Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

Measuring Impact - Philipp OTTO (Austria)

93 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Presentation given at the OECD Gender Budgeting Experts Meeting, Vienna, Austria. 18-19 June 2018

For more information see http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/gender-budgeting-experts-meeting-2018.htm

  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

Measuring Impact - Philipp OTTO (Austria)

  1. 1. Aiming for Gender Equality in Higher Education … but (how) can we measure success? Philipp Otto Performance Controller for Science and Research Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research, Austria
  2. 2. Responsibilties • All matters concerning tertiary education • Improving the framework for scientific research, especially fundamental research Data • 22 Public Universities, 13 Private Universities • 21 Universities of Applied Sciences • 368.842 students (2017; 52,6% female) Budget • 2018: 4,463 billion € • 2019: 4,783 billion € 15.06.201815.06.2018 2 Who are we? Facts and figures
  3. 3. How is the budget spent? 15.06.201815.06.2018 3 Universities Universities of Applied Sciences Support for Students Scientific Research Other • Nearly 75% of the budget is spent on Public Universities • Public Universities are therefore in the center of the Ministry‘s strategy
  4. 4. • complete autonomy since 2002 • mainly financed by state • Performace Agreements  3 year period  Global budgets  budget defined by 3 pillars (starting 2019): o Teaching o Research o Infrastructure and strategic development 15.06.201815.06.2018 4 How are Public Universities governed? basic and competitive indicators
  5. 5. Universities are a ‘male‘ institution. That‘s common sense. But is it a fact? And what can we do about it? 15.06.201815.06.2018 5 What‘s the (gender) problem with the Public Universities?
  6. 6. Glass Ceiling Index (GCI): comparison of proportion of women in academia (grades A, B and C) to women in top academic positions (grade A): CGI in Austrian Public Universities: What‘s the (gender) problem with the Public Universities? 0 1 >1 Women have a fair chance of being promoted Women have a better chance of being promoted Women have a worse chance of being promoted 1.50 1.54 1.60 1.59 1.59 1.64 1.67 1.73 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
  7. 7. According to GCI, Universities (in Austria) don‘t have enough female leaders. Is that an Austrian problem? What‘s the (gender) problem with the Public Universities? No, it‘s not. But others do better. *SHE FIGURES 20153.16 2.96 2.82 2.56 2.23 2.12 1.95 1.82 1.82 1.8 1.78 1,76 1,75 1.75 1.73 1.73 1.72 1.71 1.64 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.58 1.57 1.51 1.49 1.43 1.41 1.34 1.26 1.25 0.75 0.72 CYP LIT LUX EST UK CZE BEL POL SVK ESP NED AUT EU-28 POR SUI ITA FRA DAN SWE LET ROM SLV FIN HUN NOR GRE IRL ISL GER CRO BUL MAK MLT 2013 2010 GCI in Europe, 2010 and 2013*
  8. 8. What‘s the (gender) problem with the Public Universities? Is the problem new? No, definitely not. 3.6% 4.7% 5.1% 10.6% 19.0% 24.4% 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Share of female professors, 1962-2017 There has been some progress, but we‘re still far away from gender equality.
  9. 9. So where do we lose all the women? 15.06.2018 9 What‘s the (gender) problem with the Public Universities? 52.60% 58.70% 49.10% 38.70% 46.60% 35.30% 24.80% 23.70% 47.40% 41.30% 50.90% 61.30% 53.40% 64.70% 75.20% 76.30%Women Men Leaky Pipeline: the higher the hierarchical level, the lower the number of women becomes
  10. 10. Now that we have an evidence-based proof that there is a problem, what can we do about it? 1. Define according strategic goals in Outcome Orientation 2. Integrate those goals into the Performance Agreements with the Universities 3. Don‘t forget to monitor and evaluate! 15.06.201815.06.2018 10 Strategic Measures against the problem
  11. 11. Gender Objective for Chapter 31: Science and Research „Gender Equality in leading positions, management bodies and the young generation of scientists“ Indicators: 15.06.201815.06.2018 11 24% 76% Share of professors female male 35% 65% Career Positions female holders male holders STEP 1 47% 53% Share within management bodies female male
  12. 12. • Push universities to improve gender equality via the negotiation of the Performance Agreements. • Obligatory contributions for the Ministry‘s performance goals are part of the Performance Agreements (and partially relevant for funding!) 12 Gender Objective for Chapter 31: Science and Research Strategic Embedding / Instruments Outcome Orientation: Target Setting for systemwide share of professors and career positions Performance Agreements 2019-2021: mandatory integration and target setting per university Per university: Plan for promotion of women, university governance in detail STEP 2
  13. 13. 13 The potential-oriented cascade model for target setting • How can reasonable target values for the indicators be defined? • We‘ve seen in the leaky pipeline, that we lose women along the career ladder. • The best way to define the target for any hierarchical level is to take a look at the reservoir of potential applicants – and they sit in the next lower hierarchical level (‘potential category’). So the gender ratio of the lower level must be the basis for the target setting of the higher level. • This is called the potential-oriented cascade model.
  14. 14. 14 Potential-oriented target setting – one example University of Vienna Professors 2018* New professors 2019 & 2020 ♀ ♂ ratio TOTAL (replacements + additional staff) 134 311 30,1% 54 * estimated: data 2017- expected retirements + expected replacements Required share of women is calculated potential-oriented In the lower hierarchical level (esp. career positions), share is 46% New professors 2019 & 2020 Estimated prof‘s December 2020 ♀ ♂ ratio ♀ ♂ ratio 25 29 46% 153 319 32,3% + 2,2 PP (vs 2018)
  15. 15. • NOT a tool for promotion of women, but it offers equal opportunities for both genders (can be better ‘sold‘ to stakeholders) • Screening of appointment processes and career models according to the gender dimension 15.06.201815.06.2018 15 Advantages of the cascade model
  16. 16. 1. Progress is monitored in the standard accompanying discussions between University and Ministry twice a year 2. Progress is taken into account for the upcoming Performance Agreements – sancations are possible, if university fails to meet targets -> The Casade Model and the requirement to push gender equality is not a separate topic, but integrated into normal means of controlling/steering of the Universities! Integration into ‚normal‘ steering and controlling circle BEST PRACTISE 15.06.2018 STEP 3
  17. 17. Philipp OTTO Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research philipp.otto@bmbwf.gv.at Any Questions? Your turn!

×