Corrigendum: Setting up a dynamic framework to activate gender equality structural transformation in research organizations (Science and Public Policy (2018) DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scy059);Setting up a dynamic framework to activate gender equality structural transformation in research organizations

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 46, Issue 3, 2019, Pages 321-338

  Schmidt, Evanthia Kalpazidou ^a   Cacace, Marina ^b  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b ASDO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Complexity approach; Dynamic framework; Gender equality; Research organizations; Structural change

Indexed keywords

EID: 85066483291     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scy071     Document Type: Erratum

References (139)

1. Acker, J. (1992) ‘Gendering Organizational Theory’. In: A. J. Mills and P. Tancred (eds) Gendering Organizational Analysis, pp. 248–60. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Archer, M. S. (1995) Realist Social Theory. The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. (2003) Structure, Agency, and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bacharach, S. and Lawler, E. (1981) ‘Power and Tactics in Bargaining’, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 34/2: 219–33.
5. Badham, R., Mead, A., and Antonacopoulou, E. (2011) ‘Performing Change. A Dramaturgical Approach to the Practice of Managing Change’. In: D. M. Boje, B. Burnes, and J. Hassard (eds) The Routledge Companion to Organizational Change. New York: Routledge.
6. Bagilhole, B. and Goode, J. (2001) ‘The Contradiction of the Myth of Individual Merit, and the Reality of a Patriarchal Support System in Academic Careers: A Feminist Investigation’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, 8/2: 161–80.
7. Bailyn, L. and Fletcher, J. K. (2007) ‘Collaborative Interactive Action Research’. In: S, Sweet and J, Casey, (eds) Work and Family Encyclopedia. Chestnut Hill, MA: Sloan Work and Family Research Network.
8. Baxter, L. F. and MacLeod, A. (2005) ‘Shifting Forms of Masculinity in Changing Organizations: The Role of Testicularity’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18/6: 627–40.
9. Benschop, Y. and Brouns, M. (2003) ‘Crumbling Ivory Towers: Academic Organizing and its Gender Effects’, Gender’, Work & Organization, 10/2: 194–212.
10. - and Verloo, M. (2006) ‘Sisyphus’ Sisters: Can Gender Mainstreaming Escape the Genderedness of Organizations?’, Journal of Gender Studies, 15/1: 19–33.
11. - and (2011) ‘Gender Change, Organizational Change, and Gender Equality Strategies’. In: E. L. Jeanes, D. Knights, and P. Yancey Martin (eds) Handbook of Gender, Work & Organization, pp. 277–90. Chicester: Wiley.
12. Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
13. Bijker, W. E. and d’Andrea, L. eds (2009) Handbook on the Socialisation of Scientific and Technological Research. Rome: River Press Group.
14. Bird, S. R. (2010) ‘Unsettling Universities’ Incongruous, Gendered Bureaucratic Structures: A Case-Study Approach’, Gender, Work & Organization, 18/2: 202–30.
15. Bleijenbergh, I. and Fielden, S. (2015) ‘Examining Diversity in Organizations from Critical Perspectives: The Validity of the Research Process’. In: R. Bendl et al. (eds.) Oxford Handbook on Diversity in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. - and Roggeband, C. (2007) ‘Equality Machinery Matters: The Impact of Women’s Political Pressure on European Social-Care Policies’, Social Politics, 14/4: 437–59.
17. - and van Engen, M. (2015) ‘Participatory Modeling to Support Gender Equality’, The Importance of Including Stakeholders’, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 34/5: 422–38.
18. , Benschop, Y., and Vennix, J. (2013) ‘Group Model Building to Support Gender Equality Change’. In: J. Achterbergh et al. (eds.) Op zoek naar het andere, een liber amicorum voor Hans Doorewaard, pp. 81–96. Den Haag: Boom Lemma.
19. Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005) ‘Women and Science Careers: Leaky Pipeline or Gender Filter?’, Gender and Education, 17/4: 369–86.
20. Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21. Bordons, M., Morillo, M., Fernández, F., and Gómez, I. (2003) ‘One Step Further in the Production of Bibliometric Indicators at the Micro Level. Differences by Gender and Professional Category of Scientists’, Scientometrics, 57/2: 159–73.
