B. Making a Diagnosis
This section provides a guidance on how to detect possible inequality issues in one’s own working environment.
B1 – The first topic is that of why a diagnosis of inequality is important and who could do it.
B2 – The next one is how to define the scope of the diagnosis. A single CM department or CM laboratory? A larger organizational unit? The hospital or the university as a whole? It is not always easy to decide. Some tips are provided.
B3 – Then, it is necessary to decide which kinds of inequality will be observed. Some possible paths and approaches are briefly discussed.
B4 – Another topic is to identify the inequality dimensions, i.e. the domains of the professional life where inequality may emerge and be addressed and...
B5 – ... the procedures to follow in order to collect relevant data and information for each dimension.
B6 – Finally, the last decision to take is which data, information or even indicators may be collected in order to make a diagnosis. Some suggestions and examples are provided in this regard.
The first step is making an evidence-based diagnosis of possible inequality profiles in the working environment.
B1. Why doing a diagnosis of inequality and who could do it
Obviously, a diagnosis is necessary to understand size and depth of inequality and to decide what actions to take to address it.
But a diagnosis is also necessary to pursue other important aims, such as:
- Making equality issues visible within the working environment so as to start an internal debate
- Showing to leaders and managers that inequality exists and could be a problem to be coped with at institutional level
- Showing the risks and lost opportunities associated with inequality for both employees and the institution
- Attracting people potentially interested in getting involved with anti-inequality initiatives.
Another important question is who is meant to make the diagnosis. There is not a single answer, since this depends upon the many possible institutional situations (see Box 4).
Box 4
Who makes the inequality diagnosis? Identify your case....
There are many different possible cases defining who makes the inequality diagnosis. Some examples are given below. Identify yours...
Leadership-led diagnosis. In the majority of cases, the diagnosis is directly promoted and led by the leaderships of the institution, using their own funds and resources. Often the diagnosis is made by the Human Resources Department, by the unit in charge of gender and diversity issues or a team specifically established to do it.
External team with internal funds. Some methods (see B3) establish that the inequality assessment must be made by an external expert group, acting as a consultancy team and paid by the institution. It is up to it to collect data, making interviews, interacting with leaders and drafting the reports in coordination with managers and employees of the institution.
Internal team with external funds. The diagnosis exercise is sometimes carried out by an internal team and funded through sources external to the institution (granted by national bodies, the European Union or, more rarely, international funding agencies).
Bottom-up process. In some cases, the diagnosis is promoted by internal players, such as an association, a women's network or trade unions. Leaderships are usually involved in order to get institutional support and access to official data. Activities are mainly conducted on a voluntary basis.
Limited-scope diagnosis. The assessment exercise may also be promoted and carried out at the level of a single organizational unit of a given institute (be it a hospital, a university or a research centre), initiated by, e.g., a head of department or a head of division. In these cases, it may be of a more informal nature since it involves a limited number of professionals who usually know each other. However, support from the management of the institution or some of its offices (typically the Human Resources Department) could be still necessary to get relevant information. The process may be largely conducted on a voluntary basis.
Externally induced diagnosis. Another case is that of inequality assessments induced by external factors. They may include, e.g., evaluation criteria adopted by research funding agencies, national anti-inequality programs (such as, in the UK, the Athena SWAN awards for gender equality in science) incentivizing research organizations or health service providers to activate equality-oriented initiatives, or national anti-inequality laws and policies.
Mixed cases. Needless to say, mixed cases are also possible such as, for example, individual professionals or a professionals' network promoting the assessment and pushing the management to activate the process or single departments starting the diagnosis and gradually involving other departments.
B2. Defining the scope of the diagnosis
To begin with, it is necessary to understand which is the scope of the diagnosis, i.e., which is the working environment to refer to.
This resource tool is addressed to clinical microbiologists and infectious diseases professionals. The assessment scope should therefore be infectious diseases departments, divisions or hospitals, or departments of internal medicine where infectious diseases specialists work as well as hospital-based microbiology laboratories. Moreover, clinical microbiologists and infectious diseases professionals may also work in Academia. Therefore, their working environment may also be university faculties or research laboratories. In many cases, clinical microbiologists and infectious diseases professionals work both in Academia and in hospitals.
However, many data and information about inequality are only available at the organization level and not at the level of individual unit. They can be get only interacting with, e.g., the Human Resources Department or the direction of the hospital. This is only to say that, in making a diagnosis, defining the scope of analysis is necessary. There are no specific procedures or rules to follow. Nevertheless, some tips can be given (see Box 5).
Box 5
Defining the scope of the diagnosis: some tips
Defining the scope of the analysis means here defining the organizational context to take into consideration: department, laboratory, division, faculty, university, hospital as whole, etc. Some aspects should be taken into consideration.
- It is better to start with the smallest relevant organizational unit. For example, in a hospital, the smallest unit may be the infectious diseases department and the microbiology laboratory; in a university, the department of infectious diseases or the faculty of medicine; if the hospital is fully specialized on infectious diseases, all the hospital should be taken into account.
- Mapping the available information before to start. All universities and hospitals, usually through the Human Resources Department, produce data on their staff and, in some cases, on inequality-related issues, in the form of, e.g., publications, reports or web-pages. Such data are not always systematically disseminated. Understanding which data are already available may be a starting point for defining the scope of the diagnosis.
- Tailoring the scope on the available resources. Even though making an assessment does not necessarily require significant funds, some funds are anyway needed. The scope (and also the methods; see B3) of the assessment should take into account the existing economic and financial constraints so as to avoid to start an assessment process which cannot be completed.
- Collecting additional information for comparative reason. Even when the focus is a single department, division or faculty, some basic information out of the scope may still be useful. Indeed, it allows to compare data and information collected on the selected unit with those at institution, national or European level.
- Some types of data may imply the involvement of a higher unit to be collected. For example, data pertaining to the staff (e.g., uptake of parental leaves by women and men) can only be obtained through the involvement of the Human Resource Department or the direction of the institute.
- Some equality-oriented activities can hardly be developed at the level of the smallest unit. For example, problems like the pay gap between women and men or between expatriates and nationals, those related to parental leaves, and generally also those pertaining to the access of disadvantaged groups to leadership positions, can be appropriately addressed at the level of the institution as a whole (hospital, university, research centre, etc.). Others, instead (those pertaining to, e.g., a fair distribution of tasks, the prevention of sexist, racists or homophobic behaviors or a fair recognition of skills and competence) can be more appropriately dealt with in smaller units. This is important to take into consideration in defining the scope of analysis.
B3. Inequality based on what?
Another question to cope with is that of identifying which inequality grounds are to be primarily taken into consideration. Actually, inequality can be grounded on different kinds of features and qualities of people (for finding some definitions, see here) and some of them may be more visible and felt than others, while still others may be not existent at all.
Nothing, of course, prevents the promoter(s) of the assessment from focusing it exclusively on specific kinds of inequality on the basis on their own perception of the situation or the funds available. For example, many institutions (universities, hospitals, etc.) systematically collect data on gender inequality, but not on inequality grounded on, e.g., disability, sexual orientation or national origin.
Otherwise, it is also possible to keep the survey as inclusive as possible at least at the beginning, so as to consider any kind of discrimination. A possible approach could be that of starting the assessment with an opinion pool or a simple collection of information using a self-administered questionnaire, sent to the staff or made available online, to collect opinions and feelings about discrimination problems within the organization or the selected unit. If such an approach proves to be too costly or difficult to organize, other tools may be used to get information about which kinds of discrimination are felt the most in the working environment.
B4. Identifying the inequality dimensions
Another key step is that of identifying the inequality dimensions, i.e., i.e. the domains of the professional life where inequality may emerge and be addressed. They may include, for example, the access to leadership positions, the selection and recruitment process, income and salaries, labor conditions, work-life balance, equality-related policies or sexual harassment.
Identifying relevant inequality dimensions is important for three main reasons.
- It allows not to forget something important in the assessment process or to consciously decide not to consider some of them.
- It helps keep a holistic approach to inequality, avoiding to focus on just one factor or another (for instance, identifying the problem of gender inequality with work/life balance issues alone, overlooking the effects of other factors, such as gender stereotyping or unequal access to research funds).
- It helps prioritize the dimensions where there are the main problems to address.
Some examples of models identifying inequality dimensions are given here.
B5. Methods for making a diagnosis
Whatever the decision is taken about the types of inequality and the dimensions to be considered, there is anyhow the need to identify a procedure to collect relevant data and information.
Different methods are available to asses inequality in a given working environment. In the majority of cases, these methods are based on the mixed use of desk work (e.g., analysis of relevant documents, relevant legislation, etc.), quantitative tools (e.g., collection of statistical data, quantitative surveys, etc.) and qualitative tools (e.g., in-depth interviews, focus groups, public meetings, etc.). Some examples are provided here.
