Presentation held by Mónica Lopes (University of Coimbra) during the First Annual Conference On Recruitment, Retention And Career Progression Of Women In Academia, Gearing roles project, University of Lisbon, 27 November 2019.

1. Mónica Lopes (monica@ces.uc.pt)
SUPERA Project, CES, University of Coimbra
First GEARING Roles Annual Conference
On Recruitment, Retention and Career
Progression of Women in Academia
Round table I
Addressing Gender Inequalities in Academia:
challenges and strategies overcome resistances
Lisbon, november 27th 2019

2. The SUPERA project

3. Main goal
To address gender inequalities in research
and academia through the implementation
of 6 Gender Equality Plans (GEPs) in two
types of organisations from Southern and
Central Europe: 4 RPO and 2 RFO

4. Consortium
Implementi
ng partners
(RPOs)
• Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
• Università Degly Studi di Cagliari (UNICA) (Itália)
• Central European University (CEU) (Hungria)
• Universidade de Coimbra (UC)/Centro de Estudos
Sociais (CES)
Implementi
ng partners
(RFOs)
• Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (ES) (MICIU)
• Regione Autonoma della Sardegna (RAS)
Supporting
partners
• YW Yellow Window (Bélgica)
• SCIENCES PO Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques
(França)

5. UC TEAM
Core team:
·Mónica Lopes (Coord.) (CES)
·Clara Almeida Santos (FLUC)
· João Paulo Dias (CES)
· Francisco Rodrigues (CES)
· Fernando Fontes (CES)
· Lina Coelho (CES-FEUC)
· Virgínia Ferreira (CES-FEUC)
Rectoral team in charge of SUPERA:
·Vice-reitor António Figueiredo
·Vice-reitora Cristina Albuquerque

6. FLUC – Adriana Bebiano
FDUC – Ana Margarida
Gaudêncio
FMUC – Teresa Almeida Santos
FCTUC – Bruno Trindade; Paula
Veríssimo
FFUC – Maria Manuel Cruz Silva
FEUC – Luís Dias
FPCE – Cristina Vieira
FCDEF – Beatriz Gomes
CA – Alice Geirinhas
IIIUC – Jorge Noro
ICNAS – Sónia Pires
UC TEAM
Gender focal points (Organic Units)

7. Overall approach
SUPERA has
created a holistic
methodology
following
transformation
design procedures
and based on
a co‐creation
approach

8. Overall approach
• Gender equality Hub,
involving all relevant
stakeholders (on a
voluntary basis) in
day‐to‐day
implementation of GEPs
• Fab labs - ad‐hoc,
short‐lived thematic
structures bringing
together internal and
external gender experts
and stakeholders
Partici-
patory
and
collabo-
rative
co‐crea-
tion
metho-
dologies
Create
engagement
Develop
smart
solutions
adapted to
different
contexts
Gathering
and securing
full
commitment

9. Overall approach
3 main phases:
Start
june 2018
End
may 2022
Planning
(until may 2019)
• In‐depth organisational
gender analysis
• Gender mainstreaming
strategy and working
plan
Implementation
(june 2019 - 2022)
GEP design and
implementation
targeting key action
areas.
Evaluation
(until may 2022)
Process and
progress followed
upon and assessed
through qualitative
indicators and
quantitative targets

10. GEP Implementation
status
Draft framework plan
(with catalogue of
actions) presented
and discussed with
the rectoral team
• GE Hub involved in providing inputs for
GEP design
• The current proposal features a total of
45 measures, distributed along 4
thematic areas
• GEP actions with balance presence of
all type of actions:
• (1) awareness raising/capacity
building/communication measures;
• (2) Gender specific and structural
measures
• (3) Research and other analytical
work