22. Bourdieu, P. (1989) ‘Social Space and Symbolic Power’, Sociological Theory, 7/1: 14–25.
23. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
24. Bozzon, R., Murgia, A., and Poggio, B. (eds) (2016) Supporting Early Career Researchers through Gender Action Plans. A Design and Methodological Toolkit. Trento: GARCIA.
25. Broadbridge, A. and Hearn, J. (2008) ‘Gender and Management: New Directions in Research and Continuing Patterns in Practice’, British Journal of Management, 19/1: S38–49.
26. Bucchi, M. (1998) Science and the Media. Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication. London: Routledge.
27. Byrne, D. and Callaghan, G. (2014) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge.
28. Cacace, M., d’Andrea, L., and Declich, G. (2016). Accompanying Research on Implementation Dynamics: Final Report of the STAGES (Structural Change to Achieve Gender Equality in Science) Project. Rome: ASDO.
29. , Balahur, D., Bleijenbergh, I., et al. (eds) (2015) Structural Transformations to Achieve Gender Equality in Science: Guidelines. Rome: STAGES.
30. Callon, M., Larédo, P., and Mustar, P. (1997) The Strategic Management of Research and Technology: Evaluation of Programmes. Paris: Economica International.
31. Coghlan, D. (2011) ‘Organization Development and Action Research. Then and Now’. In: D. M. Boje, B. Burnes, and J. Hassard, (eds) The Routledge Companion to Organizational Change. New York: Routledge.
32. Coleman, G. and Rippin, A. J. (2000) ‘Putting Feminist Theory to Work: Collaborations as a Means towards Organizational Change’, Organization, 7/4: 573–87.
33. Connell, R. (2006) ‘The Experience of Gender Change in Public Sector Organizations’, Gender, Work & Organization, 13/5: 435–52.
34. Cullen, J., Junge, K., and Ramsden, C. (2008) Evaluation of the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology. Final Report. London: Tavistock Institute.
35. Czarniawska, B. (2006) ‘Doing Gender unto the Other: Fiction as a Mode of Studying Gender Discrimination in Organizations’, Gender, Work & Organization, 13/3: 234–53.
36. Dawson, P. (2011) ‘The Contribution of the Processual Approach to the Theory and Practice of Organizational Change. In: D. M. Boje, B. Burnes, and J. Hassard (eds.) The Routledge Companion to Organizational Change. New York: Routledge.
37. De Moor, A., and Weigand, H. (2004) ‘Business Negotiation Support: Theory and Practice’, International Negotiation, 9/1: 31–57.
38. Declich, G. (2015) Outline for Discussion on the Main Components of the Integrated Model for Structural Change Issued by the TRIGGER Project. Rome: ASDO.
39. - and d’Andrea, L. (eds) (2017) Triggering Institutional Change Towards Gender Equality in Science. Final Guidelines of the Trigger Project. Rome: ASDO.
40. DG for Research and Innovation (2003) Women in Industrial Research. Analysis of Statistical Data and Good Practices of Companies. Brussels: European Commission.
41. EGERA, P. (2016) EGERA Charter for Gender Sensitive Governance in Research & Higher Education Institutions. Vechta: University of Vechta.
42. EIGE (2017) Gender Equality in Academia and Research—GEAR tool. Making a Gender Equality Plan .
43. Ellemers, N., van den Heuvel, H., de Gilder, D., et al. (2004) ‘The Underrepresentation of Women in Science. Differential Commitment or the Queen Bee Syndrome?’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 43/3: 315–38.
44. Ely, R. J. and Meyerson, D. E. (2000) ‘Theories of Gender in Organizations: A New Approach to Organizational Analysis and Change’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 22: 103–51.
45. Etzkowitz, H., and Gupta, N. (2006) ‘Women in Science. A Fair Shake?’, Minerva, 44/2: 185–99.
46. - and Leydesdorff, L. (2000) ‘The Dynamics of Innovation. From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations’, Research Policy, 29/2: 109–23.
47. European Commission (2009) She Figures 2009. Statistics and Indicators on Gender Equality in Science. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
48. - (2012) Structural Change in Research Institutions. Enhancing Excellence, Gender Equality and Efficiency in Research and Innovation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
49. - (2013) Gendered Innovations. How Gender Analysis Contributes to Research. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
50. European Research Advisory Board (2007) Research Management in the European Research Area. Education, Communication and Exploitation. Brussels: EURAB.