Such methods are usually thought to assess inequality in large organizations and not in small departments or organizational units. Therefore, it is advisable to adapt them to the concrete context where they should be applied or to take them as inspirational sources for developing one's own methodological approach, if necessary.
B6. Data, information, indicators
To assess inequality in a given working environment, it is necessary to identify which specific information are the most effective to portray the situation. This process is not always simple, given that the amount of relevant information is potentially huge. Some tips for managing the selection process of relevant information are given here.
Many authors and institutions proposed sets of data and information to be used as indicators for assessing inequality in different kinds of working environment. In many cases, such sets are embedded in wider approaches including inequality dimensions and even specific procedures to follow.
In general, two main tendencies can be observed.
- Indicators for assessing how the institution addresses inequality. In many cases, the proposed indicators are chiefly aimed at understanding how the organization is managing inequality. This approach is prevalently used when many forms of inequality are considered and when diversity management is concerned. Not rarely, indicators are proposed in the form of a checklist. To get an idea of which indicators may be used, some examples are provided here.
- Indicators for assessing inequality within the institution. In other cases, indicators are proposed to directly measure inequality and to monitor how inequality changes over time, regardless of measures and policies devised by the management. This approach is often used when gender inequality is mainly or exclusively considered. Some examples are given here.
Cases where both tendencies (that of analyzing how the organization addresses inequality and that of analyzing inequality within the organization) are mixed together also exist.
Glossary
Disability - A physical or mental impairment that has a "substantial" (i.e., not minor or trivial) and "long-term" negative effect on individuals' ability to do normal daily activities. In order to allow an individual with a disability to gain access to content and/or complete assigned tasks, an alteration of environment or equipment may be needed (accommodation).
Discrimination - Unequal or unfair treatment which can be based on a range of grounds, such as age, ethnic background, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.
Ethnic minority - A group within a community which has different national or cultural traditions from the main population
Expatriate - A person who has citizenship in at least one country, but who is living in another country; more in general, people with a foreign background.
Gay - A man who is sexually and/or emotionally attracted to men.
Gender – The state of being male and female. In many cases, the concept of gender also encompasses the state of being transgender
Inequality - A process by which people are treated differently and disadvantageously, under similar circumstances, on the basis of their belonging to a specific social group. Inequality can be grounded on many factors, such as gender, sexual orientation, national origin or disability
Lesbian - A woman who is sexually and/or emotionally attracted to women
Transgender - People whose gender identity, expression or behavior is different from those typically associated with their assigned sex at birth
Sexual harassment – Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment.
Sources:
- Association of Women Surgeons (AWS), (2006) Sexual Harassment Resource Manual (https://www.womensurgeons.org/ wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Sexual_Harassment_Resource_ Manual_May_2006.pdf)
- Business Dictionary (http://www.businessdictionary.com/)
- Equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people in Europe, ILGA – Europe Dictionary (http://old.ilga-europe.org/home/publications/glossary)
- Government of United Kingdom, Equality Act 2010 (https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010)
- Oxford Living Dictionary (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ethnic_minority)
Appraising discrimination through a self-administered questionnaire
Different kinds of self-administered questionnaires have been developed in order to collect information on the presence of discriminatory mechanisms in a given social context. They are not aimed at fully measuring inequality, but at quickly assessing the presence of people who feel exposed to inequality. Some examples of questionnaires are given below.
Self-reported experience with racial and ethnic discrimination
Self-reported experience with racial and ethnic discrimination
Neeraja Peterson, with other colleagues, carried out in 2004 a study on self-reported experiences with racial and ethnic discrimination in academic medicine. They developed a self-administered 177-item questionnaire which considered many aspects of the personal and professional life of the respondent.
In order to capture the experience of racial or ethnic bias, three specific questions have been developed
- "Do you perceive any racial/ethnic biases or obstacles to the career success or satisfaction of faculty by race/ethnicity in your academic environment (1 = no, never to 5 = yes, frequently)?"
- "In your professional career, have you ever been left out of opportunities for professional advancement based on race/ethnicity (1 = no, 2 = not to my knowledge, 3 = possibly, 4 = probably, 5 = yes)?"
- "In your professional career, have you personally encountered racial/ethnic discrimination (unfair or injurious distinction or treatment) by a superior or colleague (1 = no, 2 = yes)?"
Respondents who answered "yes" to question 3 were asked 5 questions to capture the extent and severity of the racial/ethnic discrimination they experienced
- "How much of a problem has this been for you (1 = no problem to 5 = major problem)?"
- "Have you encountered racial/ethnic remarks (1 = no, 2 = yes)?"
- "Have you encountered inadequate recognition of your work (1 = no, 2 = yes)?"
- "To what extent have these experiences had a negative effect on your confidence as a professional (1 = not at all to 5 = greatly)?"
- "To what extent have these experiences negatively affected your career advancement (1 = not at all to 5 = greatly)?"
This set of questions may be appropriately replicated in order to encompass other forms of inequality, like those based on gender, national origin, physical conditions or sexual orientation.
Sources:
- Peterson et al. (2004) Racial/Ethnic Discrimination in Academic Medicine Faculty Self-reported Experience with Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in Academic Medicine, J GEN INTERN MED 2004;19:259 –265
Major Experiences of Discrimination
In 2012, David R. Williams developed with other colleagues an expanded version of a previous test on major experiences of discrimination, based on a self-administered questionnaire. This version also included a 5-question section focused on discrimination at work.
I will ask you about being treated unfairly at work. Can you tell me if each of the following has ever happened to you:
- At any time in your life, have you ever been UNFAIRLY fired?
- For UNFAIR reasons, do you think you have ever not been hired for a job?
- Have you ever felt that others at your place of employment UNFAIRLY got promotions or pay raises faster than you did?
- Have you ever been UNFAIRLY denied a promotion?
- In addition to what we have talked about, is there any other way you have been treated UNFAIRLY AT WORK, for example, prevented from doing something or been hassled or made to feel inferior?
Response scale for all items is YES/NO
The 5 questions are followed by a follow-up question
What do you think was the main reason for this experience? (e.g.: your national origin, your gender, your sexual orientations, your religion, etc.)
Sources:
- Williams, D.R., John, D., Oyserman, D., Sonnega, J., Mohammed, S.A., Jackson, J.S. (2012) Research on Discrimination and Health: An Exploratory Study of Unresolved Conceptual and Measurement Issues, American Journal of Public Health, 2012 May;102(5):975-8
Negative Acts Questionnaire
In 2010, Leanne Upton produced and tested a "Negative Acts Questionnaire" aimed at detecting bullying at work. The questionnaire concerns a possible specific dimension of discrimination (bullying) which however deserves to be deepened once it is perceived by respondents as associated to being part of specific groups (women, disabled people, expatriates, etc.).
The questionnaire includes 22 items.
The following behaviors are often seen as examples of negative behavior in the workplace. Over the last six months, how often have you been subjected to the following negative acts at work?
- Someone withholding information which affects your performance
- Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work
- Being ordered to do work below your level of competence
- Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks
- Spreading of gossip and rumors about you
- Being ignored, excluded or being 'sent to Coventry'
- Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person (i.e., habits and background), your attitudes or your private life
- Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger (or rage)
- Intimidating behavior such as finger-pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way
- Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job
- Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes
- Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach
- Persistent criticism of your work and effort
- Having your opinions and views ignored
- Practical jokes carried out by people you don't get on with
- Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines
- Having allegations made against you
- Excessive monitoring of your work
- Pressure not to claim something which by right you are entitled to (e.g. sick leave, holiday entitlement, travel expenses)
- Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm
- Being exposed to an unmanageable workload
- Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse
Response scale for all items: 1) Never; 2) Now and then; 3) Monthly; 4) Weekly; 5) Daily
Sources:
- Upton L. (2010) The impact of workplace bullying on individual and organizational well-being in a South African context and the role of coping as a moderator in the bullying—well-being relationship, Dissertation submitted to the School of Human and Community Development, University of the Witwatersrand, for the degree of Master of Arts
Workplace Age Discrimination Scale
In 2015, Ernest Gonzales, Lisa A. Marchiondo, Shan Ran, Celeste Brown and Kate Goettge developed a discrimination scale at work grounded on age. The scale includes 9 items.
Please indicate how often you have experienced the following AT WORK (1=quite often, 5=never):
- I have been treated as though I am less capable due to my age.
- I have been given fewer opportunities to express my ideas due to my age.
- I have unfairly been evaluated less favorably due to my age.
- I have been passed over for a work role/task due to my age.
- I receive less social support due to my age.
- My contributions are not valued as much due to my age.
- I have been treated with less respect due to my age.
