This glossary has been developed to support users of INSPIRE’s Support Package 5 by providing a clear and consistent reference for key terms related to gender equality in research and innovation. It is intended for a broad range of stakeholders, including staff in research funding organisations, programme designers, policy officers, evaluators, and other professionals working to strengthen inclusive approaches within research systems.
Across institutions and countries, many concepts associated with equality, diversity, and inclusion are used in different ways. While some terms are embedded in legislation or institutional strategies, others have emerged more recently through academic work or policy initiatives. These differences can lead to confusion, especially when implementing funding programmes and evaluation criteria, or when designing gender equality plans.
The glossary responds to this challenge by offering a shared language that supports the practical application of relevant terms. It has been developed through an iterative process involving literature review, policy analysis, and contributions from members of the INSPIRE Community of Practice. As a result, it reflects both conceptual foundations and the practical realities faced by organisations aiming to promote gender equality in research.
This is a living document: The terminology, its usage, and the surrounding policy environment are continuously evolving. Discussions within the Community of Practice contributed to updates and refinements, helping ensure that the glossary remains current, practical, and responsive to new policy developments.
In addition to clarifying terminology, the glossary contributes to a shared understanding of approaches which integrate gender and inclusion in research and innovation content. It supports the application of frameworks developed within INSPIRE such as Inclusive Gendered Innovation (IGI) and Inclusive Gendered Innovation Policies (IGIP), which promote the integration of sex, gender, and intersectional analysis into research content and funding procedures.
The selected terms capture structural aspects of inequality as well as practical tools for implementation. For example, entries such as Bias, Diversity, and Intersectionality address underlying societal and institutional dynamics. Other terms, such as Sex, Gender and Diversity Analysis (SG&DA), offer guidance for implementation.
The definitions are based on established academic and policy sources, including those from the European Commission, the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), and research carried out within the INSPIRE project. This ensures that the glossary offers both conceptual clarity and practical relevance.
Each entry in the glossary includes (1) a short definition of the term, (2) references to related concepts, (3) an explanation of how the term connects to broader approaches that promote inclusion and gender equality in research and innovation content.
Relevance to INSPIRE project
INSPIRE aims to advance inclusive gender equality in R&I systems by supporting institutional change through co-creation, knowledge sharing, and practical implementation tools. One of INSPIRE’s aims is to strengthen the uptake of inclusive approaches throughout the R&I landscape. To this end, the project offers a series of support packages, each addressing specific aspects of transformation.
Support Package 5 focuses on how inclusive gendered perspectives can be integrated into the research and the funding cycle. These two cycles are central organising principles of SPK5:
- The research and innovation cycle—from idea development, analysis, and co-design to implementation and dissemination—is addressed in "For Applicants and Innovators: HOW to do Inclusive Gendered Innovation?".
- The funding cycle—from programming, call design, and applicant support to review, decision-making, and monitoring—is covered in "For Research Funders: HOW to design, implement and embed Inclusive Gendered Innovation Policies".
The glossary complements this package by helping users engage with its content through a shared vocabulary that underpins the key concepts, tools, and approaches introduced in these chapters.
By clarifying concepts that are central to equity, diversity, and inclusion, the glossary fosters more consistent communication between different actors involved in programme development, policy formulation, and evaluation. It supports shared understanding across disciplines, institutions, and national contexts, contributing to INSPIRE’s broader goal of embedding intersectional and inclusive approaches in research and innovation systems.
Target Audience
This glossary aims to support a wide range of users engaging with Support Package 5. While its initial focus lies with research funding organisations, it is equally relevant for researchers, policymakers, evaluators, and practitioners aiming to apply inclusive and gender-sensitive approaches in the R&I ecosystem.
How to use this Glossary
This glossary serves as a practical reference for users of Support Package 5 and can be consulted at different stages of the research and funding cycles.
Each entry includes…
- a brief definition written in clear, accessible language
- connections to related terms that highlight overlaps or distinctions
- relevance to gender-inclusive research and funding practices
The words used in research and innovation are never neutral. Terminology shapes how institutions define problems, identify priorities, and make decisions. It plays a central role in shaping who is included in conversations, which perspectives are heard, and how change is pursued. This is particularly important in the context of gender equality, where language can either reinforce exclusion or promote visibility and fairness.
