom-
upandtop-downwork(EIGE,2016;Verbiest&
Erculj, 2006).
Finally, the society and culture within which
an institution exists is a strong determining
factor of what that institution can do
(Achiam & Marandino, 2014). Research shows
that stakeholders in society can positively
inuenceinstitutionalchangebyplayingthe
role of critical actors, that is, by initiating
reforms and mobilising others for change
(Childs & Krook, 2009; Thomson, 2018). Such
external support can help realise institutional
transformation(Verbiest&Erculj,2006)
by exposing the institution to new kinds of
knowledge and expertise and broadening the
circle of knowledge-producers, thereby creating
a new distributed model of knowledge production
(Bienkowski, 2016; Kinsley, 2016).
Afrmativeversustransformative
actions
In the preceding we have advocated for
transformative rather than afrmative actions
to promote gender inclusion and equity in
institutions. This is because transformative
actions seek to change inequitable outcomes
(such as gender excluding education activities)
by restructuring the institution that generated
them;incontrast,afrmativeactionsareaimed
at changing the inequitable outcomes without
disturbing the underlying generative framework
(Kinsley, 2016). However, causality can run
both ways, meaning that the implementation
of gender positive education practices and
initiatives by individuals - even without
a shared vision of gender equity - can
gradually lead to changes in the formal rules
of the institution (Ash & Lombana, 2013;
Waylen, 2014). In summary, if institutional
transformation is not immediately achievable,
afrmativeactionscanbeawayforindividual
educators to work for transformative change,
providedtheseafrmativeactionsare
‘radically and consistently pursued’ (Fraser &
Honneth, 2003, p. 78)
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
17
7. REFERENCES
Achiam,M.,&Holmegaard,H.T.(2015).
Criteria for gender inclusion. Hypatia
Deliverable 2.1. Copenhagen: Hypatia.
Achiam, M., & Holmegaard, H. T. (2017).
Informal science education and gender
inclusion. In L. S. Heuling (Ed.),
Embracing the other. How the inclusive
classroom brings fresh ideas to science
and education (pp. 32-40). Flensburg:
Flensburg University Press.
Achiam, M., & Marandino, M. (2014). A
framework for understanding the
conditions of science representation
and dissemination in museums. Museum
Management and Curatorship, 29(1), 66-
82.doi:10.1080/09647775.2013.869855
Ash, D., & Lombana, J. (2013). Reculturing
museums: Working toward diversity
in informal settings. Journal of
Museum Education, 38(1), 69-80. doi:
10.1080/10598650.2013.11510757
Bienkows ki, P. (2016). No longer us and them.
How to change into a participatory
museum and gallery. (Our Museum
Final Report). London: Paul Hamlyn
Foundation.
Cacace, M., Colonnello, C., & Olmi, A. (2011).
Towards Women in Science & Technology.
Guidelines for communication activities
on women in science to be implemented
by science centres and museums. Rome:
ADSO.
Childs, S., & Krook, M. L. (2009). Analyzing
women’s substantive representation:
from critical mass to critical actors.
Government and Opposition,44(2),125-
145.
Choi, S. -H., Sass, J., Chavatzia, T., Katsuno-
Hayashikawa, M., Zacharia, Z., Ghazali,
Z., . . . Kireeva, D. (2017). Cracking
the code: Girls’ and women’s education
in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM). Paris: UNESCO.
Crasnow, S., Wylie, A., Bauchspies, W.
K.,&Potter,E.(2015).Feminist
perspectives on science. In E. N.
Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia
ofPhilosophy(Summer2015edition):
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. Retrieved from https://
plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/
entries/feminist-science/.
Dancstep , T., & Sindorf, L. (2016). Exhibit
designs for girls’ engagement. A guide
to the EDGE design attributes. San
Francisco: Exploratorium.
Dasgupta , N., & Asgari, S. (2004).
Seeing is believing: Exposure to
counterstereotypic women leaders and
its effect on the malleability of
automatic gender stereotyping. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology,
40(5),642-658.doi:10.1016/j.
jesp.2004.02.003
European Institute for Gender Equity [EIGE].
(2016). Institutional transformation:
Gender mainstreaming toolkit.Vilnius:
European Institute for Gender Equity.
Elam, A. , & Terjesen, S. (2010). Gendered
institutions and cross-national
patterns of business creation for men
and women The European Journal of
Development Research, 22(3), 331-348.
doi:10.1057/ejdr.2010.19
Faulkner , W. (2000). Dualisms, hierarchies and
gender in engineering. Social Studies
of Science, 30(5),759-792.doi:
10.1177/030631200030005005
Feinstei n, N. W., & Meshoulam, D. (2014).