- Someone has delayed or ignored my requests due to my age.
- Someone has blamed me for failures or problems due to my age.
As in the other cases, this scale can be usefully applied, only as an explorative tool, for analyzing other kinds of inequality at the workplace.
Sources:
- Gonzales E., Marchiondo L.A., Ran S., Brown C., Goettge K. (2015) Age Discrimination in the Workplace and its Association with Health and Work: Implications for Social Policy, Boston University Research Brief, 201502 (https://www.bu.edu/ssw/files/2015/06/Research-Brief_Age-Discrimination-in-Employment_0508151.pdf)
Other tools for appraising inequality
There are different tools which can be usefully applied for making a first appraisal of the perception of inequality in a given institution. They can be less costly than self-administered questionnaires. Some examples are given below.
Focus groups
A focus group discussion consists of gathering together people from similar backgrounds or experiences to discuss a specific topic of interest. The group of participants is guided by a moderator (or group facilitator) who introduces topics for discussion and helps the group to participate in a lively and natural discussion amongst themselves.
Focus groups may be used to get information about attitudes, beliefs, feelings and emotional reactions, but also about facts, events or dynamics which may escape from observation. Focus groups are usually done with 4 to12 subjects at a time (ideal is 6 to10 participants) and based on a set of open-ended questions (10-20) to be discussed together. Duration is variable (no more than 2 hours but preferably less).
Unstructured interviews
Unstructured interviews are interviews where questions are not fully prearranged. Usually, interviewers use a "grid for the interviews" where the issues to be discussed are listed.
The issues can be discussed in any order. Moreover, other questions may be asked on the basis of the respondents' responses. This kind of interview can be viewed as a "guided conversation" allowing respondents to talk in some depth about their own understanding of the situation and experience with inequality. Unstructured interviews can be particularly useful as an explorative tool, when the available information are few or unclear.
Dialogue initiatives
Another way to carry out an appraisal is that of organizing internal dialogue initiatives, such as workshops and public meetings, using them as a tool for organizing a consultation among participants. Differently from the focus groups, this kind of events are little structured, allow more people to participate and last more time. Usually, they are introduced through a speech or an outline document aiming at stimulating the discussion. In comparison to public meetings, workshops are smaller in size and are more oriented to finding solutions to a given problem.
Web-based discussion spaces
Web-based discussion spaces are increasingly used to collect opinions and information about a given issue. They may include web-blogs, interactive web-pages, web-based consultation (for example, online questionnaires) or the use of social media. This kind of tools may be particularly appropriate when large organizations are involved. However, the level of reliability of the collected information may be lower than that gathered through face-to-face methods.
Mapping the inequality dimensions
Different schemes have been defined to map the inequality dimensions to take into consideration while developing a diagnosis of inequality in the working environment. Examples are provided below. Some of them refer to gender inequality while others to other kinds of inequality factors. They can be used as models to follow or as sources of inspiration for better developing one's own scheme.
Self-Assessment Guide on Gender Equality in Companies
Workplace Diversity and Anti-discrimination Assessment Tool
SPF Personnel et Organisation Diversity and Human Resources Handbook
Self-Assessment Guide on Gender Equality in Companies
The Self-Assessment Guide on Gender Equality in Companies has been developed under the "Social Dialogue and Equality in Companies" Project, funded by the European Commission, involving a group of Portuguese institutions.
The guide identifies the following dimensions.
I. Corporate mission and value. The objective of this dimension is to see whether the company policy contemplates and incorporates the gender equality principle in its mission and strategic values. The intention is to evaluate whether the company considers equality between women and men in its organizational development and whether this concern is formally expressed in its documents.
II. Staff recruitment and selection. The aim of this dimension is to know whether the staff recruitment and selection processes are based on the principle of equality and non-discrimination on the ground of sex and safeguard the use of male/female designation in employment advertisement.
III. Lifelong learning. This dimension is aimed to know whether the company contemplates in its policy equal access by women and men to education and training opportunities.
IV. Salaries and career management. The objective of this dimension is to assess whether the company contemplates equality and non-discrimination between women and men in its salary policy, promotions and career progress.
V. Social dialogue and participation of male and female workers and/or organizations representing them. Through this dimension it will be learned how the company relates to its male and female workers and their organizations. Encouragement by the company of social dialogue and participation of male and female workers, as well as their representative structures with regard to gender equality, conciliation between professional, family and personal life and maternity and paternity protection represents an added value for the corporate practice in its capacity to integrate and motivate their male and female workers.
VI. Obligation to respect women and men at their workplace. The issues in this dimension intend to analyze the existence of ethical principles and norms to protect male and female workers against undesirable behaviors, be it verbal, physical, sexually related or any other.
VII. Information, communication and image. This dimension is aimed at becoming familiar with company procedures in terms of gender equality, with regard to communicational contents transmitted internally and externally and to the existence and processing of statistics and other information (for example, the use of a neutral, inclusive and non-discriminatory language).
VIII. Conciliation between professional, family and personal life. This dimension includes new methods for organizing work so as to favor conciliation, direct benefits for male and female workers (for example, those with special family situations, such as single-parent families with handicapped children or with chronic diseases) and direct benefits for relatives of male and female workers.
IX. Maternity and paternity protection and family assistance. This dimension is aimed at verifying whether the company complies with the law and recognizes, in the same manner, the exercise of maternity and paternity rights for male and female workers.
Sources:
- Diàlogo Social e Igualidade nas Empresas (2008) Self-assessment guide on gender equality in companies, Lisbon (http://www.cite.gov.pt/pt/dsie/doc/self_assesment.pdf)
Workplace Diversity and Anti-discrimination Assessment Tool
This approach, developed by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) to guide health organizations to assess racial discrimination and diversity at the workplace level, identifies the following dimensions.
Domain 1 - Organizational profile. This domain provides a profile of the organization, including the extent to which a commitment to diversity and antidiscrimination is reflected in organizational goals, values and statements and the physical environment. Organizational goals, values and statements provide information on organizational commitment to diversity and anti-discrimination, while the physical environment, including signs and symbols and other measures to accommodate diversity in the workplace, help to provide a welcoming environment for people from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds. The physical environment can be assessed by walking through the organizational buildings, office and meeting spaces and staff amenities.
Domain 2 - Diversity planning and resources. This domain assesses whether the organization has a workforce diversity plan and other resources to support diversity and anti-discrimination in the workplace. Key questions include the extent to which the organization plans for and sets goals for increasing the diversity of the workforce; has policies and procedures for addressing race-based anti-discrimination in the workplace and makes resources available to support diversity and anti-discrimination activities.
Domain 3 - Communications. This domain assesses organizational communications and the extent to which the organization provides guidelines, protocols and other resources for staff for communications in relation to people from diverse backgrounds. Organizational communications, such as key publications and the organizational website, provide important information about the organization and the extent to which the organization supports diversity and anti-discrimination. Ensuring that organizational publications contain images of people from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds, are free from bias and use appropriate terminology can enable people from diverse backgrounds to feel welcome and included. The development of guidelines and protocols also provides important information to staff about how to communicate in relation to people from diverse backgrounds.
Domain 4 - Human resources. This domain assesses key human resource and employment policies, processes and practices to support the employment and retention of people from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds, as well as opportunities for training and rewarding staff performance in relation to workplace diversity and anti-discrimination. This includes recruitment and selection processes, the involvement of managers and retention processes, diversity and anti-discrimination training programs for staff and managers, performance reviews and exiting processes. Human resource and employment practices are essential to increasing and managing workforce diversity. This is especially important given that significant barriers exist for people from diverse backgrounds in seeking and gaining employment. Many of these barriers are hidden and subtle, such as recruitment practices that are inaccessible to people from diverse backgrounds and biases in selection.
Domain 5 - Data collection and monitoring. This domain assesses the collection and monitoring of employee data, compliance with anti-discrimination regulations and laws, monitoring of complaints of race-based antidiscrimination in the workplace, and the evaluation of diversity initiatives and programs. The collection and ongoing monitoring of employee data provides important information about the composition of the workforce, where the diverse composition of the workforce is an important indicator of organizational commitment to diversity. Ongoing data collection and monitoring of, for example, complaints of race-based antidiscrimination, and evaluation of diversity initiatives provides an important foundation from which to measure progress in relation to workplace diversity and anti-discrimination.
Sources:
- VicHealth (2015) Localities Embracing and Accepting Diversity (LEAD) Workplace diversity and anti-discrimination assessment tool (file:///C:/Users/Utente/Downloads/VH_LEAD%20Toolkit_workplaces_FORM%20(2).pdf)
SPF Personnel et Organization Diversity and Human Resources Handbook
The Government of Belgium (Federal Public Service "Personnel and Organization") has produced a handbook on diversity management and anti-discrimination policies addressing inequality grounded on different factors (gender, disability, sex orientation, national origin, age, etc.) for companies and public organizations. One of the aim of the handbook is that of helping managers to conduct a diagnosis of the situation of their own institution from the point of view of discrimination and diversity.
