Gender equality regimes and evaluation regimes in Europe and their implications for policy design and evaluation
•Considering the different framework conditions of gender equality measures is relevant when it comes to evaluation.•Different national contexts require different policy and measure designs and shape the measures’ effects.•Countries analysed in the H2020 project EFFORTI can either be assigned to the...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Evaluation and program planning 2020-12, Vol.83, p.101860, Article 101860 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 101860 |
container_title | Evaluation and program planning |
container_volume | 83 |
creator | Reidl, Sybille Beranek, Sarah Holzinger, Florian Streicher, Jürgen |
description | •Considering the different framework conditions of gender equality measures is relevant when it comes to evaluation.•Different national contexts require different policy and measure designs and shape the measures’ effects.•Countries analysed in the H2020 project EFFORTI can either be assigned to the Social-Democratic category or Conservative Equal Employment Regime category in the typology of von Wahl (2005); with the latter type tending to provide less favourable conditions for women in the general labour market, as well as women in RTDI.
This article starts from the assumption that it is important for the evaluation of gender equality interventions in RTDI (Research, Technology Development and Innovation) to consider its context regarding gender equality regime and evaluation culture because this context does influence effects and long term impacts of such activities. It aims to provide key characteristics for the differentiation of gender equality regimes and evaluation regimes to be considered when designing policy interventions or evaluating specific gender equality interventions in RTDI.
After a literature review of relevant typologies for welfare state and gender equality regimes, it was analysed to which extent the seven EFFORTI countries correspond to certain typologies based on the data basis of the context research performed in the EFFORTI project. For this context research, international/national and qualitative/quantitative data regarding the relevant framework conditions were firstly collected for each of the EFFORTI countries and secondly compared in a cross-country analysis.
The research showed that when it comes to gender equality policies, most EFFORTI countries can either be assigned to the Social-Democratic category or Conservative Equal Employment Regime category in the typology of von Wahl (2005), with the latter type tending to provide less favourable conditions for women in the general labour market as well as women in RTDI (e.g. overtime culture). In how far these different types of context can have an impact on the evaluation of interventions can be exemplarily illustrated using case studies carried out as part of EFFORTI.
Connecting the typologies for gender equality policy with evaluation regimes has not proved fruitful, as the two discourses have only begun to converge in recent years. The evaluation regimes and cultures of the respective countries have therefore been described independently. However, it was shown that countrie |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101860 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2503454857</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0149718920301646</els_id><sourcerecordid>2503454857</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-63442f8b504e79b19d2ba80e9115ca6f4a948bd2feed25e076eb4135827139093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMtOwzAQRS0EoqXwC8iCdYrtOLHNDpVSkCqxgbXlxJPiKk1SO6nUvyd9UCFWrEYen5mrOQjdUTKmhKYPyzFsTNn4etGUphozwvYfMiVnaEiliCMhBTlHQ0K5igSVaoCuQlgSQrgS_BINYibTVMRqiJoZVBY8hnVnStdusYeFW0HAprJ4F9OZ1tXVqe0qPO183cAeaL_AeexWTenyPRdwUXvc1P17iy0Et6j-bLpGF4UpA9wc6wh9vkw_Jq_R_H32NnmaRzknso3SmHNWyCwhHITKqLIsM5KAojTJTVpwo7jMLCsALEuAiBQyTuNEMkFjRVQ8QveHvb2ndQeh1cu681UfqVlCYp5wmYieejxQua9D8FDoxruV8VtNid7J1kv9W7beydYH2f3w7TGiy1ZgT6M_dnvg-QBAf-jGgdchd1DlYJ2HvNW2dv_J-QYsNZiQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2503454857</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Gender equality regimes and evaluation regimes in Europe and their implications for policy design and evaluation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Reidl, Sybille ; Beranek, Sarah ; Holzinger, Florian ; Streicher, Jürgen</creator><creatorcontrib>Reidl, Sybille ; Beranek, Sarah ; Holzinger, Florian ; Streicher, Jürgen</creatorcontrib><description>•Considering the different framework conditions of gender equality measures is relevant when it comes to evaluation.•Different national contexts require different policy and measure designs and shape the measures’ effects.•Countries analysed in the H2020 project EFFORTI can either be assigned to the Social-Democratic category or Conservative Equal Employment Regime category in the typology of von Wahl (2005); with the latter type tending to provide less favourable conditions for women in the general labour market, as well as women in RTDI.
