THE GENDER AUDIT REPORT

The results of the Quantitative and Qualitative self-assessment Gender Audit should be presented in a Gender Audit Report. The aim of the Report is to help each RPO to prepare its Gender Audit Plan, a tool for the implementation of policies and processes changes.

Both the Quantitative and Qualitative Reports should be presented divided into the 5 Audit Checklist Key Areas and following the same structure as the checklist: the former Report presents the organization disaggregated data – by gender and other categories; the latter presents the results of interviews, focus groups and a survey – divided by strength points, critical points and suggestions for changes given by the targets involved in the Audit.

At the end of the report, the final ‘Comments on the state of art’ of the institution should be added, including the outcomes of each RPO in the organized in strengths and critical points.

Some templates to perform the Audit Report are offered below, divided into the 5 Key Areas, as well as some key questions every RPO should answer in the Audit Report for each Key Area.

Particularly for the Quantitative Report, a description of the information from the graphs and excel tables developed in the checking phase should be given. It is also commendable to add those graphs in the Report, as they offer important information.

Brief guide for the Gender Audit Report

KA 1 The governance bodies, key actors and decision-makers

Quantitative Report

1.1.- Composition of the governing bodies and decision-making bodies.

Recommendations of information to be included in this section:

  1. List the governing bodies and tasks, roles or responsibilities and decision-making bodies where the composition of men is of over 60% and less than 40% women.
  2. List the governing bodies responsibilities and decision-making bodies with a balanced composition (40/60).
  3. Then list governing bodies’ responsibilities and decision-making bodies with over 60% women and less 40% of women, if any. 

Analyse if there are differences in the tasks/responsibilities that those Governing bodies carry out, and if there is a link to traditional gender roles. 

The reasons for (1), (2) or (3) happening, should have arisen in the qualitative section of this key area. If there is any policy in place with situation (2) as an effect, then specify. 

1.2.- Gender equality structures in the RPO

Recommendations of information to be included in this section:

Name the people or groups working on gender equality in the RPO. Specify the composition in terms of amount of women/men and in terms of faculties/departments involved. Also, specify the frequency of meetings of the group, the dynamic…

Do members of the governing bodies take part in these structures? Are the workers union representatives also included in the structures? 

Qualitative Report

KA 2 Recruitment, career progression and retention

Quantitative Report

2.1. Students

Recommendations of information to be included in this section:

Describe the situation of undergraduate, master, PhD students regarding number of students in AY 2015/16.

  • Name the programs with a balanced (60/40) amount of male/female students.
  • Name those programs where the number of male students is over 60%
  • Name those programs where the number of female students is over 60%
  • Analyse of any conclusions regarding areas of study can be done.

Regarding part-time/full-time study and degree duration look at the percentages of male and female students in each case; look at any major differences that might arise.

In the cases (Some RPOs don´t have this data) where information about the application for AY 2015/16, calculate the acceptance rate and if differences between amount of male and female student numbers happened. Describe it.

Same with the graduation rate. Are there any programs/masters/PhD areas where the graduation rate of male or female students was relevantly higher or lower?

2.2.- Selection and recruitment

Recommendations of information to be included in this section:

Firstly describe the selection and recruitment processes in a general way, analysing the process of selecting the new people hired in the institution in the last year and the inclusiveness of them, and then more specifically to the processes where the last 3 women and the last 3 men were hired in the institution, it will explore those in detail. The composition of the selection committees, were they apply, will also be taken into account for this analysis.

For our conclusions in this section pay attention at things such as:

Regarding the outcome of the process

  • Looking at the percentages of Women CVs and Men CVs received, is there a balance? Do more women/men apply in general? Does this change for specific positions/departments? Do the numbers show any tendencies in this respect/anything we should pay attention to?
  • Are the percentages of women and men CVs received and the percentages of finalist and hired people linked? Is there any “positive action” taken to make sure that the gender with lowest representation is also present (if such a case)? If people at any cases are hired by direct appointment also specify.
  • If we have relevant information about support programmes/activities happening in the RPO please specify – those would be linked to the “positive actions” mentioned at the previous point.