51. Eveline, J., Bacchi, C., and Binns, J. (2009) ‘Gender Mainstreaming versus Diversity Mainstreaming: Methodology as Emancipatory Politics’, Gender, Work & Organization, 16/2: 198–216.
52. Fagenson, E. A. (1990) ‘At the Heart of Women in Management Research: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches and Their Biases’, Journal of Business Ethics, 9/4: 267–74.
53. Fältholm, Y., Wennberg, P., and Wikberg, N. Å. (ed.) (2016) Promoting Sustainable Change. A Toolkit for Integrating Gender Equality and Diversity in Research and Innovation Systems. Luleå: Luleå University of Technology.
54. Faulkner, W. (2007) ‘Nuts and Bolts and People. Gender-Troubled Engineering Identities’, Social Studies of Science, 37/3: 331–56.
55. Fisher, R., and Ury, W. (1981) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
56. Foucault, M. (1991) ‘Discipline and Punish: The Birth of a Prison’. In: M. Foucault (ed.) (1998) The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge. London: Penguin.
57. GenderTime, P. (2017) GenderTime Toolbox
58. Genova, A., de Micheli, B., Zucco, F., et al. (2014) Achieving Gender Balance at the Top of Scientific Research. Guidelines and Tools for Institutional Change. Rome: Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini.
59. Gherardi, S. and Poggio, B. (2007) Gendertelling in Organizations: Narratives from Male-Dominated Environments. Copenhagen: Liber.
60. Giddens, A. (1976) New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. New York: Basic Books.
61. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
62. Glouberman, S. (2001) Towards a New Perspective on Health Policy, CPRN Study No. H703. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
63. - and Zimmerman, B. (2002) Complicated and Complex Systems: What Would Successful Reform of Medicare Look Like? Ottawa: Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada.
64. Greco, P. (2002) ‘Communicating in the Post-Academic Era of Science’, Journal of Science Communication, 1/2: 1–2.
65. Grobler, I. (2007) ‘Co-constructing Knowledge in a Psychology Course for Health Professionals: A Narrative Analysis’, Doctoral Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
66. Grønfeldt, L., Nielsen, M., Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., et al. (2014) ‘Gender Composition at Aarhus University: An Overview of Recent Developments at Faculty level’, in Decision Making Bodies and in Appointment Committees. STAGES Report. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
67. Gupta, N., Kemelgor, C., Fuchs, S., et al. (2005) ‘Triple Burden on Women in Science. A Cross-Cultural Analysis’, Current Science, 89/8: 1382–6.
68. Habermas, J. (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
69. Halpern, D. F. (2014) ‘It’s Complicated—In Fact, It’s Complex: Explaining’, The Gender Gap in Academic Achievement in Science and Mathematics’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15/3: 72–4.
70. Haraway, D. J. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books.
71. Hearn, J. (2000) ‘On the Complexity of Feminist Intervention in Organizations’, Organization, 7/4: 609–24.
72. Heilman, M. E. (2001) ‘Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women’s Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder’, Journal of Social Issues, 57/4: 657–74.
73. Hoque, K. and Noon, M. (2004) ‘Equal Opportunities Policy and Practice in Britain: Evaluating the ‘Empty Shell’ Hypothesis’, Work, Employment & Society, 18/3: 481–506.
74. Honneth, A. (2002) Critica del potere. La teoria della società di Adorno, Foucault e Habermas. Bari: Dedalo.
75. INTEGER Project (2015) Online Guidelines .
76. Jensen, K. S. H. (2005) Women Working in Science, Engineering and Technology. Higher Education and Industry. A Literature Review. Manchester: Salford University.
77. Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., and Kelly, E. (2006) ‘Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporative Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies’, American Sociological Review, 71/4: 589–617.
78. Kalpazidou Schmidt, E. (2015). A Dynamic Implementation Model for Activating Gender Equality Structural Change in Scientific Organizations. STAGES. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
79. , and Cacace, M. (2017) ‘Addressing Gender Inequality in Science: The Multifaceted Challenge of Assessing Impact’, Research Evaluation, 26/2: 589–617.
