IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v79y2020ics0149718919301065.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing a conceptual evaluation framework for gender equality interventions in research and innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Kalpazidou Schmidt, Evanthia
  • Graversen, Ebbe Krogh

Abstract

In this article, we discuss the development of a conceptual evaluation framework to design and assess gender equality interventions and their effects in research and innovation. The conceptual framework presented herewith embraces the complexity, gender-sensitive and theory-based evaluation approaches ensuring that design and evaluation of gender equality interventions consider the complex systems that constitute the context in which the interventions operate. The evaluation framework offers a non-linear concept, where the notion of contribution - not attribution - to achieve impact is central to the integration of team, organizational and system factors in policy design and evaluation. The paper opens the “black box” to address the question of how and why a policy intervention works and in which context and discusses a systematic process on how to approach the interwoven linkages between input, implementation and effects in gender equality interventions in research and innovation, accounting for context sensitivity and methodological pluralism. The evaluation framework may serve as reference for researchers, evaluators, policymakers and other stakeholders in designing and assessing gender equality interventions, and in further developing their evidence, and theoretical and methodological base.

Suggested Citation

  • Kalpazidou Schmidt, Evanthia & Graversen, Ebbe Krogh, 2020. "Developing a conceptual evaluation framework for gender equality interventions in research and innovation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:79:y:2020:i:c:s0149718919301065
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101750
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718919301065
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101750?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lipsey, Mark W. & Pollard, John A., 1989. "Driving toward theory in program evaluation: More models to choose from," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 317-328, January.
    2. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Puay Tang, 2011. "Tracing ‘productive interactions’ to identify social impacts: an example from the social sciences," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 219-226, September.
    3. Peter Dahler-Larsen, 2014. "Constitutive Effects of Performance Indicators: Getting beyond unintended consequences," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 969-986, October.
    4. Erik Arnold, 2004. "Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 3-17, April.
    5. Katherine Hay & Ratna M. Sudarshan & Ethel Mendez, 2012. "Why a Special Issue on Evaluating Gender and Equity?," Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Centre for Women's Development Studies, vol. 19(2), pages 179-186, June.
    6. Ben R Martin, 2011. "The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 247-254, September.
    7. Sarah Bell & Ben Shaw & Annette Boaz, 2011. "Real-world approaches to assessing the impact of environmental research on policy," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 227-237, September.
    8. Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt & Marina Cacace, 2019. "Setting up a dynamic framework to activate gender equality structural transformation in research organizations," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 159-159.
    9. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Utoft, Ea Høg, 2020. "Exploring linkages between organisational culture and gender equality work—An ethnography of a multinational engineering company," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    2. Palmén, Rachel & Kalpazidou Schmidt, Evanthia, 2019. "Analysing facilitating and hindering factors for implementing gender equality interventions in R&I: Structures and processes," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    3. Kalpazidou Schmidt, Evanthia, 2023. "Creating a developmental framework for evaluating RRI implementation in research organisations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Palmén, Rachel & Arroyo, Lidia & Müller, Jörg & Reidl, Sybille & Caprile, Maria & Unger, Maximillian, 2020. "Integrating the gender dimension in teaching, research content & knowledge and technology transfer: Validating the EFFORTI evaluation framework through three case studies in Europe," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    5. Zabaniotou, Anastasia & Boukamel, Oumaïma & Tsirogianni, Aigli, 2021. "Network assessment: Design of a framework and indicators for monitoring and self-assessment of a customized gender equality plan in the Mediterranean Engineering Education context," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    2. Matteo Pedrini & Valentina Langella & Mario Alberto Battaglia & Paola Zaratin, 2018. "Assessing the health research’s social impact: a systematic review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1227-1250, March.
    3. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Filippo Chiarello & Gualtiero Fantoni, 2021. "Impact for whom? Mapping the users of public research with lexicon-based text mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1745-1774, February.
    4. Gaunand, A. & Hocdé, A. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M. & Turckheim, E.de, 2015. "How does public agricultural research impact society? A characterization of various patterns," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 849-861.
    5. Blanca L. Díaz Mariño & Frida Carmina Caballero-Rico & Ramón Ventura Roque Hernández & José Alberto Ramírez de León & Daniel Alejandro González-Bandala, 2021. "Towards the Construction of Productive Interactions for Social Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.
    6. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    7. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban, 2022. "How universities influence societal impact practices: Academics’ sense-making of organizational impact strategies [Between Relevance and Excellence? Research Impact Agenda and the Production of Pol," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 609-620.
    8. Michael C. Calver & Maggie Lilith & Christopher R. Dickman, 2013. "A ‘perverse incentive’ from bibliometrics: could National Research Assessment Exercises (NRAEs) restrict literature availability for nature conservation?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 243-255, April.
    9. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "How should the societal impact of research be generated and measured? A proposal for a simple and practicable approach to allow interdisciplinary comparisons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 211-219, January.
    10. Kroll, Henning & Hansmeier, Hendrik & Hufnagl, Miriam, 2022. "Productive interactions in basic research an enquiry into impact pathways at the DESY synchrotron," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    11. Joly, P.B. & Gaunand, A. & Colinet, L. & Larédo, P. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M., 2015. "ASIRPA: a comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization," Working Papers 2015-04, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    12. Sowl, Stephanie & Amrein-Beardsley, Audrey & Collins, Clarin, 2022. "Teaching program evaluation: How blending theory and practice enhance student-evaluator competencies in an education policy graduate program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    13. Jonathan P. Doh & Lorraine Eden & Anne S. Tsui & Srilata Zaheer, 2023. "Developing international business scholarship for global societal impact," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 54(5), pages 757-767, July.
    14. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    15. Andrés Barge-Gil & Alberto López, 2015. "R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 93-129.
    16. Esparza Masana, Ricard & Fernández, Tatiana, 2019. "Monitoring S3: Key dimensions and implications," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    17. Ebersberger, Bernd & Edler, Jakob & Lo, Vivien, 2006. "Improving policy understanding by means of secondary analyses of policy evaluation: a concept development," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 12, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    18. Lifshitz, Chen Chana, 2017. "Fostering employability among youth at-risk in a multi-cultural context: Insights from a pilot intervention program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 20-34.
    19. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Pablo D’Este & Oscar Llopis & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Towards an alternative framework for the evaluation of translational research initiatives," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 235-243.
    20. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 9447, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:79:y:2020:i:c:s0149718919301065. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.