The following dimensions are proposed:
- Representativeness of the different target groups (women, expatriates, members of minority groups, etc.) in the organization staff
- Internal processes that generate direct and indirect discrimination
- Horizontal segregation, i.e., the confinement of certain groups in certain career tracks and/or functions
- Vertical segregation, i.e. the limited access of members of the different target groups to leadership positions and responsibilities
- Opinions and representations of staff regarding the diversity policies put in place
- Identification of the specific problems encountered by the target audiences within the company.
Special attention is devoted to the measures put in place by the organization in order to prevent discrimination and taking into account diversity. In particular, the following domains are considered:
- Strategy and leadership. This dimension is aimed at assessing whether the organization is putting diversity and anti-discrimination among its strategic objectives
- Organizational culture. This dimension is aimed at verifying to what extent the organization is active in changing the culture of the staff and in removing the obstacles to the integration of people of foreign origin
- Intercultural competences. This dimension is aimed at verifying to what extent training activities on diversity are organized to leaders and middle managers
- Recruitment and promotion. This dimension is aimed at verifying to what extent the organization ensure recruitment and promotion processes which are fair and open to diversity
- Welcoming and integration. This dimension is aimed at verifying to what extent the organization adopts measures aimed at welcoming and integrating all kind of people within the staff
- Retention. This dimension is aimed at verify to what extent the organization is fair and open in retaining staff members in the organization.
Sources:
- Service Public Fédéral Personnel et Organisation (2008) Diversité et RH: bonnes pratiques en Belgique et à l'étranger, SPF Personnel et Organisation, Bruxelles
STAGES Integrated Observation Model
Under the project "Structural transformation to achieve gender equality in science – STAGES", funded by the European Commission and co-funded by the Italian Government, an observation model has been developed in order to design and conduct action plans aiming to promoting gender equality in research institutions.
The observation model is based on the identification of three main strategies comprehensively aimed at inducing structural change processes within research institutions.
The first strategy consists of making research institutions an enabling environment for women's progression and working life. Three main objectives stemming from the actions carried out by the programs were singled out:
- Promoting change in the culture and traditional behaviors of the organization
- Supporting work-life balance for all
- Providing early-stage career-development.
The second strategy aims to include the gender dimension in the very process of research and innovation designing. Two main objectives were identified:
- Overcoming stereotypes of women and science
- Influencing scientific contents and methods.
The third strategy consists in promoting women in scientific leadership positions. Four objectives emerged from the analysis of the programs:
- supporting women's leadership in research practice
- supporting women's leadership in research management
- supporting women's role in science communication
- increasing women's presence and weight in managing innovation processes and related science-society relationships.
The first area concerns the workplace as a friendly or unfriendly environment for women, including, e.g., work-life balance, access to childcare services, career development, discriminatory behaviors and culture, or organization of the working time.
The second area concerns the inclusion of gender dimension in science and innovation, including, e.g., the use of sex and gender as variable in developing research contents and methods, the teaching of a gender-sensitive science, or the use of gender-insensitive language and textbooks.
The third area concerns the access of women in leadership positions, including, e.g., the functioning of promotion committees, the access to mentoring and training resources, the regulations and or the procedures adopted in allocating research funds.
Sources:
- Cacace M. et al (2015) Structural Transformation to Gender Equality in Science, Guidelines, STAGES Project, Rome (https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/prages-guidelines_en.pdf)
Equal Opportunity Indicator Model
This model has been developed by a group of scholars led by Amaia Lusa. Aimed at assessing companies from a gender perspective, it is based on the identification of indicators and a collection of data. The following observation fields are proposed.
Equal opportunities policy - gender mainstreaming. This first field refers to the sensitivity and awareness of a company towards equal opportunities. The main aspects to evaluate are:
- The degree to which equal opportunities are integrated into the organization's strategy and culture. The systematic incorporation of the gender perspective into the company's policies, decision-making procedures and activities (gender mainstreaming)
- The staff's (at all levels) degree of commitment to and involvement in equal opportunities between women and men.
Social responsibility. This field analyzes how the company contributes to achieving equal opportunities in society. This field evaluates:
- The company's contribution to equal opportunities in society (e.g., by means of setting society and other companies an example)
- The incorporation of the gender perspective into all projects (e.g., into the design of new products).
Image and language. The objective of this field is to assess:
- Whether the organization makes women and their contribution to the company's results and success visible
- The neutrality of the company's image and the language that is used at an internal level (documents, meetings, etc.) and at an external level (public functions, advertising, etc.).
The representation of women. This field analyzes the representation of women in certain positions, categories or high levels of responsibility. There are basically three aspects to be checked:
- Whether the proportion of men and women in different departments, categories, management positions and on the board of directors is well-balanced (neither women nor men should represent more than 60% or less than 40%)
- Whether the proportions of women and men are constant throughout the different categories (i.e., the proportion of women is not less in higher categories)
- Whether the distribution of women and men among the different categories is comparable.
Career development. This fifth field covers recruitment, selection, training, promotion and employee appraisals. The objectives are to verify whether equal opportunities are guaranteed in all of these human resources management processes.
Pay policy. This field concerns equal pay between women and men. The following points are evaluated in this field:
- Whether the company determines salaries by means of a neutral job evaluation procedure (i.e., a procedure that does not produce any negative effect on a certain group, women or men)
- Whether the assignment of jobs to categories and salary levels is adequate
- Whether the payment policy is transparent
- Whether there are signs of salary discrimination (i.e., if women's salaries are significantly lower than men's salaries).
Harassment, sexist attitudes and the perception of discrimination. The objective of this field is to evaluate:
- Whether the company uses any measures to prevent, avoid and eliminate any sexist attitudes, discriminatory treatment or (sexual or moral) harassment
- Whether sexist attitudes, discriminatory treatments or harassment of any type exist in the company
- Whether employees feel that they are treated with fairness, dignity and respect.
Labor conditions. This field refers to labor conditions such as the kind of contract, working hours or dismissals. The aim is to check that:
- There is no gender discrimination in the type of contract or working hours of employees
- There is no gender discrimination in dismissals.
Work-life balance. This field evaluates whether employees of all categories and hierarchical levels have the opportunity to balance personal, family and work lives.
Physical working conditions. This field analyses from a gender perspective aspects such as risks at work, the ergonomics of the workplace, the distribution and arrangement of the space, and the adaptation of the workplace, the shared spaces and resources to the specific characteristics and needs of women (especially pregnant women).
Sources:
- Lusa, A., Martínez, C., Calvet, M. D., Pons, O., Tura, M., (2009) How to diagnose equal opportunities between women and men in organizations, JIEM,– 2(3): 539-557
Structured methods for assessing inequality
Different methods have been specifically developed and tested in order to assessing inequality in a given organization. Many of them concern inequality grounded on gender but can be usefully taken as a basis for assessing other kinds of inequality.
Some of them may appear too complicated for being implemented when the scope of the inquiry is small (single department, single laboratory, etc.). However, all they can be inspirational for developing the approach which fits best with the context of application Some examples are provided below.
Participatory Gender Audit (PGA)
Finnish Ministry of Justice Tool for the Assessment of Equality
Workplace Gender Equality Strategy (WGEA)
Gender Equality in Academia and Research (GEAR)
Participatory Gender Audit (PGA)
The Participatory Gender Audit is a participatory-based process aiming at collecting relevant information on gender inequality and mainstreaming gender in the organizations. This approach has been developed by the International Labour Organization.
PGA is based on a three-step process.
The first step is a desk review based on the application of a set of indicators. To this aim, available statistics, key policy documents, major publications and programming, budget, and monitoring and evaluation processes are considered.
The second step includes individual interviews of selected staff (managers, technical and support), and, in case, of selected users and partners of the organizations. These interviews provide a wealth of information as well as insights into achievements on gender equality and areas for improvement.
The third step revolves around the organization of participatory workshops, where group exercises are conducted to arrive at an understanding of the level of knowledge and practice existing on gender mainstreaming. Challenges in implementing gender mainstreaming strategies and positive experiences that have been developed are also discussed.
PGA takes into consideration, not only inequality levels within the staff, but also gender inequality and gender mainstreaming involved with the activity of the organization.