80. , Krogh, G. E., and Nielsen, M. (2015). ‘Aarhus University: Structural Transformation to Achieve Gender Equality in Science’. In: M. Cacace, D. Balahur, I. Bleijenbergh, and D. Falcinelli, M. Friedrich, and E. Kalpazidou Schmidt (eds.) Structural Transformations to Achieve Gender Equality in Science: STAGES Guidelines. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
81. Kanter, R. M. (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
82. Kellough, J. E., and Naff, K. C. (2004) ‘Responding to a Wake-Up Call: An Examination of Federal Agency Diversity Management Programs’, Administration & Society, 36/1: 62–90.
83. Kirton, G. and Greene, A. M. (eds) (2005) The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical Approach. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
84. Klinge, I. and Wiesemann, C. (eds) (2010) Sex and Gender in Biomedicine. Theories, Methodologies, Results. Göttingen: Göttinger Universitätsverlag.
85. Kolb, D., Fletcher, J., Meyerson, D., et al. (2003) ‘Making Change: A Framework for Promoting Gender Equity in Organizations’. In: R. Ely, E. Foldy, and M. Scully (eds) Reader in Gender, Work, and Organization, pp. 10–15. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
86. Lax, D. A. and Sebenius, J. K. (1986) The Manager as Negotiator. New York: Free Press.
87. Lewin, K. (1948) ‘Action Research and Minority Problems’. In: G. W. Lewin (ed.) Resolving Social Conflict. New York: Harper & Row.
88. Luhmann, N. (2000) Art as a Social System. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
89. Martín-García, T. (2009) ‘Bring Men Back In: A Re-examination of the Impact of Type of Education and Educational Enrolment on First Births in Spain’, European Sociological Review, 25/2: 199–213.
90. Matysiak, A. and Vignoli, D. (2008) ‘Fertility and Women’s Employment. A Meta-Analysis’, European Journal of Population, 24/4: 363–84.
91. McGauran, A.-M. (2009) ‘Gender Mainstreaming and the Public Policy Implementation Process: Round Pegs in Square Holes?’, Policy & Politics, 37/2: 215–33.
92. Mead, G. H. (1934) Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
93. Metcalfe, A. and Slaughter, S. (2008) ‘The Differential Effects of Academic Capitalism on Women in the Academy’. In: J. Glazer-Raymo (ed.) Unfinished Agendas: New and Continuing Challenges of Higher Education, pp. 80–111. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
94. Meyerson, D. E. and Tompkins, M. (2007) ‘Tempered Radicals as Institutional Change Agents: The Case of Advancing Gender Equity at the University of Michigan’, Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 30: 303–22.
95. Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2015) Recommendations from the Taskforce for More Women in Research. Copenhagen: Ministry of Higher Education and Science.
96. Naldi, F. and Vannini Parenti, I. (2002) Scientific and Technological Performance by Gender. Feasibility Study on Patent and Bibliometric Indicators. Rome: CNR.
97. Neale, M. A. and Bazerman, M. H. (1985) ‘The Effects of Framing and Negotiator Overconfidence on Bargaining Behaviors and Outcomes’, Academy of Management Journal, 28/1: 34–49.
98. Nielsen, M. W. (2015) New and Persistent Gender Equality Challenges in Academia. Aarhus: Politica.
99. (2017) ‘Scandinavian Approaches to Gender Equality in Academia: A Comparative Study’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61/3: 295–318.
100. , Kalpazidou Schmidt, E. and Krogh Graversen, E. (2012). Documenting Developments in Gender Equality at Aarhus University. STAGES Report. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
101. , and (2013). Intermediate Report on Work-life Balance Activities. STAGES Report. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
102. , and (2014) Actions Supporting Career Development. STAGES Report. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
103. , and (2015a) Ligestilling ved Aarhus Universitet: Status og Udfordringer [Gender Equality at Aarhus University: Status and Challenges]. STAGES Report. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
104. , and (2015b) Horizontal Gender Stratification—Aarhus University. STAGES Report. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
105. , and (2015c) Sustainability of Gender Equality. Actions—Aarhus University. STAGES Report. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
106. , and (2015d) Vertical Gender Stratification among Research Staff and Representation of Women in Decision Making Bodies and Appointment Committees—Aarhus University. STAGES Report. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
107. Ovseiko, P. V., Greenhalgh, T and Adam, P. et al. (2016) ‘A Global Call for Action to Include Gender in Research Impact Assessment’, Health Research Policy and Systems, 14/1: 50.
108. Palomba, R. (2006) ‘Does Gender Matter in Scientific Leadership?’ In: OECD (ed.) Women in Scientific Careers. Unleashing the Potential. Paris: OECD Publishing.