Regarding the design of the processes themselves

  • Where there any processes where they specifically looked for women candidatures? Is there any really masculinized area in the RPO where such a policy could be needed?
  • The type of advertisement used. If only the two first items have been answered yes, then we can conclude that inclusive language has been used during the process. If not, we would there identify an issue where attention should be paid in future. A critical issue to pay attention to. In the cases where a mix of the two happened, it will be interesting to compare the outcomes of both kinds of advertisements: did more men/women reply in any of the cases? In which? Is there an standard set of questions to be used in the interviews? (this might have arisen in the qualitative)
  • The way of approach. Look if there are any relevant tendencies/differences among men and women in this sense and describe the way it has happened in the RPO.
  • Selection committee. Look at the composition of the Selection Committee, are there balanced numbers in terms of positions in the hierarchy of the RPO and men and women? Look at the horizontal and vertical segregations[1]and describe the composition of the Committee in terms of vertical/horizontal segregations.

2.3.- Career progression

Recommendations of information to be included in this section:

A description of the graph 2.3.1 will be made with special attention paid to things such as:

  • Percentages of M and W by level at the moment they were hired. Where there differences in terms of balance? Level?
  • In the graph, can we see any differences in the careers of those men/women? Is the line more horizontal in any of the cases (showing lack of progress in terms of level)?
  • How many people left from those who started? This might be caused by different reasons and relevant information might have arisen in the qualitative. If so make a link with that information. If not, describe the situation in terms of percentage of men who left and percentage of women. Compare them and if there are relevant differences then it might be a critical issue, at least an issue to look at deeper in the future.

The information gathered in chart 2.3.2 will be made by specifying:

  • Average age of women in high level and average age of men in high level positions. Is there a difference?
  • Average age of women in medium level and average age of men in medium level positions. Is there a difference?
  • Average age of women in low level and average age of men in low level positions. Is there a difference?
  • When applicable also look at the technical and administrative staff data.
  • General conclusions regarding age and gender by level. In the cases where certain tendencies have appeared. For example if women are only relevantly present in some categories, in terms of numbers.

Description of career promotions within the institution with the information gathered in Chart 2.3.3.

  • Are there differences in % of men and women who asked for promotion in reference to the ones who met the criteria?
  • In the number of men and women who progressed in the promotion process?
  • In the amount of years who stayed in their previous categories? Do men/women stay longer in a category or not?
  • Description of selection committee and the gender of the Chair of the committee.

Finally, if there is relevant information regarding support and training programmes will describe it here.

2.4.-Gender pay gap

Recommendations of information to be included in this section:

  • Describe the average salary of women in Grade A and compare it to the one of men. If there are differences state the ones caused by amount of years in the institution or other causes.
  • Describe the average salary of women in Grade B and compare it to the one of men. If there are differences state the ones caused by amount of years in the institution or other causes.

Describe the average salary of women in Grade C and compare it to the one of men. If there are differences state the ones caused by amount of years in the institution or other causes.

[1] Horizontal segregation is understood as under (over) representation of a certain group in occupations or sectors not ordered by any criterion (Bettio and Verashchagina, 2009). Horizontal segregation refers to the concentration of women and men in professions or sectors of economic activity.  Horizontal segregation is a constant in the labour market in all OECD countries (Rubery and Fagan, 1993; Anker, 1998; OECD, 1998).

– Vertical segregation referred to the under (over) representation of a clearly identifiable group of workers in occupations or sectors at the top of an ordering based on ‘desirable’ attributes – income, prestige, job stability etc, independently of the sector of activity. Under-representation at the top of occupation-specific ladders was subsumed under the heading of ‘vertical segregation’, whereas it is now more commonly termed ‘hierarchical segregation’” (Bettio and Verashchagina, 2009, p. 32)

Qualitative Report

KA 3 Work and personal life integration

Quantitative Report

3.1.-Caring responsibilities of academic staff

Recommendations of information to be included in this section:

Description of the Chart 3.1.1.  Amounts of men and women (amounts and percentages) with caring responsibilities, and specify the types of responsibilities if it is relevant or if there are differences in some kind of responsibilities.

3.2.-Work-life policies in the institution

Recommendations of information to be included in this section:

Describe the situation by comparing the eligibility and the actual use of the measures and policies that are in place. Look again at differences regarding gender and regarding grades.