For the INSPIRE project, which aims to strengthen inclusive gender equality in research and innovation systems, language plays a strategic role. As part of a broader effort to support institutional transformation, INSPIRE promotes the use of inclusive and gender-sensitive language as a tool for change. When the language used in guidelines, evaluations, and calls reflects inclusive values, it sends a message about what matters and who belongs.
Based on research, this glossary reflects the following points:
- Terms related to gender, diversity, and inclusion carry both political and normative weight. They are never just descriptive; they reflect values and influence action. Using precise and inclusive language contributes to a shared understanding of what equity means in practice, and helps create a common ground across diverse institutional and national contexts.
- Inclusive language also supports clarity, accessibility, and fairness. When terminology is consistent and culturally sensitive, it improves communication for everyone. This contributes to institutional transparency and helps align policy messages with the values they are intended to promote.
- Gender-sensitive language supports inclusion by avoiding bias and by recognising all gender identities. This includes moving away from generic masculine forms such as “he” or “chairman,” which studies have shown reinforce male-centered assumptions and make other identities less visible (Stahlberg et al., 2007; Stout & Dasgupta, 2011). When institutions adopt gender-fair language, they help foster environments where more people feel acknowledged, respected, and invited to participate.
- Language shapes perceptions of roles, expertise, and opportunity. Research shows that even subtle wording can activate gender stereotypes or discourage engagement. For instance, statements like “girls are as good as boys at science” still frame boys as the benchmark, implicitly reinforcing unequal norms (Chestnut & Markman, 2018). Similarly, funding calls or job advertisements using masculine-coded language (e.g. “competitive,” “dominant,” “driven”) tend to dissuade women from applying (Gaucher et al., 2011). These effects show how wording influences not only how inclusive a process appears, but also impacts who participates and how decisions are made.
Language is not only a mirror of institutional culture; it is a driver of it. It shapes how policies are received, how credible they appear, and how effectively they can be implemented. By choosing inclusive terms, institutions enhance both legitimacy and impact .
Clear and shared language is essential for advancing change in research and innovation. Terms like equality, inclusion, diversity, and intersectionality are often used together, but they have different meanings and are applied in different ways. This can lead to confusion or weaken their impact in practice.
This glossary builds on two frameworks developed in the project, Inclusive Gendered Innovation (IGI) and Inclusive Gendered Innovation Policy (IGIP).
We also explore four concepts commonly used by policy-makers, researchers, and practitioners working for more inclusive research systems. Drawing on insights from the Community of Practice and ongoing policy debates, we highlight how these concepts relate to one another in terms of their goals, methods, and practical application.
Throughout the INSPIRE Community of Practice (CoP), the use of terminology has been a recurring topic of discussion. The following reflections highlight how language both enables and complicates efforts to foster more inclusive research and innovation systems from the perspective of our CoP members:
Language shapes access and legitimacy: CoP members observed that terms like diversity, inclusion, or intersectionality carry different meanings across national, cultural, and institutional contexts. In some settings, diversity is strongly linked to gender or disability. In others, it includes a broader set of dimensions such as socioeconomic background or disciplinary variety.
Balancing complexity and accessibility: A recurring challenge identified in the CoP was the balance between conceptual precision and practical usability:
- Intersectionality was valued for its analytical strength, especially in revealing how overlapping factors like gender, race, and class shape innovation outcomes. However, funders often found it difficult to operationalise e.g., struggling to translate intersectional insights into clear application criteria or evaluation rubrics.
- Inclusion was considered more intuitive and broadly appealing, used as a guiding principle in programme design and stakeholder engagement. Yet some criticised it for being too vague — prompting questions like “who exactly should be included?” and “how do we measure inclusive practice?”
Context matters: CoP members observed that the relevance of terminology depends on who is using it and for what purpose. Academic and advocacy communities may draw on critical or theoretical language, while research funding organisations or policymakers may favour terms that align with institutional routines and expectations;
- For example diversity is often used in formal strategy documents, whereas equity or intersectionality may be more prominent in scholarly or activist spaces.
Terminology can trigger resistance: Some CoP members noted that certain terms evoke discomfort or resistance, especially when they are perceived as politically charged or imposed. This can create barriers to engagement or collaboration, particularly when stakeholders feel unfamiliar with the language or uncertain about its implications. In these cases, clarity, context, and inclusive communication were seen as essential for building shared understandings.
Language is dynamic: There was broad agreement that terminology evolves as institutions and communities learn from practice. New terms emerge, meanings shift, and usage adapts to changing contexts. CoP members welcomed the glossary as a space where this evolution can be documented, discussed, and made more accessible to those working across disciplines and roles.