This article starts from the assumption that it is important for the evaluation of gender equality interventions in RTDI (Research, Technology Development and Innovation) to consider its context regarding gender equality regime and evaluation culture because this context does influence effects and long term impacts of such activities. It aims to provide key characteristics for the differentiation of gender equality regimes and evaluation regimes to be considered when designing policy interventions or evaluating specific gender equality interventions in RTDI.
After a literature review of relevant typologies for welfare state and gender equality regimes, it was analysed to which extent the seven EFFORTI countries correspond to certain typologies based on the data basis of the context research performed in the EFFORTI project. For this context research, international/national and qualitative/quantitative data regarding the relevant framework conditions were firstly collected for each of the EFFORTI countries and secondly compared in a cross-country analysis.
The research showed that when it comes to gender equality policies, most EFFORTI countries can either be assigned to the Social-Democratic category or Conservative Equal Employment Regime category in the typology of von Wahl (2005), with the latter type tending to provide less favourable conditions for women in the general labour market as well as women in RTDI (e.g. overtime culture). In how far these different types of context can have an impact on the evaluation of interventions can be exemplarily illustrated using case studies carried out as part of EFFORTI.
Connecting the typologies for gender equality policy with evaluation regimes has not proved fruitful, as the two discourses have only begun to converge in recent years. The evaluation regimes and cultures of the respective countries have therefore been described independently. However, it was shown that countries with more expertise in certain areas (e.g. gender, evaluations) developed more routinized and institutionalised procedures in the respective field.
Considering the different framework conditions is relevant when it comes to evaluation as different national contexts might require different policy and designs of activities, but might also shape the interventions’ effects. This article therefore aims to provide support in this regard for future evaluations of gender policies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0149-7189</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7870</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101860</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32866739</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Case Studies ; Comparative studies ; Context factors in evaluations ; Culture ; Data ; Design ; Differentiation ; Discourses ; Employment ; Equality ; Europe ; Evaluation ; Female ; Gender equality in R&D ; Gender Equity ; Gender inequality ; Gender regimes ; Humans ; Individualized Instruction ; Innovations ; Intervention ; Labor market ; Literature reviews ; Policy ; Program Evaluation ; Technology ; Welfare state ; Women</subject><ispartof>Evaluation and program planning, 2020-12, Vol.83, p.101860, Article 101860</ispartof><rights>2020 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Dec 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-63442f8b504e79b19d2ba80e9115ca6f4a948bd2feed25e076eb4135827139093</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-63442f8b504e79b19d2ba80e9115ca6f4a948bd2feed25e076eb4135827139093</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101860$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,30999,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32866739$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Reidl, Sybille</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beranek, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holzinger, Florian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Streicher, Jürgen</creatorcontrib><title>Gender equality regimes and evaluation regimes in Europe and their implications for policy design and evaluation</title><title>Evaluation and program planning</title><addtitle>Eval Program Plann</addtitle><description>•Considering the different framework conditions of gender equality measures is relevant when it comes to evaluation.•Different national contexts require different policy and measure designs and shape the measures’ effects.•Countries analysed in the H2020 project EFFORTI can either be assigned to the Social-Democratic category or Conservative Equal Employment Regime category in the typology of von Wahl (2005); with the latter type tending to provide less favourable conditions for women in the general labour market, as well as women in RTDI.
This article starts from the assumption that it is important for the evaluation of gender equality interventions in RTDI (Research, Technology Development and Innovation) to consider its context regarding gender equality regime and evaluation culture because this context does influence effects and long term impacts of such activities. It aims to provide key characteristics for the differentiation of gender equality regimes and evaluation regimes to be considered when designing policy interventions or evaluating specific gender equality interventions in RTDI.