Sources:
- International Labour Organization (2012) A manual for gender audit facilitators: The ILO participatory gender audit methodology, 2nd Edition Geneva, International Labour Office
- International Labour Organization (2011) Participatory Gender Audit: Relevance and use for the United Nations and its agencies, Geneva, International Labour Office –
Finnish Ministry of Justice Tool for the Assessment of Equality
This tool has developed in 2015 by the Finnish Ministry of Justice and is addressed to all public bodies in Finland. It is not very specific, suggesting each administration, in case, to develop their own approach.
The key tool proposed is the implementation of an equality survey for employees, which may chart a set of issues like: do employees experience the workplace as non-discriminating, do employees have experiences of discrimination, have they observed discrimination towards others and how effective do they find measures that foster equality in the workplace. Employee surveys may also chart staff views about the equality of operations, training needs, forms of cooperation with groups at risk of discrimination, etc.
This survey may be also supported with a survey for stakeholders like users, cooperation partners or other relevant players.
The purpose of such surveys is to compile an assessment of inequality within the institution and of the measures taken to foster equality.
In some cases, other methods to collect relevant information may be used, in support or at the place of the survey.
For example, special events, including meetings focused on a single theme or workshops can be organized in order to assess the organization's equality and non-discrimination status. The purpose of such events is to facilitate a joint assessment of how equality is implemented, whether discrimination arises, what kinds of measures could be taken to develop equality between different groups further, etc.
Otherwise, consultations of groups at risk of discrimination can be also organized. Consultation can be implemented in a range of ways, including consultation sessions, comment rounds or interviews.
Sources:
- Ministry of Justice (2015) Tool for the Assessment of Equality (http://yhdenvertaisuus-fi-bin.directo.fi/@Bin/6f154ccec5e9771a22547b88663fdfa3/1485517981/application/pdf/435422/Tool_uk.pdf)
Workplace Gender Equality Strategy (WGEA)
This approach – defined by the Centre for Workplace Leadership, based in Australia – is aimed at analyzing, both gender equality within the staff and the general strategy adopted by the organization with regard to inequality.
The model implies the creation of a Consulting Team external to the organization in charge of the analysis.
WGEA develops through a 4-phase process.
Approach and engagement. In this phase, the Consulting Team establishes first contacts with the concerned organization key leaders, including the Human Resources Directors, and in case those managers involved with equality and diversity policies. Through this contacts and agreement is established on fieldwork schedule, dates and times of consultations meetings, the purpose of each meeting and which staff should be engaged in the consultation.
Knowledge gathering. This phase includes firstly the completion by the organization leaders of a questionnaire on the situation of the organization. Once the questionnaire is complete, a face-to-face consultation with the leaders is done to fill any gaps in knowledge drawn from the questionnaire. A variable number of interviews are also conducted with employees who had experience with the impact of gender equality in the workplace. Interview topics concern the organization's strategic priorities, their current approach to gender equality, existing barriers to gender equality and goals for the future.
Development of strategy recommendations. In this phase, the consulting team work together on drawing up tailored recommendations to help the organization move towards creating a successful gender equality strategy.
Presentation of strategy recommendations. The final stage of the project is the presentation of the strategy recommendations. The leaders of the organization receive a written copy of the recommendations before the presentation, to be done in person or via videoconference.
Sources:
- Centre for Workplace Leadership, University of Melbourne (2015) Workplace Gender and Equality Strategy Project Final Report, CWL (https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/GE_Report_Final.pdf)
Gender Equality in Academia and Research (GEAR)
The European Institute for Gender Equality developed in 2015 a web-based toolkit on how to promote gender equality in research institutions by developing Gender Equality Plans (GEPs). The overall approach includes five steps, i.e.:
- Getting started
- Analyzing and Assessing the state-of-play in the institution
- Setting up the Gender Equality Plan
- Implementing the Gender Equality Plan
- Monitoring Progress and Evaluating the Gender Equality Plan.
As for the second step, the analysis is focused on what the organization is doing regarding the promotion of gender equality. Different actions aimed at collecting information are suggested, depending upon the resources allocated. However, the standard model proposed includes three main activities.
A. Reviewing relevant legislation and policies in the country
It is useful to know the general
legislation and policies pertaining to gender equality and non-discrimination, as well as those that are
specific for the fields of research and/or higher education.
B. Analyzing sex-disaggregated data about staff and students
Data broken down by sex is needed to
detect any gender differences. The first thing to do is checking which data are readily available. If such
data do not yet exist in the organization, efforts to collect them need to be made. Data to be analyzed
include, e.g.: staff numbers by gender at all levels, by disciplines, function (including administrative /
support staff) and by contractual relation to the organization; average numbers of years needed for women
and men to make career advancements (per grade); wage gaps by gender and job; numbers of women and men in
academic and administrative decision-making positions; numbers of staff by gender applying for/taking
parental leave, for how long and how many returned after taking the leave; number of training hours/credits
attended by women and men.
C. Identifying the existing measures promoting gender equality
The existing measures to promote
women, to sensitize about gender equality, to enhance work-life balance, etc. need to be inventoried and
mapped. The implementation and results of the existing measures will need to be critically assessed,
together with those involved, seeking how their effectiveness can be enhanced.
Sources:
- European Institute for Gender Equality (2015) The GEAR Step-by-Step Guide (http://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/tools-methods/gear/step-step-guide#step-3)
Workplace diversity and anti-discrimination assessment tool
This approach has been developed by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), based in Australia, to guide health organizations to assess racial discrimination and diversity at the workplace level.
To conduct the assessment, the following steps are suggested.
Communication. Support for the workplace assessment can be shown through written or verbal communication to staff by the leaders of the organization, so as to ensure that necessary time and resources are available to conduct the assessment (e.g., before the assessment is undertaken, the leaders or board members could issue a general announcement to all staff about the purpose of the assessment, what may be expected of staff, and what the organization will do with the findings).
Establish an assessment committee. An assessment committee of approximately 6 to 8 people is established to lead the assessment process. This includes staff representing key functions within the organization, such as human resources, senior leadership, community services, administration, finance, communications and policy and planning, as well as individuals whose job roles are directly concerned with diversity issues. The team itself should reflect the diversity of the workforce. People who are well positioned within the organization and sensitive to diversity issues should be appointed to lead the assessment process and chair assessment committee meetings. Alternatively, external parties who have a strong understanding of workplace diversity and anti-discrimination issues may be invited to facilitate meetings and help to prevent bias.
Identification of documents. The assessment committee identifies key organizational documents to be reviewed in the assessment process, such as:
- mission, vision, values statement
- organizational website
- staff, board and volunteer orientation materials
- annual reports
- strategic plans
- multicultural, diversity and reconciliation plans
- human resource strategic plans, policy and procedures manual
- copies of current and recent job postings, with associated position descriptions
- dissemination policies and procedures for job postings
- selection, recruitment and interviewing guidelines
- performance evaluation guidelines
- data on race, ethnicity, culture, religion and/or spoken languages collected in human resource management systems
- other relevant documents.
Completing the assessment tool. The assessment committee reviews documents before meeting to work through the assessment tool. Based on these documents, the committee works through each question in the assessment tool. Key discussion points and responses are recorded in the assessment tool. Other staff may be approached to assist with data gathering activities. This could include discussion with key staff, or formal interviews/focus groups conducted by an external party so that issues can be aired freely and to prevent bias.
Finalizing the assessment tool. The assessment committee should now be in a position to finalize responses in the assessment tool, including recommendations and priorities for further action.
Action planning and communication to staff. In the final stage of the assessment process, assessment committee members develop an action plan. The Board and/or senior leadership should be involved in developing and endorsing the action plan and communicating the plan to all staff.
Sources:
- VicHealth (2015) Localities Embracing and Accepting Diversity (LEAD) Workplace diversity and anti-discrimination assessment tool (file:///C:/Users/Utente/Downloads/VH_LEAD%20Toolkit_workplaces_FORM%20(2).pdf)
FESTA Three R Method
Under the EC-funded "Female Empowerment in Science and Technology Academia" FESTA project, an approach has been developed to assess women's condition in science institutionz. This approach is an adaptation to the context of academic institutions of an already existing methods, called "Three R Method", developed in the late 1990s by Gertrud Åström, former President of the Swedish Women's Lobby, in cooperation with the Swedish Association of Local Authorities.
According to the experts of FESTA, the method can be described by what the three R's stand for.
The first R, Representation, is a survey of the gender distribution in the various parts of the organization and at all levels, e.g., among leaders, staff and/or students. In this part of the method the question of how many women and how many men are represented must be asked. This includes indicators that show the organization's gender structure, such as indicators on leadership positions and recruitment.
The second R, Resources, is a quantitative mapping of how resources are allocated according to gender. It answers the question: How are the resources in the organization, for instance in the form of money, time and space, distributed between women and men? For example, indicators for parental leave, form of employment, salary and sick leave reflect the resource allocation between women and men.