The reflections above underscore how language plays a pivotal role in enabling (or constraining) inclusive change across research and innovation systems. Yet as discussions within the Community of Practice have shown, shared terminology alone is not enough. Institutions also need clear frameworks that help translate inclusive values into concrete practices.
This is where the concepts of Inclusive Gendered Innovation (IGI) and Inclusive Gendered Innovation Policies (IGIP) come in. Developed within the INSPIRE project, these frameworks aim to strengthen gender equality through deeper integration of intersectional perspectives in both research and innovation content and the systems that fund and govern them (Karaulova et al, 2023).
These concepts build upon, but also go beyond, existing EU frameworks by addressing structural power dynamics, promoting co-creation with diverse stakeholders, and supporting a systemic transformation approach. Together, they offer a practical roadmap for embedding inclusion and gender equality not only in what research is done—but in how it is shaped, supported, and assessed.
Inclusive Gendered Innovation (IGI) refers to the integration of sex, gender, and intersectional analysis throughout the entire research and innovation process. It moves beyond traditional equality measures by embedding gender perspectives in reflections on how knowledge is produced, technologies are developed, and innovations are delivered. IGI acknowledges that innovation does not occur in a vacuum but is shaped by broader social structures, power relations, and institutional norms (Karaulova et al., 2023).
The IGI approach aims to ensure that innovation processes consider how gender and intersecting inequalities influence access, participation, and impact of research agendas, knowledge production, innovation outcomes, and the institutional systems that support them. It includes a focus on involving a diverse range of stakeholders in research and design. IGI "mainstreams sex, gender and intersectional analysis in the R&D and innovation development processes aiming at promoting inclusive gender equality" (Karaulova et al., 2023, p. 12).
What distinguishes IGI from more traditional gender mainstreaming or diversity initiatives is its commitment to structural transformation. It does not treat gender and diversity dimensions as add-on or isolated variables, but as a constitutive element of quality research and responsible innovation. This perspective resonates with work by Schiebinger and Schraudner (2011), who have long emphasised the need to incorporate gender analysis as a driver of excellence in science and technology.
Inclusive Gendered Innovation Policy (IGIP) provides the strategic and institutional scaffolding necessary to implement IGI. IGIPs encourage the integration of intersectional sex, gender, and diversity analysis (SG&DA) through formal mechanisms such as legislation, policy strategies, targeted funding calls, and evaluation criteria. In this way, they enable and normalise inclusive practices across the entire research and innovation funding cycle.
An important contribution of IGIP is its role in translating RFOs’ abstract commitments to gender equality into concrete institutional practice. By embedding gender considerations into calls, funding criteria and assessments, IGIPs promote a shift from compliance-based approaches toward more systemic and reflexive models of change. IGIPs are therefore not static policies but part of dynamic and ongoing transformation processes, evolving alongside emerging knowledge and institutional needs.
At the level of Research Funding Organisations (RFOs), IGIPs may involve…
- defining, standardising and using SG&DA-related terms
- including gender criteria in application and assessment templates
- offering training for applicants and evaluators for SG&DA
- conducting regular monitoring and evaluation activities (Karaulova et al., 2023)
While IGI and IGIP were developed within INSPIRE, they relate to and expand upon other established frameworks in the European research policy landscape.
- Sex, Gender and Diversity Analysis (SG&DA) is a central concept within Horizon Europe. It supports the systematic integration of sex, gender, and other diversity dimensions in policy design (Hunt et al., 2022).
- IGI is consistent with SG&DA (Sex, Gender, and Diversity Analysis) but goes further by addressing structural conditions like institutional power dynamics, systemic biases in funding and evaluation processes, and the norms that shape knowledge production. It also puts a stronger focus on stakeholder engagement throughout the research process and aims explicitly at transformative change within research and innovation systems.
- Inclusive Gender Analysis (IGA), as introduced by the ERA Forum Subgroup on Gender Equality, aims to ensure that gender analysis includes intersectionality and contextual sensitivity (European Commission, 2025).
- The IGI framework shares these goals and complements them by placing stronger emphasis on embedding inclusive analysis across entire innovation systems, including governance, funding structures, and decision-making processes.
- Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) also contributes to the conceptual foundation of IGI. Both frameworks share an emphasis on anticipation, inclusion, and responsiveness.