  • Work-life balance measures how many of the men eligible used it, how many of the women (%). Is there a tendency? Do more women/ men use this kind of measures? Regarding grades do more people at Grade C or Grade B or Grade A use it? Are numbers balanced among Grades and gender? Any critical issues?
  • Work-life balance services how many of the men eligible used it, how many of the women (%). Is there a tendency? Do more women/ men use this kind of measures? Regarding grades, do more people at Grade C or Grade B or Grade A use it? Are numbers balanced among Grades and gender? Any critical issues?
  • Working hours and flexibility. How many of the men eligible used it, how many of the women (%). Is there a tendency? Do more women/ men use this kind of measures? Regarding grades, do more people at Grade C or Grade B or Grade A use it? Are numbers balanced among Grades and gender? Any critical issues?

If there are any items that specifically need to be mentioned, and the picture is not as uniform, then specifically mention the issues that seem relevant. Also, many issues linked to the reasons might have been mention in the qualitative. Please do link the situation with those reasons that will be mentioned in the following section.

Description of the specific measures that exist or do not exist to keep the link with people on parental leave and to promote joint responsibility in care. This will be either strong points or weak points that need to be revised.

Qualitative Report

KA 4 Researchers and research: gender equality and sex and gender perspective

Quantitative Report

4.1.-Academic staff

Recommendations of information to be included in this section:

Description of the academic staff in the RPO:

  • Regarding the totals, name the departments with higher % of women employees and describe the situation within them:
    • Within these, describe the percentages of men and women by levels and types of contracts.
      • Are there any relevant differences? Are there women/men gathered at a certain level? (vertical segregation)
      • Do men or women tend to have a specific kind of contract?
    • Name the departments with a higher % of men employees:
      • Within these, describe the percentages of men and women by levels and types of contracts.
        • Are there any relevant differences? Are there women/men gathered at a certain level? (vertical segregation)
        • Do men or women tend to have a specific kind of contract?
      • Name the departments with a balanced (40/60 to 50/50) number of men and women and describe the situation within them:
        • Within these, describe the percentages of men and women by levels and types of contracts.
          • Are there any relevant differences? Are there women/men gathered at a certain level? (vertical segregation)
          • Do men or women tend to have a specific kind of contract?
        • If there are any clear tendencies state them as conclusions.

 4.2.-Gender perspective in research

Recommendations of information to be included in this section:

  • Name the percentage of women and the percentage of men who have reached the highest research titles.
  • Describe the situation. If there is a general tendency, for example percentage of women is higher in most of the items; then make such a statement and specifically describe the most relevant issues, we can look at things such as:
    • Does the average composition/average amount/coordinator vary depending on kind of funding? Do more feminized or masculinized teams stand-out in certain kind of funding? Are biggest/lower amounts of funding linked to composition of teams? Are more female/male coordinators in certain kinds of funding? Etc..
  • When we interpret the data in this chart, we can remember our “aim” is to get a balanced reality, and identify the critical points that need attention to be paid in the GEPS.

4.3.-Integration of Gender in Research

Recommendations of information to be included in this section:

A description of the Chart. To what extent does the RPO apply gender-mainstreaming in the research?

  • Name the departments with over 8 items with a 3, 4 or 5 in the scale.
    • In which ways (items) do these departments apply gender-mainstreaming in their research?
    • For the main conclusions:
      • Identify critical issues they could strengthen.
      • Identify strong points/strategies that can be used as strategies in other RPOs/departments.
    • Name other/rest of departments.
      • Which are the main areas where they should improve?

Are there any items that all the departments share? Items that no department in the RPO follows?

Qualitative Report

KA5 - Integration of sex and gender dimension in teaching curricula

Quantitative Report

Recommendations of information to be included in this section:

  • A description of the Chart. To what extent does the RPO apply gender-mainstreaming in the teaching curricula?
  • Name the departments with over 10 items with a 3, 4 or 5 in the scale.
    • In which ways (items) do these departments apply gender-mainstreaming in teaching curricula?
    • For the main conclusions:
      • Identify critical issues they could strengthen.
      • Identify strong points/strategies that can be used as strategies in other RPOs/departments.
    • Name other/rest of departments.
      • Which are the main areas where they should improve?
    • Are there any items that all the departments share? Items that no department in the RPO follows?

Qualitative Report