Cooperating for a more egalitarian society: Complexity theory to evaluate gender equity

Abstract

Evaluating gender equity involves the assessment of the equality of opportunities and the equality of outcomes that public policies seek to attain for women and men. It focuses on how and to what extent both genders cooperate to expand access to paid work and control over material resources while sharing care and reproductive responsibilities. Drawing on complexity theory, this article puts forward a theoretical framework to identify cooperative behaviors within the household and the workplace as well as within broader socioeconomic, political and institutional domains.

Understanding the Athena SWAN award scheme for gender equality as a complex social intervention in a complex system: analysis of Silver award action plans in a comparative European perspective

“…Accordingly, accounting for the influence of the context and the local dynamics [85,86], and the opening space for new possibilities, the implementation professionals would need to frequently develop new implementation techniques and methods [87] and employ actions suitable for the local emergent conditions. Emergent conditions are closely related to how actors in the departments interpret actions and situations and demonstrate the lack of complete control over the outcomes [88]. Furthermore, it is likely that implementation professionals would become aware of the fact that, what seems to be a dominant cause of inequality in a certain department at one point in time, might shift later due to the constant interplay of a multitude of contextual factors [35].…”

“…Secondly, considering the ability of interventions to produce impact within the targeted areas in the departments in focus. According to the complexity perspective, every Athena SWAN intervention is locked into a social, institutional, socioeconomic and political system, and insight into how these facilitate or hinder the input-impact chain is necessary to understand impact [88]. Thus, it is important to anticipate the ability of the design and implementation of Athena SWAN interventions in the departments to foster the enabling "conditions for change" linking the design, implementation and effect of interventions to adequate conditions to produce impact [58].…”

An emerging user-led participatory methodology

“…Scholars also value participatory evaluation as very effective because of the possibility to adjust ongoing projects and programmes during execution, as well as to immediately recover from unexpected disruptions (Rodríguez-Campos, 2017). Participatory evaluation is not just the programme, project, or product, but also a process that enables dialectic discussions, which should lead to organizational learning (Suárez-Herrera et al, 2009), allow participants to express their opinions, have their voice and perspectives incorporated into the initiative (Marra, 2015), and provide systematic information to support learning and decision-making (Douthwaite et al, 2007b). This has been shown to support the integration of new ideas and constructs into existing mental maps and cognitive structures.…”

“…This has been shown to support the integration of new ideas and constructs into existing mental maps and cognitive structures. The application of participatory evaluation and the stimulation of learning knowledge creation can also foster change (Plottu & Plottu, 2009;Marra, 2015). Scholars argue that capacity building is yet another important potential of participatory evaluation (Ekirapa-Kiracho et al, 2017).…”

Standing back and looking forward: Editors’ reflections on the 20th Anniversary of Evaluation

“…We have therefore favoured articles that although rooted in a specific policy or practice field, each with its own local knowledge and traditional practice, still finds reason to join a broader evaluative discourse. This is so across many policy domains: international development (Arkesteijn et al, 2015;Forss and Samset, 1999;Saraceno, 1999), gender equality issues (Bustelo, 2003;Espinosa, 2013;Marra, 2015), environment (Lehtonen, 2005;Mickwitz, 2003;Uitto, 2014), innovation and technology (Georghiou, 1998;Perrin, 2002), and industrial policies (Krupnik, 2012). At a macro level we have also published a great deal about policy, policy making and governance.…”