- However, IGI places a sharper focus on the integration of intersectional gender analysis as a quality criterion — not only within research content but also in the design of innovation processes, including funding practices and stakeholder engagement mechanisms.
- Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA), although more commonly applied in public policy contexts, shares a concern with the ways policies affect different social groups differently.
- IGIP resonates with this approach by recognising institutional contexts and promoting policy tools that enable equality-oriented change
The core concepts of equality, inclusion, diversity, and intersectionality are foundational to Inclusive Gendered Innovation (IGI) and Inclusive Gendered Innovation Policies (IGIP). While often used together in policy and practice, each concept carries a specific analytical and normative meaning.
Equality refers to the principle that all individuals should have the same rights, responsibilities, and opportunities. In the context of research and innovation, this means eliminating systemic and institutional barriers that prevent specific groups from participating equally in funding, decision-making, or knowledge production processes (European Commission, 2021).
Importantly, equality is more than equal treatment. It also encompasses substantive equality, which calls for proactive and corrective measures to address structural disadvantages and unequal starting conditions. This understanding is central to the EU’s Gender Equality Strategy, which emphasises not only fair treatment but also tackling the root causes of inequality such as biased institutional norms, uneven access to resources, and unequal decision-making power. It also underpins IGI’s transformative approach to structural change, which focuses on changing the rules, processes, and cultures of research and innovation systems — for example, by revising funding procedures, integrating intersectional gender analysis into evaluation criteria, or promoting inclusive governance structures.
Inclusion involves creating conditions in which all individuals and groups, particularly those historically marginalised, can actively participate, contribute, and influence outcomes. Inclusion requires more than simply ensuring that different people are present. It also means that institutional cultures, procedures, and norms support full engagement and respect for diverse knowledge and perspectives (European Commission, 2020a).
In the context of IGI, inclusion focuses on embedding the voices and needs of underrepresented groups into the research and innovation process itself. It supports collaborative models of knowledge production that enable co-design and co-ownership of both problems and solutions.
Diversity refers to the presence and representation of different identities, backgrounds, and experiences within a particular setting. This includes characteristics such as gender, age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, and socio-economic status (EIGE, 2024). Diversity is a visible marker of institutional openness and responsiveness.
However, representation alone does not ensure transformation. When diversity is not accompanied by inclusive cultures and equality measures, structural inequalities may persist. IGI responds to this by framing diversity as an active resource for innovation rather than a passive demographic outcome. Diversity in knowledge production, when it comes to research content, means taking into account diverse perspectives and user needs so that innovation outcomes benefit broader segments of society.
Intersectionality provides a framework for understanding how various forms of inequality, such as racism, sexism, ableism, and classism, intersect and compound each other. Coined by Crenshaw (1989), the concept has since become a central analytical tool in both academic and policy contexts for examining how overlapping identities affect people’s access to opportunities and resources.
In the current European Research Area (ERA) policy context, intersectionality is gaining visibility as a guiding principle for responsible and inclusive research. It is explicitly cited in EU gender equality and research agendas as a requirement for effective and just innovation systems (European Commission, 2023). IGI integrates this perspective by encouraging institutions to move beyond single-axis approaches and to design policies and practices that recognise complexity and address structural disadvantage at multiple levels.
The concepts of equality, diversity, inclusion, and intersectionality we just outlined are often discussed together, yet they capture distinct aspects of systemic change.
- Equality refers to fairness in outcomes, often requiring differentiated treatment to overcome structural disadvantage.
- Diversity highlights the presence of varied identities and experiences, while
- Inclusion speaks to the quality of participation and the conditions that enable it.
- Intersectionality, offers a lens for understanding how multiple social categories such as gender, race, class, and ability interact to shape individual and group experiences of discrimination or privilege.
These concepts are interdependent but not interchangeable.
- Diversity without inclusion can result in symbolic representation without influence.
- Equality without intersectionality may flatten experiences and reinforce existing hierarchies.
Together, these terms support a more comprehensive understanding of how to build equitable and responsive research and innovation ecosystems. They underpin the conceptual foundation of Inclusive Gendered Innovation (IGI) and Inclusive Gendered Innovation Policies (IGIP), which require not just attention to representation, but a structural rethinking of how systems include, value, and respond to difference.
Members of the INSPIRE CoP emphasised the importance of clarity and usability when working with these concepts. While CoP members widely supported the ambition to embed intersectionality and inclusion, they also noted that these terms are often used inconsistently across institutional contexts and national settings. In some organisations, “diversity” has become an umbrella term, while others use “equality” primarily in the legal or procedural sense, with limited attention to lived experience or systemic barriers.