After a literature review of relevant typologies for welfare state and gender equality regimes, it was analysed to which extent the seven EFFORTI countries correspond to certain typologies based on the data basis of the context research performed in the EFFORTI project. For this context research, international/national and qualitative/quantitative data regarding the relevant framework conditions were firstly collected for each of the EFFORTI countries and secondly compared in a cross-country analysis.
The research showed that when it comes to gender equality policies, most EFFORTI countries can either be assigned to the Social-Democratic category or Conservative Equal Employment Regime category in the typology of von Wahl (2005), with the latter type tending to provide less favourable conditions for women in the general labour market as well as women in RTDI (e.g. overtime culture). In how far these different types of context can have an impact on the evaluation of interventions can be exemplarily illustrated using case studies carried out as part of EFFORTI.
Connecting the typologies for gender equality policy with evaluation regimes has not proved fruitful, as the two discourses have only begun to converge in recent years. The evaluation regimes and cultures of the respective countries have therefore been described independently. However, it was shown that countries with more expertise in certain areas (e.g. gender, evaluations) developed more routinized and institutionalised procedures in the respective field.
Considering the different framework conditions is relevant when it comes to evaluation as different national contexts might require different policy and designs of activities, but might also shape the interventions’ effects. This article therefore aims to provide support in this regard for future evaluations of gender policies.</description><subject>Case Studies</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Context factors in evaluations</subject><subject>Culture</subject><subject>Data</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Differentiation</subject><subject>Discourses</subject><subject>Employment</subject><subject>Equality</subject><subject>Europe</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gender equality in R&D</subject><subject>Gender Equity</subject><subject>Gender inequality</subject><subject>Gender regimes</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Individualized Instruction</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Labor market</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Policy</subject><subject>Program Evaluation</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Welfare state</subject><subject>Women</subject><issn>0149-7189</issn><issn>1873-7870</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkMtOwzAQRS0EoqXwC8iCdYrtOLHNDpVSkCqxgbXlxJPiKk1SO6nUvyd9UCFWrEYen5mrOQjdUTKmhKYPyzFsTNn4etGUphozwvYfMiVnaEiliCMhBTlHQ0K5igSVaoCuQlgSQrgS_BINYibTVMRqiJoZVBY8hnVnStdusYeFW0HAprJ4F9OZ1tXVqe0qPO183cAeaL_AeexWTenyPRdwUXvc1P17iy0Et6j-bLpGF4UpA9wc6wh9vkw_Jq_R_H32NnmaRzknso3SmHNWyCwhHITKqLIsM5KAojTJTVpwo7jMLCsALEuAiBQyTuNEMkFjRVQ8QveHvb2ndQeh1cu681UfqVlCYp5wmYieejxQua9D8FDoxruV8VtNid7J1kv9W7beydYH2f3w7TGiy1ZgT6M_dnvg-QBAf-jGgdchd1DlYJ2HvNW2dv_J-QYsNZiQ</recordid><startdate>202012</startdate><enddate>202012</enddate><creator>Reidl, Sybille</creator><creator>Beranek, Sarah</creator><creator>Holzinger, Florian</creator><creator>Streicher, Jürgen</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>K7.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202012</creationdate><title>Gender equality regimes and evaluation regimes in Europe and their implications for policy design and evaluation</title><author>Reidl, Sybille ; Beranek, Sarah ; Holzinger, Florian ; Streicher, Jürgen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-63442f8b504e79b19d2ba80e9115ca6f4a948bd2feed25e076eb4135827139093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Case Studies</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Context factors in evaluations</topic><topic>Culture</topic><topic>Data</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Differentiation</topic><topic>Discourses</topic><topic>Employment</topic><topic>Equality</topic><topic>Europe</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gender equality in R&D</topic><topic>Gender Equity</topic><topic>Gender inequality</topic><topic>Gender regimes</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Individualized Instruction</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Labor market</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Policy</topic><topic>Program Evaluation</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Welfare state</topic><topic>Women</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Reidl, Sybille</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beranek, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holzinger, Florian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Streicher, Jürgen</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Evaluation and program planning</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Reidl, Sybille</au><au>Beranek, Sarah</au><au>Holzinger, Florian</au><au>Streicher, Jürgen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Gender equality regimes and evaluation regimes in Europe and their implications for policy design and evaluation</atitle><jtitle>Evaluation and program planning</jtitle><addtitle>Eval Program Plann</addtitle><date>2020-12</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>83</volume><spage>101860</spage><pages>101860-</pages><artnum>101860</artnum><issn>0149-7189</issn><eissn>1873-7870</eissn><abstract>•Considering the different framework conditions of gender equality measures is relevant when it comes to evaluation.•Different national contexts require different policy and measure designs and shape the measures’ effects.•Countries analysed in the H2020 project EFFORTI can either be assigned to the Social-Democratic category or Conservative Equal Employment Regime category in the typology of von Wahl (2005); with the latter type tending to provide less favourable conditions for women in the general labour market, as well as women in RTDI.