Science for what public? Addressing
equity in American science museums and
science centers. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 51(3), 368-394. doi:
10.1002/tea.21130
Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003).
Redistribution or recognition?
A political philosophical exchange.
NewYork:Verso.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
18
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in
feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
Hein, H. (2010). Looking at museums from a
feminist perspective. In A. K. Levin
(Ed.), Gender, sexuality and museums.
ARoutledgeReader(pp.53-64).Oxon:
Routledge.
Hill, C. , Corbett, C., & Rose, A. S. (2010).
Why so few? Women in science,
technology, engineering, and
mathematics. Washington, DC: The
American Association of University
Women (AAUW).
Institut e of Physics. (n.d.). Whole School
Equality Programme: Gender Champions.
Retrieved from http://www.iop.org/
education/teacher/support/girls_
physics/current-projects/page_70398.
html
Kinsley, R. P. (2016). Inclusion in museums:
a matter of social justice. Museum
Management and Curatorship, 31(5),474-
490.doi:10.1080/09647775.2016.1211960
McCreedy , D., & Dierking, L. D. (2013).
Cascading inuences: Long-term impacts
of informal STEM experinces for girls.
Philadelphia: The Franklin Institute.
Munley, M. E. (2013). Girls, equity and STEM in
informal learning settings: A review
of literature: The Girls RISE National
Museum Network. Retrieved from http://
girlsrisenet.org/.
Oron, E. , & Halevy, M. (2018). Stakeholder
engagement report. Hypatia deliverable
3.4. Jerusalem: Hypatia.
Salminen -Karlsson, M., Almgren, N., Larsson,
E., Schnaas, U., Myers, E., Baisner,
L., . . . Gudzhenov, I. (2016). The
FESTA handbook of organizational
change: Implementing gender equality
in higher education and research
institutions. Uppsala: FESTA.
Schwarze r, M. (2010). Women in the temple:
Gender and leadership in museums. In A.
K. Levin (Ed.), Gender, sexuality and
museums. A Routledge Reader (pp. 42-
65).Oxon:Routledge.
Šidlauskienė,V.S.,&Butašova,K.(2013).
Designing gender equality as
institutional transformation at a
higher education institution. Lyčių
studijos ir tyrimai [Gender Studies and
Research], 11,50-69.
The Dele gation for Equity in Working Life.
(2015).Hela lönen, hela tiden.
Utmaningar för ett jämställt arbetsliv.
[All the salary, all the time.
Challenges for an equitable working
life]. Stockholm: Statens Offentliga
Utredningar.
Thomson, J. (2018). Resisting gendered change:
Feminist institutionalism and critical
actors. International Political
Science Review, 39(2), 178-191. doi:
10.1177/0192512116677844
Tlili, A . (2008). Behind the policy mantra
of the inclusive museum: Receptions
of social exclusion and inclusion in
museums and science centres. Cultural
Sociology, 2(1), 123-147. doi:
10.1177/1749975507086277
Verbiest,E.,&Erculj,J.(2006).Building
capacity in schools - dealing with
diversity between schools. In M. Pol
(Ed.), Dealing with diversity. A key
issue for educational management.
Proceedings of the 14th ENIRDEM
Conference, September 22-25, 2005 (pp.
65-80).Brno:MasarykUniversity.
Waylen, G. (2014). Informal Institutions,
Institutional Change, and Gender
Equality. Political Research
Quarterly, 67(1), 212-223. doi:
10.1177/1065912913510360
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
19
Weiner, E., & MacRae, H. (2014). The persistent
invisibility of gender in EU policy:
Introduction. In E. Weiner & H. MacRae
(Eds.), The persistent invisibility
of gender in EU policy. European
Integration online Papers (EIoP),
Specialissue1,Vol.18,Article3,
(pp. 1-20). Retrieved from http://eiop.
or.at/eiop/texte/2014-003a.htm,
I Hypatia participants include Austria, Denmark, Estonia,
France, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands,
Poland, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
II The French science centre Universcience has been
engaged for many years at the institutional level to promote
gender equity both in internal (gender equity in human
resources) and towards the public (programs for promoting
gender equity in S&T). It was awarded « Equality Certication
» by France’s standardisation organisation Afnor last
February.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (H2020-GERI-2014-1) under the grant agreement No.665566.
Contact information:
Meie van Laar, vanlaar@e-nemo.nl
www.expecteverything.eu/hypatia
Foto’s: DigiDaan