The third R, Realia, is qualitative. The focus is on culture/institutions or the norms governing the organization. Why are representation and resources distributed as they are? What are norms and conditions like for women and men in the organization? Are they different, and if so, how and why? The objective of the last part of the method is to provide an explanation of the gender equality problems that appeared during the first two steps. The method gives a structured answer to the question of who gets what, and on what terms.
Steps one and two consist of collecting and extracting statistics on indicators and serve as the starting point for discussions with leaders and/or staff on different levels and in different units about the third and last R.
Sources:
- FESTA TOOLKIT WP3.2 Towards Raising Organizational Awareness (http://www.festa-europa.eu/public/report-festa-toolkit-wp32-towards-raising-organizational-awareness)
Selecting data and information for making a diagnosis: some tips
In order to better manage the problem of how to select relevant data and information to conduct a diagnosis of inequality at the workplace, some tips can be given.
Starting from the selected dimensions of inequality. As said above, identifying the inequality dimensions, i.e., the kind of facts and processes which deserve to be observed, is the preliminary step to take. This allows to limit from the beginning the quantity of information to be considered and to understand why each information piece should be collected.
Moving from the existing data. In many institutions, some data directly or indirectly usable in a diagnosis of inequality are already available. Before collecting new data or information, mapping the existing data is therefore advisable, contacting the concerned offices (typically the Human Resources Department).
Capitalizing on the existing literature. There is a vast literature about relevant information, indicators and data susceptible of being collected in order to make a diagnosis of inequality at the workplace. Some examples are given in this Resource Tool. Learning from others' experience is usually better than starting from scratch.
Paying attention to costs. Producing new information and data may be particularly costly, in terms of money, time, resources, or organizational efforts. Therefore, it is necessary to be prudent and design a diagnosis process which is feasible and sustainable.
Making a diagnosis tailored on the institution. Diagnosis should be tailored on the features of the institution. Many information which are necessary to be collected when a research institution or university is concerned are not relevant when a hospital is analyzed. Some preliminary informal interviews with key persons or employees may be useful for better tailoring the diagnosis on the most problematic aspects, thus avoiding a waste of time and resources.
Different uses of diagnosis. A diagnosis is primarily needed in order to understand the situation of inequality at the workplace. However, this process may be also used for other aims (see Section B1), such as mobilizing people on inequality, or making the problem of inequality visible. In designing the diagnosis, these different aims of the process should be taken into consideration.
Pay attention to privacy-related problems. In collecting relevant information, privacy-related problems may arise. Anonymity should be ensured so as to avoid any privacy break.To this aim, the current protocols adopted by single institutions or national regulations about data collection and treatment must be respected.
Diversity management: definitions and principles
There are many definitions about what diversity management means.
According to the Financial Times Lexicon, diversity management refers to "company initiatives undertaken to include all employees in company programs and informal social networks".
For the Training Manual on Diversity Management, developed by Keil et al., diversity management refers to "how a company can actively and strategically deal with diversity" and therefore on the activities to be placed into motion in order "to implement effectively a company strategy which integrates diversity as an asset into its identity".
Brazzel (2003) in turn, sees diversity management as an application of applied behavioral science methodology, research and theory in order "to manage organizational change and stability processes (...) that support diversity in organizations in order to improve the health and effectiveness of organizations".
According to Thomas (1991), diversity management is a "strategy to promote values, behavior and working practices which recognize the difference between people and thereby enhance staff motivation and performance and release potential, delivering improved services to customers".
More in general, a diverse workforce can better understand the needs of patients and clients in that it reflects the increasing diverse composition of society.
The concept of diversity may be understood as encompassing any possible variable making individuals different from each other. Moreover, it may be susceptible of being interpreted in different ways according to e.g., kind of organization, national contexts, or business need.
However, in the majority of cases, reference is made to the so-called "core dimensions of diversity" (European Commission, 2012), i.e.:
- Differences in age/generations
- Ability/disability (physical, mental, psychic)
- Ethnicity/race/ cultural/migrational background
- Gender
- Religion/belief/worldview
- Sexual orientation/identity/gender expression.
Also for this reason, even though diversity management is aimed at improving the performance of the organization by making the most of a diverse staff, it is also inevitably and explicitly geared to challenging inequality and "eliminate oppression based on race, gender, sexual orientation and other human differences" (Brazzel, 2003). In fact, without diversity management, "managers and employees may unthinkingly act on prejudices and feel threatened by differences among employees" (Financial Times Lexicon).
Sources:
- Brazzel M. (2003) Historical and Theoretical Roots of Diversity Management, in Deborah L. Plummer (Ed.), Handbook of Diversity Management: Beyond Awareness to Competency Based Learning, Lanham, MD, University Press of America, Inc.,
- European Commission (2012) Implementation Checklist for Diversity Management Support for voluntary initiatives promoting diversity management at the workplace across the EU, Brussels (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/checklist_diversitymanagement_en.pdf)
- Financial Times ft.com/Lexicon (http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=diversity-management)
- Keil M., et al (2007) Training Manual for Diversity Management (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination /files/diversity_training_manual_en.pdf)
- Thomas, R. R. (1991) Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total work force by managing diversity. New York, NY, AMACOM, American Management Association.
Data and information for checking how the organization manages inequality
Many authors and institutions proposed sets of data and information to be used, not to measure inequality levels in the organization, but to understand how the organization is managing inequality and promoting diversity.
To get an idea of which information are mainly considered, some examples are provided below.
Workplace Diversity and Anti-discrimination Assessment Tool
The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) developed an approach to guide health organizations to assess racial discrimination and diversity at the workplace level. Such an approach is aimed at verifying the functioning of the organization in five domains:
- Domain 1: Organizational profile
- Domain 2: Diversity planning and resources
- Domain 3: Communications
- Domain 4: Human resources
- Domain 5: Data collection and monitoring.
For each domain, a set of item and questions are listed to drive the collection of relevant information (the method proposed is based on the analysis of documents produced by the organization).
Domain 1: Organizational profile | |
---|---|
Commitment to diversity and anti-discrimination | 1.1. The organization values, and is committed to, diversity and anti-discrimination |
Creating a welcoming environment | 1.2. The organization acknowledges and provides a welcoming environment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities |
1.3. The organization provides a welcoming environment for people from diverse racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds | |
Domain 2: Diversity planning and resources | |
Diversity planning | 2.1. The organization plans for workforce diversity |
2.2. The organization has specific policies and procedures on responding to race-based anti-discrimination | |
Organizational resources | 2.3. The organization allocates adequate resources to workforce/ workplace diversity and anti-discrimination |
2.4. The organization has a calendar of significant cultural and religious observances | |
Domain 3: Communications | |
Communications | 3.1. The organization has a process for communications in relation to people from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds |
3.2. Organizational publications contain references to and images of people from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds | |
3.3. There is a process for monitoring policies, communications and publications | |
Domain 4: Human resources | |
Recruitment | 4.1. Job advertisements and application information is accessible to people from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds |
4.2. Position descriptions and selection criteria are relevant and accessible to people from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds | |
4.3. The organization provides work experience opportunities and employment pathways to support the employment of people from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds | |
Selection | 4.4. The organization is committed to breaking down barriers in the selection process for applicants from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds |
Retention and management | 4.5. The organization actively supports the retention of people from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds |
4.6. The organization requires active support from managers in the employment and retention of people from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds | |
4.7. The organization recognizes and rewards performance in relation to diversity and anti-discrimination | |
Training | 4.8. The organization provides induction and ongoing training to all employees |
Exiting processes | 4.9. The organization provides an exiting process for all employees, including staff from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds |
Domain 5: Data collection and monitoring | |
Data collection and monitoring | 5.1. The composition of the workforce includes people from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds |
5.2. The organization monitors employee data in line with workforce diversity goals | |
5.3. The organization is compliant with anti-discrimination and equal opportunity legislative and policy requirements and reviews complaints of race-based anti-discrimination | |
5.4. The organization evaluates diversity and anti-discrimination initiatives and programs |
Sources:
- VicHealth (2015) Localities Embracing and Accepting Diversity (LEAD) Workplace diversity and anti-discrimination assessment tool (file:///C:/Users/Utente/Downloads/VH_LEAD%20Toolkit_workplaces_FORM%20(2).pdf)
Royal College of Nurses
The UK Royal College of Nurses developed a resource guide to assess the progress that health care employers have made in promoting diversity and equality in the workplace, proposing a set of questions mainly concerning procedures and approaches adopted by the organization in dealing with diversity. Even though the resource guide is focused on nurses, the questions proposed involve all the staff.
Section B of the document dwells upon the identification of the areas to be reviewed for making an appraisal of the situation, focusing on 7 core diversity issues, i.e., age, disability, gender equality at work, fitness to work, race and ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation/transexualism.
