European Commission

This project has received funding from the European Union's H2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 824544

This website reflects only the author's view and that the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Gender Monitoring

Submitted by: Sonja Mausen, Ulrike Brands, Equal Opportunities Office, RWTH Aachen University

- ongoing

Gender Monitoring

Since 2000, North Rhine-Westphalian State law requires institutions of higher education to establish Gender Equality Plans that set specific targets for the representation of women in leadership positions. In order to comply with this requirement, sex-disaggregated data collection was first established. RWTH has since continually developed the collection process and criteria. The Equal Opportunities Office publishes annual reports on the number of students enrolled in the degree programs at RWTH, how many degrees are awarded every year, and tracks their proportional representation through Ph.D. programmes, habilitations, assistant professorships and tenured professorships. Because RWTH is a technical university and representation and involvement of women in STEM fields is generally low in Germany, equal opportunity measures put women in STEM into focus. The development of the statistical representation of women in this field is therefore of specific interest and the Equal Opportunities Office publishes these data in a “STEM Ticker” (a short annual presentation of the current data and progress). Additional presentations are published for the different University status groups and leadership positions. 

COMPASS PERSPECTIVE – in what way(s) was the measure C O M P A S S?

O – Gender monitoring is open, because it allows for an adjustment in data collection according to the requirements by different gender equality measures. As long as the collection of data observes federal, state and privacy laws, it may address several levels of abstraction (from faculty to university level, from employment type to level of education). This, in turn, allows us to track changes in a specific focus group over several years of time and indicates how effective other gender equality measures are or where further action may be needed. It also helps identify possible areas of concern and legitimizes further investigation.

M – Gender monitoring is a tool for mitigation because it provides a highly political discussion with hard facts. This allows change agents to mitigate emotional responses (that are still very much common place in gender equality work) and return discussions to the factual level. This, in turn, supports a problem solving approach to the issue. 

A – Gender monitoring holds leadership and change agents at the university accountable because it makes progress, stagnation or setbacks transparent. Gender monitoring data is published yearly and accessible to all members of the university and the public. 

S – Gender monitoring puts “measurable” into any gender equality measure. 

ACTORS AND STAKEHOLDERS

Setting the goals: University leadership, faculty leadership with consultation from the Equal Opportunities Officer


Ongoing data collection and monitoring: Human Resources department, Equal Opportunities Office, Vice Rectorate for Human Resources Management and Development

AUTHOR’S REFLECTIONS

What would you do the same/differently another time?
What have you learnt? Do you see relevance for this in other contexts?

Data collection is essential to gender monitoring. We currently collect data on male and female employees and students. For one, this does not represent gender diversity. We are now in the process of also collecting data on non-binary employees and students. Since the number of persons who are recognized as non-binary according to federal law is currently rather low, however, this poses additional challenges for data protection. So, while this data will be collected, it will only be published if it poses no risks of accidental “outings”; i.e. if this data cannot be traced back to a specific person. 
Additionally, we have learned that “women” constitute a rather diverse group of people. Intersectionality has taught us that our measures – while intended for all – might not reach and support every woman equally. Additional factors such as race, age, (dis)ability, sexual orientation or religion may play a role in how effective a specific measure is and for whom. A more distinct collection of data may therefore be preferable. Our current reporting system on a federal and state level, however, does not yet support an intersectional approach.