GATI Resources

GATI Peer Review Parameters

The GATI Self-assessment process and application will help provide the institution a multi- dimensional perspective on the overarching gender climate prevailing in the institute. The Gender Equity Indicator Framework will take them on a well-structured and guided journey. This would include creating a detailed quantitative data-based gender profile of the institute in STEMM domains; an evidence-based qualitative perspective; well documented review of policies, processes, procedures, practices, programmes and plans; an understanding of barriers and challenges female members of the community encounter especially at key career transition points; enhanced awareness on gender climate and the organizational culture that impacts day-to-day functioning. Most importantly, it will nudge them to identify mechanisms for overcoming barriers and challenges; and create an opportunity for advancing diversity, inclusion and gender equity.

The Self-assessment application will provide the peer reviewers a well-researched narrative that will help them gauge how well the institute has been able to assess and interpret the data and information it has gathered; contextualize and unravel the underpinning barriers and challenges. And most importantly, how the insight gleaned from self-assessment is used by the institute to create specific and relevant actions for removing impediments and disparities; creating more opportunities for female members of the community at all levels; and making a perceptible difference in the prevailing gender climate and organizational culture.

Cognizance is taken of the fact that each Pilot Institution has a distinctive profile and serves a clearly defined mandate. The overarching institutional framework, the context in which it functions, its special strengths and constraints are critical for determining how change can be implemented. However, it is expected that all institutions will move towards compliance with statutory national policies in letter and in spirit. On this continuum, GATI Peer Review and Accreditation process will gauge institutional commitment to upholding universal values of diversity, equity and inclusion. It will evaluate the proposed changes in policies, procedures, practices, and affirmative action plans designed to promote gender equity.

Data and evidence are merely instruments for identifying problems, discrepancies, disparity, inequity, barriers and challenges. Data provides a starting point. Analysis and reflection are the key to contextualizing problems, developing an understanding and determining how best to overcome the barriers and challenges.

The two main pillars of the peer review and assessment process would be (i) how best is the insight gleaned through criteria-based self-assessment presented; and (ii) relevance of action plans developed.

GATI Peer Review Criteria provide a guideline or rubric for evaluation of the self-assessment application. These will help applicants to align their reflective process to match what the Peer Reviewers of the application will be looking for in a successful self-assessment application.

It may be noted that development of the GATI Self-assessment and the Peer Review & Accreditation Framework is a work in progress. It will undergo several rounds of iterative refinement.

The Peer Review Criteria for each criteria/sub-criteria in the self-assessment application is tabulated herein.