11. Challenges/Materialized
Resistances
“Mirage of Equality”: extended
perception of equality as something
already achieved (not to be priorised
anymore); general perception that
the state of play of the institution in
terms of gender equality is broadly
balanced
MAIN MANIFESTATIONS: Indifference;
Denial of the problem (inequalities)/
minimization of facts: questioning the
methodology and/or validity of
diagnosis results
GENDERAWARENESS Experimented/
Envisaged solutions
 Gender analysis:
Presenting research-based
facts and figures
(thorough/sound
organisational assessment)
 Robust rationale for the
relevance of GE work:
identifying the problem -
showing research on costs
and harmful effects of
gender stereotypes and
discrimination
 Present ethical arguments
(fairness and democracy)

12. Challenges/Materialized
Resistances
Strong belief in "meritocracy" and
"excellence" as a guarantee of "Equal
opportunities for all" = >> Attribution of
inequalities to cultural/social factors
and/or personal choices beyond the
realm of the institutional action
Lack of awareness on how institutional
mechanisms can be discriminatory.
They are assumed to be neutral and
objective.
MAIN MANIFESTATIONS: Indifference;
Denial of the need/relevance of
institutional action; Low interest in project
events; lack of commitment to gender
equality work
GENDERAWARENESS Experimented/
Envisaged solutions
 Framing merit and
excellence as an
ambiguous social
construct that is gender
biased
 Highlighting structural
and institutional barriers
to gender equality:
(e.g., presenting
research evidence on
unconscious bias)
 Early individual
coaching sessions with
key stakeholders to
raise gender awareness

13. Challenges/Materialized Resistances
Limited resources: Lack of time and
staff (delays in accessing
administrative data and holding
meetings / interviews); Financial
constrains
 Low priority/ lack of benefits and
rewards for making the change (top
managers do not consider gender
as one of their priorities)
Perception of projects as an extra-
burden
MAIN MANIFESTATIONS: Low
engagement in GE work; Slow
Improvement; tiredness; less
access to institutional resources
RESOURCES Experimented/
Envisaged solutions
 Ensuring leadership
endorsement and
engagement
 Pushing the inclusion of
gender dimension in
already existent processes
and practices
 Promoting the use of
gender lens in the day-to-
day work
 Identifying widows of
opportunity (e.g. strategic
framing process)

14. Challenges/Materialized
Resistances
Cultures, structures, and power plays
inhibiting the affirmation of the GE
agenda
Reluctance to accept responsibility:
lack of mandate / power to impose
change (faculties autonomy, academic
freedom in course and research
design)
Formal/hierarchical setting;
Centralised/burocratic decision-
making
MAIN MANIFESTATIONS: tendency to
formulate vague objectives and non-
binding "orientations”; delayed decision-
making/work; feeling hopeless; inertia,
making procedures more difficult
ORGANIZATIONALCULTURE/STRUCTURES
Experimented/
Envisaged solutions
 Framing GE actions to
address widely recognized
organizational challenges
 Connecting GE to institutional
strategies and agenda
 Supporting internal initiatives
(acting as centre of expertise
on GE)
 Decentralization of the change
process (nomination of GE
focal points)
 Presenting good practice
cases and brainstorm on other
innovative action (Fab labs).

15. Challenges/Materialized
Resistances
Changes in governing bodies:
Interruption in decision making
during the transition period;
Changing priorities and
management agenda; Doubling
efforts to engage and support
new leadership
MAIN MANIFESTATIONS: delayed
decision-making/work; less access
to institutional resources.
POLITICALTURMOIL Experimented/
Envisaged solutions
 Extra efforts to secure
endorsement and support of
new leadership: (e.g.,
individual meetings with all the
candidates requesting their
commitment to the GE
agenda)
 Involvement of all organiz.
layers of staff to secure long
term commitment (GE Hub)
 Using legal, political and
contextual arguments
 Push for the integration of the
GP in candidates' programmes

16. KEY TO SUCCESS
Never give up and carry on!
Don’t forget that change needs time

17. www.superaproject.eu
monica@ces.uc.pt
Tel: +351 239 855 570
@superaproject
#SuperaH2020
This project has received funding from the
European Union's Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under grant agreement
No. 787829.