Several CoP members raised the need to balance conceptual precision with accessibility. For example, the term intersectionality was seen as crucial but at times challenging to translate into operational guidance without oversimplifying. Others pointed out that inclusion efforts must go beyond participation metrics and address whether institutional cultures are enabling or marginalising.
The discussions revealed a shared understanding that these terms, while analytically distinct, must be used in a mutually reinforcing way to avoid fragmented efforts.
With this shared conceptual foundation in place, the following section offers the glossary of key terms. These entries aim to clarify usage, support implementation, and promote shared understanding across roles and institutions.
The following glossary builds on the shared conceptual foundation introduced in Chapter 2 and brings together the terms most relevant for promoting inclusive and intersectional approaches in research and innovation (R&I). It serves as a practical companion to the frameworks of Inclusive Gendered Innovation (IGI) and Inclusive Gendered Innovation Policy (IGIP) developed within the INSPIRE project and supports their implementation through clearly defined and consistently used terminology.
Each entry provides:
- a concise and accessible definition,
- links to related concepts that help position the term within broader debates, and
- an explanation of its relevance for inclusive practice in R&I systems.
All terms are accompanied by reliable policy or academic sources to facilitate further exploration or alignment with existing institutional practices.
The following table presents the glossary in a structured, easy accessible format:
| Term | Definition | Relation to Other Concepts | Relevance for IGI(P) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gendered Innovation (European Commission 2020) | The application of sex and gender analysis to improve research design, technological development, and innovation outcomes. | Closely related to SG&DA, as it translates analytical insights into research and innovation practices. While it primarily focuses on improving research content through sex and gender analysis, it complements IGI by providing a strong foundation. IGI builds on this work and extends it toward broader systemic transformation. | Serves as a conceptual and methodological basis for IGI by demonstrating the added value of integrating sex and gender in innovation content. Supports the rationale for IGIP by showing policy relevance of inclusive research results. |
| Sex, Gender and Diversity Analysis (Hunt et al., 2022) | A methodological framework used to assess how sex, gender, and diversity shape research processes and outcomes, and how to integrate these insights meaningfully. | Builds upon intersectionality and underpins Gendered Innovation by providing concrete analytical tools. It supports IGI by offering a structured approach to analysis and aligns with IGI as a criterion for responsible funding. | Forms the analytical core of IGI. IGIP relies on SG&DA to embed inclusive evaluation practices, funding requirements, and policy standards. |
| Gender Dimension in R&I (European Commission, 2020) | The integration of sex and gender analysis in the design, implementation, and evaluation of research and innovation. | Closely tied to SG&DA and Gendered Innovation; whereas SG&DA is a broader analytical framework and includes diversity dimensions, the gender dimension refers specifically to how gender considerations are analyses and integrated into R&I practices. Often operationalised via gender criteria in funding programs. | IGI embeds the gender dimension across all stages of the innovation process. IGIP promotes its integration through formal requirements in funding calls, evaluator training, and project assessments. |
| Inclusive Gendered Innovation (Karaulova et al., 2023) | A systemic approach that embeds sex, gender, and intersectional analysis into research and innovation content and processes, including stakeholder participation and structural change. | Integrates SG&DA and expands upon Gendered Innovation by combining analytical depth with institutional change. Serves as the foundation for IGIP and is grounded in intersectionality and inclusion. | A concept guiding transformative research practice. It informs the design, evaluation, and delivery of inclusive and reflective innovation systems. |
| Inclusive Gendered Innovation Policy (Karaulova et al., 2023) | Institutional policy approach aimed at supporting IGI by embedding inclusive practices through funding structures, application design, assessment criteria, and organisational capacity. | Provides the governance backbone for IGI. Builds on gender mainstreaming and formalises the role of SG&DA. Translates conceptual commitments into actionable structures. | Establishes enabling conditions for IGI by making inclusive innovation a requirement, not an option, within research funding and policy environments. |
| Equality (EIGE, 2024) | The state in which all individuals have the same status, rights, and opportunities regardless of gender, race, or other characteristics. | Anchored in legal and policy frameworks; conceptually distinct from equity, which addresses structural conditions needed to realize equality. | Equality is a long-term goal of IGIP; IGI contributes to it by ensuring equal access to knowledge, participation, and innovation benefits.. |