This article starts from the assumption that it is important for the evaluation of gender equality interventions in RTDI (Research, Technology Development and Innovation) to consider its context regarding gender equality regime and evaluation culture because this context does influence effects and long term impacts of such activities. It aims to provide key characteristics for the differentiation of gender equality regimes and evaluation regimes to be considered when designing policy interventions or evaluating specific gender equality interventions in RTDI.
After a literature review of relevant typologies for welfare state and gender equality regimes, it was analysed to which extent the seven EFFORTI countries correspond to certain typologies based on the data basis of the context research performed in the EFFORTI project. For this context research, international/national and qualitative/quantitative data regarding the relevant framework conditions were firstly collected for each of the EFFORTI countries and secondly compared in a cross-country analysis.
The research showed that when it comes to gender equality policies, most EFFORTI countries can either be assigned to the Social-Democratic category or Conservative Equal Employment Regime category in the typology of von Wahl (2005), with the latter type tending to provide less favourable conditions for women in the general labour market as well as women in RTDI (e.g. overtime culture). In how far these different types of context can have an impact on the evaluation of interventions can be exemplarily illustrated using case studies carried out as part of EFFORTI.
Connecting the typologies for gender equality policy with evaluation regimes has not proved fruitful, as the two discourses have only begun to converge in recent years. The evaluation regimes and cultures of the respective countries have therefore been described independently. However, it was shown that countries with more expertise in certain areas (e.g. gender, evaluations) developed more routinized and institutionalised procedures in the respective field.
Considering the different framework conditions is relevant when it comes to evaluation as different national contexts might require different policy and designs of activities, but might also shape the interventions’ effects. This article therefore aims to provide support in this regard for future evaluations of gender policies.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>32866739</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101860</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0149-7189 |
ispartof | Evaluation and program planning, 2020-12, Vol.83, p.101860, Article 101860 |
issn | 0149-7189 1873-7870 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2503454857 |
source | MEDLINE; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Case Studies Comparative studies Context factors in evaluations Culture Data Design Differentiation Discourses Employment Equality Europe Evaluation Female Gender equality in R&D Gender Equity Gender inequality Gender regimes Humans Individualized Instruction Innovations Intervention Labor market Literature reviews Policy Program Evaluation Technology Welfare state Women |
title | Gender equality regimes and evaluation regimes in Europe and their implications for policy design and evaluation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T13%3A18%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Gender%20equality%20regimes%20and%20evaluation%20regimes%20in%20Europe%20and%20their%20implications%20for%20policy%20design%20and%20evaluation&rft.jtitle=Evaluation%20and%20program%20planning&rft.au=Reidl,%20Sybille&rft.date=2020-12&rft.volume=83&rft.spage=101860&rft.pages=101860-&rft.artnum=101860&rft.issn=0149-7189&rft.eissn=1873-7870&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101860&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2503454857%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2503454857&rft_id=info:pmid/32866739&rft_els_id=S0149718920301646&rfr_iscdi=true |