109. Parsons, E. and Priola, V. (2013) ‘Agents for Change and Changed Agents: The Micropolitics of Change and Feminism in the Academy’, Gender, Work & Organization, 20/5: 580–98.
110. Patton, Q. M. (2010) Developmental Evaluation. Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York: Guilford Press.
111. PRAGES (n. d.) PRAGES Project, .
112. Priola, V. (2007) ‘Being Female Doing Gender. Narratives of Women in Education Management’, Gender and Education, 19/1: 21–40.
113. Quaranta, G. (1984) ‘Milano: Franco Angeli’, L’uomo negato.
114. Reale, E., Nedeva, M., Thomas, D., et al. (2014) ‘Evaluation Through Impact: A Different Viewpoint’, Fteval Journal, 39.
115. Rees, T. (2012) ‘Mainstreaming Gender in Research: Lesson from Europe’. In: S. Knauss, T. Wobbe and G. Covi (eds) Gendered Ways of Knowing in Science. Scope and Limitations. Trento: FBK Press.
116. Rogers, P. J. (2008) ‘Using Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspects of Interventions’, Evaluation, 14/1: 29–48.
117. Salminen-Karlsson, M. (2016) The FESTA Handbook of Organizational Change Implementing Gender Equality in Higher Education and Research Institutions. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
118. Schiebinger, L. (ed.) (2008) Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
119. (1999) Has Feminism Changed Science? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
120. Sonnert, G., Fox, M. F., and Adkins, K. (2007) ‘Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Effects of Faculty, Fields, and Institutions over Time’, Social Science Quarterly, 88/5: 1333–56.
121. STAGES (n. d.) STAGES Project .
122. Stratigaki, M. (2005) ‘Gender Mainstreaming vs Positive Action: An Ongoing Conflict in EU Gender Equality Policy’, European Journal of Womens Studies, 12/2: 165–86.
123. Swann, W. B. Jr. (1987) ‘Identity Negotiation: Where Two Roads Meet’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53/6: 1038–58.
124. Thielen, C. (2002) Survey of Literature on Women and Engineering, SWE Magazine.
125. Timmers, T. M., Willemsen, T. M., and Tijdens, K. G. (2010) ‘Gender Diversity Policies in Universities: A Multi-Perspective Framework of Policy Measures’, Higher Education, 59/6: 719–35.
126. Valian, V. (1998) Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
127. Van den Brink, M., and Benschop, Y. (2011) ‘Gender Practices in the Construction of Academic Excellence: Sheep with Five Legs’, Organization, 19/4: 507–24.
128. - and Brouns, M. (2006) Gender and Excellence. Een landelijk onderzoek naar Benoemingsprocedures van Hoogleraren. Den Haag: OCW.
129. - and Stobbe, L. (2009) ‘Doing Gender in Academic Education: The Paradox of Visibility’, Gender, Work & Organization, 16/4: 451–70.
130. Verloo, M. (2005) ‘Displacement and Empowerment: Reflections on the Concept and Practice of the Council of Europe Approach to Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12/3: 344–65.
131. Wajcman, J. (2007) ‘From Women and Technology to Gendered Technoscience’, Information, Communication & Society, 10/3: 287–98.
132. Walby, S. (2005) Measuring Women’s Progress in a Global Era. Malden: Blackwell.
133. Weick, K. E. (1984) ‘Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems’, American Psychologist, 39/1: 40–9.
134. Wennerås, C. and Wold, A. (1997) ‘Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review’, Nature, 387: 341–3.
135. Willemsen, T. M. (2002) ‘Gender Typing of the Successful Manager—A Stereotype Reconsidered’, Sex Roles, 46/11: 385–91.
136. - and van Vianen, A. E. M. (2008) ‘Gender, Career and Leadership’. In: L. Steg, A. P. Buunk, and J. A. Rothengatter, (eds) Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Managing Social Problems, pp. 206–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
137. Ziman, J. (2000) Real Science. What Is It and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
138. Zimmer, A. (2003) Women in European Universities. Final Report 2000–2003 of the Research and Training Network. Brussels: European Commission.
139. Zippel, K. and Ferree, M. M. (2018) ‘Organizational Interventions and the Creation of Gendered Knowledge: U.S. Universities and NFS Advance’. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, IL, 13 August 2018.