Resources

Turning Data into Equality. How Europe Can Strengthen Inclusive and Intersectional Gender Policies in Research: Insights from the ERA Exchange

Brussels, 6 June 2025 – How can Europe build a research and innovation system that is both inclusive and evidence-based?
This was the guiding question of the INSPIRING ERA Exchange on ERA Action 5: Promote Gender Equality and Foster Inclusiveness, held in Brussels and online on 6 June 2025.

Organised by the INSPIRING ERA consortium together with the European Commission, the event brought together over 50 experts—policy advisors, equality officers, researchers, and project leaders—to tackle one of the ERA’s most persistent challenges: the lack of robust, comparable data on intersectional gender equality across Europe’s research and innovation systems.

Setting the Scene

The discussion opened with Maciej Woszczyk and Iwona Klich-Królikowska from the National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR), who outlined the goals of the INSPIRING ERA project and its Exchange format — creating spaces for policy learning and dialogue across Europe.

Three keynote speakers then set the stage for a thought-provoking debate.

Jörg Müller (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, project INSPIRE) invited participants to look beyond categories and focus on the structural roots of inequality. “We talk about gender, race, disability, or class,” he said, “but what ties them together is how power and privilege are organised — often around masculinity.” Data collection, he argued, must capture these hierarchies of privilege rather than treating intersectionality as merely additive.

Anne Laure Humbert (University of Gothenburg, project GenderSAFE) presented a quantitative breakthrough: the MAIHDA (Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy) model. Using data from UniSAFE, which surveyed more than 42,000 respondents in 15 countries, she demonstrated how this advanced method can reveal hidden patterns of vulnerability and structural inequality — for instance, how gender and career stage interact to shape exposure to harassment or bias. “Intersectionality is not just theory; it can be measured and modelled,” Humbert emphasised.

Representing the European Commission’s DG JUST, Anu Ritz addressed a frequent obstacle in equality data collection — concerns over the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). She clarified that data protection rules do not prohibit equality data collection; they enable it under clear ethical and legal safeguards. “With purpose, transparency, and anonymisation,” Ritz stressed, “it is both lawful and necessary to collect sensitive data that can guide fairer policies.”

Challenges on the Ground

Across breakout discussions, participants from across Europe identified a set of interconnected challenges that continue to impede progress:

• Small sample sizes and anonymity risks
  In smaller institutions or teams, even basic demographic data can unintentionally identify individuals, especially when combined with job titles or departments. This discourages data collection or limits its usefulness.
• GDPR confusion and risk aversion
  Many organisations interpret data protection rules too restrictively or use them as a reason not to act. The lack of accessible legal guidance fuels paralysis, particularly in under-resourced regions.
• Fragmentation and missing intersectionality
  National datasets often exclude variables on ethnicity, disability, or sexual orientation, while university systems rarely integrate gender with other social dimensions. As a result, intersectional insights are missing — particularly in smaller or less-funded research systems.
• Cultural resistance and limited institutional buy-in
  Even where data exist, they often fail to drive change. Gender equality efforts are sometimes perceived as “soft” or secondary to excellence, especially in male-dominated or hierarchical fields.
• Underrepresentation and mistrust
  Low response rates in surveys—especially among minority or marginalised groups—reflect both survey fatigue and scepticism about how data will be used.
  “People need to see themselves in the data,” one participant noted, “and believe that it will lead to action, not tokenism.”
• Uneven capacity and regional disparities
  Institutions in Southeast Europe and smaller research centres frequently lack the resources or expertise to collect and analyse data systematically. This leads to gaps that skew the European picture.

Pathways Forward

Despite these obstacles, the Exchange surfaced a series of concrete, actionable solutions:

• Clarify and communicate GDPR allowances
  The European Commission should provide clear guidance and templates showing how equality data collection can comply with GDPR — turning uncertainty into empowerment.
• Embed intersectionality in all Gender Equality Plans (GEPs)
  Institutions should integrate multiple dimensions of identity (gender, ethnicity, disability, etc.) into their monitoring systems, supported by training and common EU-wide indicators.
• Strengthen national frameworks and benchmarking
  Countries like Ireland are setting examples with systematic models such as ATHENA Swan — combining peer review, five-year equality plans, and national benchmarking. Such approaches could inspire replication elsewhere.
• Support under-resourced regions
  EU and national funders should invest in capacity-building for data collection and analysis, especially in regions with limited institutional infrastructure.
• Enable innovative and flexible approaches
  Voluntary surveys, anonymised grading systems, and proxy data (e.g. parents’ country of origin) can generate insight where direct demographic data are restricted.
• Link data to action
  Data collection must be followed by accountability mechanisms, targeted funding, and cultural change initiatives. As several participants noted, “Data alone doesn’t change systems—people do.”
• Foster regional and cross-sector collaboration
  Examples like Catalonia’s inter-university network on gender-based violence show how shared definitions and reporting grids can improve consistency and learning across institutions.

Why It Matters

The Exchange reaffirmed that equality data is not just a bureaucratic requirement — it is the foundation of fair and effective research policy. Without it, inequalities remain invisible; with it, institutions can design interventions that genuinely shift cultures.

As one participant concluded:

“Intersectional data is not a luxury—it’s essential to understanding how power operates in science and who gets to thrive within it.”

