Few research institutions evaluate their own equality initiatives
A national survey of equality at research institutions shows that measures are implemented, but rarely assessed. A new report highlights a clear need for more evaluation.
The recent report sheds light on how the research sector handles equality, inclusion and diversity action plans.
“Our sample includes institutions that have had action plans in place for varying lengths of time. Many institutions, particularly in the institute sector, have only developed such plans in the last few years. The study therefore also offers insight into the experiences of groups that are still in the start-up phase”, says Brit Lynnebakke.
She is a researcher at the Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU) and is responsible for the report, which was commissioned by the Committee for Gender Balance and Diversity in Research and Higher Education (KIF Committee).
The survey examines how Norwegian research institutions implement, follow up and evaluate the measures in their action plans.
First survey
Every research institution that applies for funding from the Research Council of Norway and Horizon Europe must have a gender equality plan in place. The study examined 76 such plans across universities, university colleges, research institutes and government agencies.
Previous surveys of individual institutions have shown that action plans and dedicated equality and diversity counsellors are important tools in this work. The new report is the first systematic survey spanning the sector.
“My reading of the report is that action plans and systematic follow-up actually work”, says Trine Johansen Meza, deputy chair of Universities Norway, and rector of Kristiania University of Applied Sciences.
“Institutions that actively use the action plans achieve more than those that don’t”, says Meza.
Three main challenges
One of the main findings is that those who coordinate the work in the research organisations generally reported progress and proficiency in their equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) work.
However, the report also highlights several challenges in the sector:
- The way the work is done varies considerably between small and large institutions.
- Few institutions have procedures that ensure measures are evaluated systematically.
- While gender balance is relatively easy to measure, documenting other forms of diversity can be difficult.
Small versus large institutions
Roger Lian, deputy chair of the Association of Norwegian Research Institutes (FFA) and director of NTNU Social Research, is not surprised by the findings.
He highlights the significant differences in how small and large research organisations approach EDI action plans:
“Large organisations tend to have their own HR resources and can therefore work more broadly on EDI measures”, Lian explains.
“That said, the report’s findings suggest that the management of smaller organisations generally provide stronger support for this work than in larger ones”, he says.
More small and medium-sized organisations report close collaboration with management.
Trine Johansen Meza explains that smaller institutions are often more agile and can act more quickly.
“That’s why it’s important that the action plans are developed locally and adapted to the institutions’ needs”, she believes.
Difficult to document diversity
The researchers at NIFU found that smaller institutions often tend to concentrate on gender balance measures, while larger institutions work more broadly across multiple diversity dimensions.
“Documenting diversity beyond gender is still a challenge”, says Meza, pointing out that diversity includes gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability.
“Some dimensions of diversity can be sensitive or difficult to measure. We also have a shorter research tradition and don’t have the same level of statistics on diversity as we do for gender”, says Meza, adding:
“We need to build more knowledge in this area. We must also take targeted action and recruit widely in academia to embrace a broader range of perspectives and experiences, and ensure our relevance to society.”
Very different follow-up
NIFU’s analysis of the action plans shows that the responsibility for implementing and following up individual measures is usually clear: “However, only a few of the institutions mention how they will follow up the outlined EDI measures. Even fewer action plans describe how the measures will be evaluated.”
Most of the respondents in the email survey say that they have procedures for following up EDI measures, while one in five report that such procedures are not in place.
The level of management support varies considerably.
“This may indicate that some organisations regard action plans as a duty, and have yet to internalise the work as an important part of their operations”, says Lian.
Lack established evaluation procedures
Furthermore, 16 of the 43 respondents to the email survey said that they do not have procedures for evaluating EDI measures.
“In light of the EU’s plans to develop a framework for assessing the outcomes of gender equality efforts, it’s interesting to hear EDI actors’ thoughts on evaluation”, says Brit Lynnebakke.
The report suggests a pattern in the sector:
“Procedures for evaluating EDI measures seem to be more established at universities, while follow-up procedures may be more established among research institutes and university colleges”, says Roger Lian.
According to him, this could be because research institutes are more action-oriented.
“It’s part of the organisational culture to do what you say you’re going to do”, says Lian.
Trine Johansen Meza believes that the sector as a whole could do more to make the plans more effective and useful tools.
“As a sector, we should continue to work towards safe and inclusive learning and working environments. This involves clear procedures, good management training and measures that work”, she says.
The report ‘Action Plans for Gender Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Norwegian Research Institutions. Experiences with implementation, follow-up, and evaluation’ (2025) has been prepared by NIFU on commission for the Committee for Gender Balance and Diversity in Research and Higher Education (the KIF Committee).
The report was written by Brit Lynnebakke, Veronica Ski-Berg and Fride Flobakk-Sitter.
The researchers found that the action plans are actively used, but that follow-up and evaluation are often poorly developed. Although most institutions follow up on measures through the Activity and Reporting Duty (ARP), few systematically evaluate them. Small institutions tend to focus on gender balance, while larger ones tend to have a broader diversity perspective. Many call for more knowledge about what actually works and how measures can be adapted to different organisations.
Source: NIFU
The study is based on the experiences of the staff who coordinate the work on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) at Norwegian research institutions.
Some institutions have their own equality and diversity counsellors, but responsibility generally lies with HR or management.
The researchers conducted six focus group interviews with coordinators and managers.
The study included informants from five universities, five research institutes, one government agency and seven university colleges. Both large and small universities are included in the sample.
The researchers also sent an open-ended survey to 82 people in the same target group, to which 43 responded.
In addition, the EDI action plans from 76 institutions were reviewed.