| Gender Equality (EIGE, 2024) | The state in which individuals of all genders have equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities in all spheres of life. It implies that the interests, needs, and priorities of all genders are equally valued and considered. | A specific form of equality focused on gender; closely linked to equity, gender mainstreaming, and gender balance. Gender equality is both a goal and a benchmark that other concepts such as inclusion and intersectionality help to achieve. | Gender equality is a foundational objective of IGIP. IGI contributes by embedding gender considerations in the design and outcomes of R&I, ensuring that innovations reflect and serve all genders fairly. |
| Equity (McMaster University, 2024) | Acknowledges existing structural inequalities and seeks to address them by allocating resources and support based on individual or group needs. | Closely related to equality but emphasises outcomes and structural redress; complements diversity and inclusion by focusing on fairness of process and access. | Equity underpins IGIP implementation by informing policy design that targets systemic imbalances in research and innovation environments. |
| Diversity (McMaster University, 2024) | The representation of different identities, experiences, and perspectives within a group or institution, including gender, race, ability, etc. | Often treated descriptively (e.g. team composition); requires inclusion and equity measures to be meaningful; intersects with intersectionality when examining compounded status. | IGI ensures that diversity shapes not only team makeup but also research content and outcomes; IGIP fosters structural inclusion of underrepresented voices. |
| Inclusion (McMaster University, 2024) | An active process of creating environments in which all individuals feel respected, valued, and able to contribute meaningfully. | Dependent on both diversity and equity to be effective; inclusion without structural change can lead to tokenism; links to co-creation and participation. | IGI places inclusion at the centre of innovation design; IGIPs support inclusion through evaluation criteria, participation formats, and funding mechanisms. |
| Intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) | An analytical framework examining how multiple social identities (e.g., gender, race, class) intersect to produce unique experiences of inequality. | Cross-cuts all other concepts; sharpens analysis of discrimination, exclusion and power structures; underused operationally but central for understanding systemic inequalities. | IGI and IGIP are grounded in intersectionality as a critical lens for analysing how systems of privilege and disadvantage affect innovation processes and access. |
| Bias (Greenwald & Krieger, 2006) | Implicit or explicit prejudices that shape attitudes and decisions, often unconsciously. Bias can lead to systemic exclusion in professional settings. | Underpins discrimination and stereotypes; rarely acknowledged in institutional practice; reinforces unequal opportunities. | IGIP addresses bias by implementing fair processes, guidance, and training to mitigate its effects in research design and evaluation. |
| Discrimination (EIGE, 2024) | Unjust treatment of individuals based on characteristics such as gender, race, or age. Can occur across institutional structures and interactions. | Rooted in structural bias and exacerbated by intersecting identities; closely linked with inequality and exclusion. | IGIP counteracts discrimination through inclusive policy design, anti-bias procedures, and criteria that support equitable access. |
| Equal Opportunities (EIGE, 2024) | Principle that everyone should have the same chance to access resources, roles, and rights, regardless of identity or background. | Closely linked to equity and equality; focuses on access, while equity addresses structural conditions and support needed to reach it. | IGIP advances equal opportunities through inclusive funding frameworks, fair evaluation, and targeted support for marginalized applicants. |
| Equal Representation (Council of Europe, 2021) | Fair presence of different social groups, especially across gender, in institutions, processes, and decision-making bodies. | Intersects with gender balance and diversity; differs from inclusion in that it is quantitative rather than experiential. | IGIP calls for equal representation to make innovation governance reflective of wider society, ensuring decisions are informed by diverse lived experiences. |
| Gender Stereotypes (EIGE, 2024) | Preconceived ideas about gender roles and behaviors that limit individuals' choices, contributions, or recognition. | Supports bias and discrimination; reinforces exclusion; linked to lack of representation and tokenism. | IGIP challenges gender stereotypes through training, unbiased evaluation, and inclusive communication in research and innovation environments. |
| Gender Balance (EIGE, 2024) | Proportional representation of all genders in a given setting, especially in leadership and decision-making roles. | Related to equal representation and equality; supports inclusion by ensuring gender diversity is reflected structurally, not just symbolically. | IGIP promotes gender balance to ensure that innovation systems benefit from varied perspectives and avoid male-dominated structures in decision-making. |