By advancing ERA Action 5, the INSPIRING ERA project is helping translate Europe’s gender equality ambitions into measurable, comparable, and actionable progress — ensuring that the European Research Area evolves into a space where diversity is not only recognised but structurally supported.

Bringing Science Closer to Citizens: Insights from the INSPIRING ERA Exchange

Berlin, 3 December 2024 – Public engagement is now a central pillar of European research policy. But how can its impact be measured? And how can successful approaches be scaled across Europe? These questions guided the INSPIRING ERA Exchange on ERA Action 14: Bringing Science Closer to Citizens, hosted at DLR Projektträger in Berlin.

The event brought together around 30 participants from across Europe: researchers, early-career scientists, policymakers, NGOs, think tanks, and cultural institutions. Their discussions revealed both persistent barriers and promising solutions to making engagement meaningful and measurable.

Setting the Scene

The European Commission representative opened with a reminder that bringing science closer to citizens is not an abstract goal but a practical necessity. Initiatives like EUCYS, EU TalentOn, and “Science Comes to Town” have shown what is possible, yet their long-term effects remain difficult to capture. “We need to strengthen the links between science and society and engage younger generations,” she stressed, adding that systematic impact evaluation is still missing.

Mhairi Stewart (Berlin School of Public Engagement / Museum für Naturkunde) challenged participants to widen the lens of evaluation. Engagement, she argued, should also be measured in terms of its impact on researchers themselves—career development, reputation, and transferable skills. Ignoring these internal benefits perpetuates the perception that engagement is a distraction rather than an integral part of scientific work.

Julia Panzer (Wissenschaft im Dialog) emphasised that evaluation must be built into projects from the start. Without clear goals and tailored methods, efforts often result in generic surveys that yield little useful evidence. She stressed the value of practical tools, such as online platforms and information cards, that make data collection and comparison easier.

Cordula Kleidt (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research) placed engagement in the broader geopolitical context: “In times of instability, society needs to be part of science. Participation is not an add-on, it is a necessity.” She pointed to examples where participatory approaches strengthened resilience and public trust in research, underscoring why structured impact measurement matters.

Challenges on the Ground

Despite growing momentum, participants identified several persistent and interlinked challenges:

• Defining “impact” consistently
  • Citizens, scientists, and policymakers each mean something different when they talk about “impact.”
  • For citizens, it may mean increased trust or literacy; for researchers, publications and citations still dominate; for funders, societal change or economic benefit is the measure.
  • This lack of a common vocabulary makes comparisons across projects nearly impossible and fuels scepticism among researchers.
• Attribution of outcomes
  • Many engagement activities run alongside other initiatives, making it difficult to prove which effort produced which result.
  • Policymakers are often unconvinced without clear attribution, while researchers question whether engagement data are “scientifically solid.”
• Evaluation gaps in projects
  • Engagement is frequently bolted onto projects rather than integrated from the beginning.
  • Short project cycles (typically 24–36 months) mean evaluations stop just as impacts might begin to show.
  • Without comparative data collected over time, findings are anecdotal rather than evidence-based.
• Reluctance and reputational concerns among researchers
  • Many scientists remain hesitant to engage because they do not see career benefits.
  • Some even fear that public engagement might damage their academic reputation if seen as “soft” or peripheral to “real” research.
  • The educational benefits—such as teaching experience, improved communication, and broader reputation—are rarely documented or rewarded.
• Resource and skills constraints
  • Evaluation requires a mix of competencies—project management, communication, social science methods—that many research teams lack.
  • Early-career researchers are often most motivated to engage, but least supported with funding, mentoring, or institutional recognition.
  • Even where tools exist, awareness and uptake remain low.
• Trust and complexity of measuring societal outcomes
  • Building public trust in science is seen as a central goal, but it is multidimensional and not easily reduced to survey scores.
  • The challenge is not just measuring knowledge gain but capturing changes in attitudes, behaviours, and relationships over time.
• Fragmentation across Europe
  • Participants noted the lack of synergy between national efforts.
  • Without a platform to integrate insights and methods, many projects remain isolated, and knowledge is lost after funding ends.

Pathways Forward

Despite these challenges, several promising directions emerged:

• Develop a European framework for defining and measuring impact, with adaptable indicators.
• Integrate evaluation early using comparative data, demographic analysis, and even sentiment analysis to track reactions.
• Support researchers structurally, making engagement a recognised part of academic careers through mentoring, training, and accountability for public funds.
• Provide long-term funding, beyond short project cycles, to allow proper tracking of results and impacts.
• Promote good practices visibly, to counter reputational barriers and inspire more researchers.
• Strengthen collaboration across Europe, creating a platform for sharing methods, results, and lessons learned.

Why It Matters

The Exchange made clear that public engagement is not a peripheral activity—it is integral to the future of science in Europe. Measuring its impact is difficult, but without evaluation, engagement risks being undervalued or dismissed.

As one participant summed it up: “We need to stop treating engagement as a nice gesture. It is integral to how science works.”

By connecting practical insights with European policymaking, INSPIRING ERA ensures that ERA Action 14 moves beyond ambition to become a measurable, meaningful, and sustainable practice.