In the following scheme, for each core diversity issue, the key questions the appraisal should be based upon are reported.
Diversity issue | Questions |
---|---|
Age |
|
DISABILITY |
|
GENDER |
|
FITNESS TO WORK |
|
RACE AND ETHNICITY |
|
RELIGION |
|
SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND TRANS-SEXUALISM |
|
Sources:
- Royal College of Nursing (2002) Diversity appraisal resource guide (https://www2.rcn.org.uk/__ data/assets/pdf_file/0008/70874/diversity-appraisal.pdf)
Diversity Assessment Tools
Wendy Cukier and Shelley Smarz made a comparative analysis of different diversity assessment tools. One of the outcomes of their work is the table below, where the issues considered in assessing diversity by six different assessment tools are listed.
1. LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE |
Does the board consider diversity in identifying and developing candidates? |
Do senior executive pro-actively communicate the importance of diversity inside and outside the organization? |
Do leaders reflect the composition of the workforce? |
Is there a diversity council? |
Is there a Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) at the Senior VP level with lines of authority? |
Has the business case for diversity been developed and widely communicated? |
Are explicit diversity goals and policies in place and communicated internally and externally? |
Are there well-developed mechanisms to handle employee complaints about harassment and discrimination? |
Is performance and compensation for managers tied to meeting diversity targets? |
Are there diverse leaders with profile internally and externally? |
2. STRONG AND TRANSPARENT HUMAN RESOURCES PRACTICES |
a. Recruitment |
Are reviews of vacant positions undertaken to ensure that the qualifications required fit the demands of the job? |
Are vacant positions posted? |
Do recruiters specifically target underrepresented groups? |
Do all internship, co-op, and placement programs have diversity targets? |
Are selection committees representative? |
Are bias-free interviewing processes used? |
b. Performance Management |
Is accountability for diversity targets and practices built into performance management systems? |
c. Promotion |
Does succession planning take into account diversity targets? |
Are high potential employees from underrepresented groups given opportunities to take "stretch" assignments? |
Are promotional opportunities and processes communicated openly and clearly to employees? |
Are career planning systems in place to support employees? |
d. Education, Training and Knowledge Building |
Is diversity tracked in employee separations (retirements, dismissals, voluntary exits, layoffs)? |
Are exit interviews conducted and are the results acted upon? |
e. Training and Developing talent |
Does orientation for new employees address diversity? |
Do all employees receive mandatory training on diversity? |
Do managers receive specialized training on diversity? |
Sources:
- Cukier W., Smarz S. (2012) Diversity Assessment Tools: A Comparison, The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, Vol. 11, pp.49-64
Data and information for measuring inequality
Different batteries of indicators have been developed in the last decades to measure inequality in the organization and to monitor how inequality changes over time. The attention is then more focused on inequality dynamics rather than on how the organization faces with inequality-related problems.
The effort to identify this kind of indicators has been prevalently made to measure gender inequality. Some examples are provided below.
Great Osmond Street Hospital for Children
FESTA Project
In 2014, under the "Female Empowerment in Science and Technology Academia" FESTA Project, co-funded by the European Commission, a Toolkit has been drafted with the aim of collecting, generating and using statistics for raising awareness and developing actions to sustain equality between women and men in research organizations.
The Toolkit suggests a procedure research institutions may apply in order to develop a battery of indicators tailored on their own features and needs. Such a procedure has been tested by the FESTA consortium members on their own organization. Two examples are provided in the following schemes.
The first example refers to the Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule, based in Aachen, Germany. Indicators are organized in four dimensions, in turn organized in some sections.
1. GENDER MAINSTREAMING IN RESEARCH |
DEGREE OF GENDER ASPECTS IN RESEARCH |
- Indicator: Funded projects with gender aspects |
POSITION OF WOMEN IN SCIENCE |
- Indicator: Share of projects led by women |
- Indicator: Female share of invited conference presentations / other presentations |
- Indicator: Female share of publications |
- Indicator: Prizes/Awards/Honors held by women relative to the entire population |
2. GENDER MAINSTREAMING IN EDUCATION |
DEGREE OF GENDER COMPETENCE OF TEACHING STAFF |
- Indicator: Courses with gender aspects in the headline of the course announcement in relation to all courses |
- Indicator: Courses with gender aspects in the announcement description in relation to all courses |
GENDER SENSITIVE DISTRIBUTION OF EDUCATION WORK LOAD |
- Indicator: Share of women who carry out educational tasks relative to the share of women at the faculty |
3. GENDER EQUALITY IN HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT |
DEGREE OF GENDER EQUALITY IN CAREER DEVELOPMENT |
- Indicator: Contract conditions (part time/full time, duration of contracts) |
- Indicator: Success rate of applications for professorships of men and women |
- Indicator: Age at first appointment on professorship |
- Indicator: Status of professorship (short-term / long-term contract) |
- Indicator: Share of women in boards and committees |
- Indicator: Share of female PhD-students with scholarship/with contract |
- Indicator: Personnel talk before maternity/parental leave |
4. NON-DISCRIMINATING ORGANIZATION |
DEGREE OF GENDER EQUALITY IN BUDGETING |
- Indicator: Negotiated resources in appointment negotiations (salary and equipment) |
- Indicator: Negotiations with professors to remain (and appointment procedures with assistant professors) |
- Indicator: Salary including bonus of scientific staff |
- Indicator: Financing of projects led by women and men |
- Indicator: Expenses for gender equality measures |
GRADE OF HOMOGENIZATION IN THE SCIENTIFIC CAREERS |
- Indicator: CVs of male and female professors |
- Indicator: Analyses of follow-up contracts in relation to former contract after obtaining a PhD degree |
WORK (SCIENCE)/LIFE BALANCE |
- Indicator: Maternity and Parental leave |
- Indicator: Exit and re-entry talks |
- Indicator: Reduction in working hours due to care of family members |
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF GENDER EQUALITY AND GENDER MAINSTREAMING |
- Indicator: Presence of gender structures |
- Indicator: Presence of gender experts |
- Indicator: Presence of gender concepts in the institutional communication |
- Indicator: Presence of gender aspects in the institutional strategies |
The second example is that of Bruno Keller Foundation, a research institute based in Trento, Italy. Three dimensions are considered. All indicators are based on data split by gender.
1. GENDER EQUALITY IN WORKING CONDITIONS |
- Female presence – The gender composition of research centers and units allow to identify the extent of (possible) gender gaps in specific units and research domains. |
- Terms of employment – The gender composition of some terms of the occupational condition (as well as the specific benefits associated with them) have been considered . |
- Salary – This measures of the extent of the (possible) gender pay gap. |
- Sick leave – This can be considered as a proxy of the quality of workplace well-being. |
2. GENDER EQUALITY IN CAREER DEVELOPMENT |
- Promotion – This offers a snapshot of organizational career mobility and the possibility of identification of factors of career promotion or hindrance |
- Turn-over rate |
- Recruitment – this offers information on the gender composition of the applicants to the available positions, of the selected candidates and of the members of the selection committee: gender distribution of the applicants to (open and internal) research calls, winner candidates and members of the evaluation committee |
- Leadership – this is a scientific career indicator which provides a measure of the gender composition of the leadership positions (with formal power and responsibilities); it shows (possible) glass ceiling effect. |
GENDER EQUALITY IN RESEARCH ACTIVITIES |
- Network – Participation in conferences by gender- this is both an indicator of performance and of the chance to be part of formal and informal networks of the scientific communities (and, thus, the possibility to take advantage from them, in terms of resources, information, references..); Networks can also offer opportunities for career development. |
- Publications – they are measures of the scientific performance and constitute one of the research evaluation criteria. |
Sources:
- FESTA Project (2014), FESTA Toolkit WP3.2, Towards Raising Orgnizational Awareness, FESTA project (http://www.festa-europa.eu/public/report-festa-toolkit-wp32-towards-raising-organizational-awareness)
Science Europe
Science Europe - an association of European Research Funding Organizations (RFO) and Research Performing Organizations (RPO), based in Brussels – has published in 2017 a practical guide for improving gender equality in research organizations, which also includes a set of indicators to apply for monitoring the gender distribution in the national pool of researchers, in Research Funding Organizations and in Research Performing Organizations.
As for Research Performing Organizations, the proposed indicators are summarized in the following scheme.
1. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERNAL OPEN RESEARCH POSITIONS |
- Share of women and men among applicants (broken by scientific field, academic position, temporary or permanent position, part-time or full-time position) |
- Share of women and men among persons recruited broken by scientific field, academic position, temporary or permanent position, part-time or full-time position) |
- Success rate for women and men applicants, i.e. number of women/men recruited divided by the total number of women/men applying for a position (broken by scientific field, academic position, temporary or permanent position, part-time or full-time position) |
2. INTERNAL PROMOTIONS FOR RESEARCH POSITIONS |
- Share of women and men among applicants for promotion (broken by scientific field and academic position) |
- Share of women and men among promoted researchers (broken by scientific field and academic position) |
- Success rate for women and men applicants, i.e., number of promoted women/men divided by the total number of women/men applying for promotion (broken by scientific field and academic position) |
3. GENDER BALANCE IN THE RECRUITMENT OR PROMOTION BOARDS AND IN DECISION-MAKING BODIES |
- Share of women and men in recruitment or promotion boards (broken by scientific field) |
- Share of women and men among heads of recruitment or promotion boards (broken by scientific field) |
- Share of women and men in decision-making bodies (broken by scientific field) |
4. GENDER BALANCE AMONG THE RESEARCHERS EMPLOYED AT THE ORGANIZATION |
- Share of women and men among employed researchers (broken by scientific field, academic position, temporary or permanent position, part-time or full-time position) |
Sources:
- Science Europe (2017) Practical Guide to Improving Gender Equality in Research Organisations (http://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/SE_Gender_Practical-Guide.pdf)
Great Osmond Street Hospital for Children
In the Great Osmond Street Hospital for Children (GOSH), an analysis on the staff is annually carried out with the aim of monitoring equal opportunities and unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimization.
The information collected each year are summarized below. The variables taken into consideration for each piece of information are put in brackets.
RACE |
- Staff by ethnic origin (White, BME – Black and minority ethnic, not known) |
- Breakdown of BME (Black, Asian, Other mixed, not known) |
- Staff groups by ethnic origin (White, BME , not known x Whole staff, Administrative and Clerical, Allied health professionals, Estates, ancillary and non-registered clinical support, medical and dental, nursing registered, scientific and technical) |
- Pay Band by ethnic origin (White, BME , not known x pay bands) |
- Salary by ethnic origin (White, BME , not known x <£25,000, >£40,000) |
- Clinical excellence awards by ethnic origin (White, BME , not known x eligibility, applications, awarded professionals |
AGE |
- Staff by age (16 to 29, 30 to 49, 50 to 59, 60+) |
- Staff groups by age (16 to 29, 30 to 49, 50 to 59, 60+ x Whole staff, Administrative and Clerical, Allied health professionals, Estates, ancillary and non-registered clinical support, medical and dental, nursing registered, scientific and technical) |
- Pay Band by age (16 to 29, 30 to 49, 50 to 59, 60+ x pay bands) |
- Salary by age (16 to 29, 30 to 49, 50 to 59, 60+ x <£25,000, >£40,000) |
GENDER |
- Staff groups by gender (female, male x Whole staff, Administrative and Clerical, Allied health professionals, Estates, ancillary and non-registered clinical support, medical and dental, nursing registered, scientific and technical) |
- Pay band by gender (female, male x pay bands) |
- Gender by salary (female, male x <£25,000, >£40,000) |
- Clinical excellence awards by gender (female, male x eligibility, applications, awarded professionals |
DISABILITY |
- Staff by disability (Disabled, Non-disabled, unknown/not declared) |
- Staff groups by disability (Disabled, Non-disabled, unknown/not declared x Whole staff, Administrative and Clerical, Allied health professionals, Estates, ancillary and non-registered clinical support, medical and dental, nursing registered, scientific and technical) |
- Pay band by disability (Disabled, Non-disabled, unknown/not declared x pay bands) |
- Salary by disability (Disabled, Non-disabled, unknown/not declared x x <£25,000, >£40,000) |
MARITAL STATUS |
- Staff by marital status (married, civil partnership, divorced, legally separated, single, widowed, unknown) |
RELIGION OR BELIEF |
- Staff by religion (Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, Other) |
SEXUAL ORIENTATION |
- Staff by sexual orientation (Bisexual, Gay, Heterosexual, not disclosed, Lesbian, undefined) |
RECRUITMENT ACTIVITY |
- Recruitment activity by ethnic origin (White, BME, Black, Asian, Chinese, Mixed race, other, not disclosed x total applicants, total appointed) |
- Recruitment activity by gender (female, male, not stated x x total applicants, total appointed) |
- Recruitment activity by disability (Disabled, Non-disabled, unknown/not declared x total applicants, total appointed) |
- Recruitment activity by age (16 to 29, 30 to 49, 50 to 59, 60+ x total applicants, total appointed) |
- Recruitment activity by religion (Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, Other x total applicants, total appointed) |
- Recruitment activity by sexual orientation (Bisexual, Gay, Heterosexual, not disclosed, Lesbian, undefined x total applicants, total appointed) |
- Recruitment activity by marital status (married, civil partnership, divorced, legally separated, single, widowed, unknown x total applicants, total appointed) |
LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT |
- Course attendance by age by ethnic group (White, BME, Black, Asian, Chinese, Mixed race, other, not disclosed x current staff trained as % of current staff) |
- Course attendance by age (16 to 29, 30 to 49, 50 to 59, 60+ x current staff trained as % of current staff) |
- Course attendance between by gender (female, male, not stated x x current staff trained as % of current staff) |
Sources:
- Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children (2016) Data about our staff: For publication January 2017 (file:///C:/Users/Utente/Downloads/Data%20about%20our%20staff%20for%20publication%20Jan17.pdf)
Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón
The Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón, in Spain, carried out a collection of data and information for preparing the Gender Equality Plan for the period 2014-2017. Data refer to ten different dimensions, as shown in the following scheme.
1. STRUCTURE |
- Staff by gender |
2. STAFF DISTRIBUTION |
- Heads of units and departments by gender |
- Staff of units and departments by gender |
- Technical staff by gender |
- Administrative staff by gender |
- Not qualified staff by gender |
- Staff by gender and age groups (<20, 29 to 29, 30 to 45, over 45) |
- Staff by professional level and gender |
- Staff by length of service and gender |
- Staff by working hours per week and gender |
- Part-time staff and full-time by gender |
- Terminations of employment by reason and gender |
- Temporary leaves by reason and gender |
- New hired staff by type of contract and gender |
- New hired staff by professional level and gender |
3. PROMOTIONS AND PROFESSIONAL CAREER |
- Applications for promotions by gender |
- Promotions by gender |
4. TRAINING |
- Trainees by professional levels and gender |
5. WORK-LIFE BALANCE |
- Staff with dependents (sons/daughters, other relatives) by gender |
- Staff using work-life balance measures (parental leaves, leaves of caring dependents, flexible working hours schemes) by gender |
6. WORKERS' REPRESENTATIVES |
- Trade Union delegates by gender |
- Members of negotiation committee by gender |
7. WAGE |
- Staff by basic wage groups without allowances and supplementary payments and gender |
- Staff by basic wage groups with allowances and supplementary payments and gender |
8. SEXUAL HARASSMENT |
- Number of complaints |
Other dimensions are analyzed by using qualitative data, i.e., internal communication and health at work.
Sources:
- Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón (2013) Plan de Igualdad del Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón 2014-2017 (http://hospitalprovincial.es/uploads/rrhh/IPI-CHPC-2014-2017-131213.pdf)
Gender Equality Index
Under the EC-funded GENDERTIME project, a model for building a gender equality index for academic institutions has been developed in 2016. An example of index is proposed, including 7 domains. Information are also given about the sources to be used. All the information are intended as broken down by gender.
The proposed index is summarized in the following scheme.
Domain | Sub-domains | Variables | Categories | Sources |
---|---|---|---|---|
Work | Participation | Types of contract |
| Institutional database |
Work | Quality of work | Time for work activities |
| Survey |
Work | Quality of work | Career improvement |
| Survey |
Money | Gender pay gap | Non-institutional activities |
| Survey |
Money | Access to funds | Funds for research |
| Survey |
Knowledge | Products of research | Publications and patents |
| Survey |
Time | Time for care | Care activities |
| Survey |
POWER | Vertical segregation | Academic position |
| Survey |
POWER | Presence in academic bodies | Academic assignment |
| Survey |
HEALTH | Violence | Psychological harassment |
| Survey |
HEALTH | Violence | Sexual harassment |
| Survey |
HEALTH | Violence | Mobbing |
| Survey |
HEALTH | Wellbeing | Wellbeing at work | Opinions (strongly
agree (agree/disagree/strongly disagree) for each statement:
| Survey |
Sources:
- Badaloni S., Manganelli A.M., Perini L., Rocco I. (2016) Domain-based conceptual model to measure Gender Equality in Academia, in S. Badaloni, L. Perini, A Model for building a Gender Equality Index for academic institutions, Padova, Padova University Press (http://www.padovauniversitypress.it/publications/9788869380983)
׋