| Gender Mainstreaming (Council of Europe, 2021) | Strategy for systematically integrating gender perspectives into all stages of policy, program, or project development. | Linked to gender equality, inclusive policies, and intersectionality; focuses on institutional transformation rather than isolated measures. | IGIP uses gender mainstreaming to embed gender considerations in all phases of research funding and innovation processes, making inclusion structural. |
| Gender Equality Plan / GEP (European Commission, 2021) | A strategic document adopted by research-performing or funding organisations outlining institutional objectives, actions, and measures to advance gender equality. | Closely connected to gender mainstreaming and inclusive policies; GEPs serve as a vehicle to operationalise gender equality and integrate SG&DA into institutions. Their scope is broader than IGI, but they enable its adoption. | GEPs create the enabling conditions for IGIP by establishing organisational responsibility for integrating gender and fostering inclusive innovation environments. |
| Gender Pay Gap (EIGE, 2024) | The difference in average gross hourly earnings between women and men across the economy. It reflects inequalities in the labour market, including occupational segregation, part-time work, and unpaid care responsibilities. | Closely tied to precarity, work-life balance, and gender equality. It serves as an indicator of structural discrimination and unequal valuation of work. | IGIP frameworks acknowledge the gender pay gap as a structural barrier in R&I careers. Addressing it supports inclusive research careers and equitable participation in innovation. |
| GEP Requirement (European Commission, 2021) | A mandatory condition under Horizon Europe for public bodies, research organisations, and higher education institutions in EU Member States and associated countries to have a Gender Equality Plan (GEP) in place to be eligible for funding. | Connected to gender mainstreaming, inclusive policies, and institutional transformation. Operationalises gender equality at the organisational level. | The GEP requirement embeds IGIP principles in practice, pushing institutions to implement gender-related policies and structures. It sets a baseline for systemic change in research governance. |
| Work-Life Balance (EIGE, 2024) | The equilibrium between professional responsibilities and personal life, enabling individuals to fulfil both without compromising well-being or career progression. | Intersects with gender equality, inclusion, and precarity. Work-life balance is especially relevant for addressing gendered career gaps and unequal caregiving burdens. | IGIP addresses structural conditions affecting participation in R&I; promoting work-life balance enables more inclusive innovation careers and reduces gendered attrition. |
| Positive Action Measures (Council of Europe, 2021) | Targeted strategies and policies that aim to overcome historical or structural disadvantages experienced by underrepresented groups, including temporary preferential treatment. | Linked to equity and anti-discrimination approaches; complements equality by recognising that equal treatment may not be enough to correct inequalities. | IGIP may employ positive action to redress systemic exclusion in R&I funding or leadership roles, thus accelerating structural change. |
| Precarity (OECD, 2021) | A condition of unstable or insecure employment and income, often affecting early-career researchers and disproportionately impacting women and marginalised groups. | Tied to intersectionality, inclusion, and work-life balance; precarious conditions undermine equality and innovation potential. | IGIP must consider how funding structures may perpetuate precarity, and take steps to support sustainable, inclusive research careers. |
| Inclusive Research Careers (GENDERACTIONplus, 2023) | Research career pathways that are accessible, equitable, and supportive of all individuals, regardless of gender, ethnicity, ability, or family status. They are designed to eliminate structural obstacles to entry, progression, and leadership. | Intersects with work-life balance, gender equality, and intersectionality. Builds on concepts such as fair recruitment, mobility, and career flexibility. | IGI aims to transform R&I ecosystems by promoting inclusive career conditions. IGIP enables this through funding criteria, mentoring, and policy incentives. |
| Nonlinear research careers (GENDERACTIONplus, 2023) | Career paths in research that do not follow a traditional, uninterrupted trajectory. They may include career breaks, sectoral transitions, or changes in pace due to caregiving, health, or personal choices. | Related to inclusion, gender stereotypes, and intersectionality. Challenges traditional meritocracy and productivity metrics. | IGIP recognises the need for flexible funding structures that account for diverse career trajectories. IGI values nonlinear paths as enriching to innovation and representation. |
| Research assessment (CoARA, 2022) | The processes and criteria used to evaluate research quality, impact, and merit. Traditional models focus on outputs like publications, while reform efforts stress openness, societal relevance, and inclusivity. | Tied to inclusive research careers, equity, and gender equality. Can perpetuate biases if narrowly defined; needs alignment with diversity and inclusion values. | IGIP supports research assessment reform by integrating gender and diversity indicators. IGI benefits when assessment frameworks value collaborative, transdisciplinary, and inclusive work. |