S.No.	GATI Self-Assessment Criteria	GATI Peer Review Criteria
	Letter of Endorsement from Head of Institution	Does the leadership demonstrate deepengagement and commitment toaddressing gender equity issues,barriers,challenges and opportunities? Is there validation and endorsement ofthe work of GSAT,and itsrecommendations for specific andrelevant actions along dimensionsexplored? Is the institution committed toimplementation of prioritized short-term and long-term SMART ActionPlans as part of the institution’sstrategic vision?
1	GATI Self-Assessment Process	Does GSAT demonstrate a goodrepresentation of the institutionalcommunity,role allocation and fairdistribution of work? Has the workflow been sufficientlywell documented to indicate theconsultative processes? Does the executive overview ofinstitutional strengths,weaknesses,opportunities,challenges demonstratean objective and reliable appraisal ofthe self-assessment process?
2	Gender Profile of the Institution
2.1	Overarching Picture of the Institution	Does the overarching picture give a comprehensive idea about the institution and its distinctive character? Do the strategic plans indicate commitment to enhancing gender equity?
2.2	Organizational and Administrative Structure
2.3	Data Overview	Has the data been interpreted to identify gender disparities across the pipeline with comparison across STEMM and Non-STEMM disciplines; and within STEMM disciplines? Are issues of leaky pipeline understood and correlated with the data? Is there reflection on how to enhance gender equity across the pipeline?
2.4	Data Timeline Trends	Have the data timeline trends been interpreted to identify gender disparities across the pipeline with comparison across STEMM and Non-STEMM disciplines? Have the data timeline trends been interpreted to identify gender disparities and within STEMM disciplines? What initiatives has the institution been implementing/ or plans to implement to address intersectionality and enhance gender equity?
2.5	Gender Profile in STEMM Domains	Is there reflection on domain specific differences in enrollment and out-turn and focused actions to address the issue? Has intersectionality been examined to determine special challenges faced by reserved category students and first-generation entrants in higher education? Is the data examined to understand how the numbers change up the career ladder; and reasons thereof?
3	Gender Advancement, Career Progression and Leadership
3.1	Starting the Career: Equal Opportunity
	1. Recruitment	Has the data been examined to determine if eligible talent pool is provided equitable opportunity free from bias? How does the institution define ‘merit’ while evaluating applications? Is there an understanding of the need for constituting inclusive committees for recruitment, with sensitization towards obvious-bias? Are there outreach measures to enhance the number of female applicants and create gender responsive policies for recruitment?
	2. Induction	Has the process of induction been examined to determine gender differences in uptake of mentoring programmes, allocation and utilization of resources? Has evidence been examined to determine the efficacy of support policies in developing a sense of belonging? Has evidence been examined to determine how equitable growth opportunities are?
3.2	Professional Development and Progression
	1. Training and Capacity Building	Do capacity building programmes address issues of diversity, inclusion and equity at all levels? Is there a considered effort to ensure continuous support for capacity building and not limit it to a minimum statutory requirement for promotions? Have the differences in uptake across gender, disciplines and departments been examined and correlated with career progression?
	2. Performance Appraisal and Development Training	Have the policies on appraisal and development training been examined to understand timely, pertinent and unbiased institutional support and value of feedback? Has evidence been examined to determine level of satisfaction with appraisal and oversight mechanisms? Is there sufficient evidence to understand gender differences across departments?
	3. Progression and Promotion	Has the faculty data on promotions been analyzed to understand differences in gender perception? Has the faculty data on promotions been analyzed to check how gender responsive the criteria are and if setback/gender gaps arise because of maternity and childcare leave? Is there an understanding on female underrepresentation in higher posts?
	4. Retention/Attrition, Lateral Mobility, Vertical Progression	Are there discernible patterns in gender uptake of opportunities for lateral mobility, and vertical progression and impact thereof? Are reasons for attrition examined and related to gender climate at the departmental and institutional level?
3.3	Progression to Leadership
	1. Gender Profile of Heads of Departments	Has the data been examined to determine if appointments are fair, transparent and inclusive? Have the experiences of female heads of departments been recorded to determine special challenges they face; and how the institution facilitates successful tenure?
	2. Representation on Senior Management and Decision-Making Committees	Have the reasons for gender imbalance in decision-making bodies been examined? Is there a proactive effort to enhance the female representation in apex committees and decision-making bodies? Have the experiences of female representatives on apex bodies been recorded to determine special challenges they face; and how the institution facilitates successful tenure?
	3. Leadership Capacity Development	Does the institution have a policy on leadership training and succession plans? Have the experiences of female faculty looking for leadership positions been explored to determine how concerns can be addressed? Are there gender differences in allocation of administrative and managerial tasks that provide experience of leadership?
4	Gender Policies, Processes, Procedures, Practices
4.1	Supporting Work-Life Dynamics
	1. Maternity/Adoption/Paternity Leave	Are there formal policies or non-formal practices for extending support and flexible work conditions before, during and after maternity leave? Is the uptake of paternity leave data examined to promote practice? Is evidence gathered to determine if female staff perceives maternity leave has impacted their appraisal/ progression?
	2. Child Care Leave	Are there formal or non-formal practices for extending support and handling workload issues for those with child care needs? How effectively are competing demands for child care leave addressed?
	3. Caring Responsibilities	Are there formal policies or non-formal practices for extending support and handling workload issues for those with caring responsibilities?
	4. Managing Careers, Breaks and Flexibility	Has data been examined at all levels, especially for early career faculty to examine instances of career break? How encouraging are policies with regard to career opportunities for those returning after a break? Are there adjustments allowed in eligibility conditions (age, experience, academic criteria) to facilitate female aspirants and faculty?
4.2	Infrastructure and Welfare Support
	1. Family Support Services	How comprehensive is the provision of family support services? Is there provision for faculty to apply for childcare support during participation in conferences? What is the perception about the quality of family support services?
	2. Gender-sensitive Facilities	What is the perception about the quality of gender sensitive facilities such as hygienic toilets etc. on the campus and their maintenance? Is the institution perceived as receptive to requests for additional facilities and/or maintenance of standards of existing facilities?
	3. Safety and Security	How comprehensive is the safety and security protocol; and how often is the quality of services reviewed? Are there mechanisms for addressing specific safety and security problems faced by female members of the community? Is care taken to ensure that freedom of female members is not impacted while providing safety and security?
4.3	Dignity at Work
	1. Addressing Sexual Harassment	How well does the institution address the core issue of ensuring gender sensitization; and creating a safe, secure, inclusive and nurturing environment for all? Have recorded cases of sexual harassment and action taken been examined for time-bound compliance with statutory policies and functioning of ICC? How well is the policy on sexual harassment publicized especially in case of hierarchical relationship between students and staff; and how problems are addressed?
	2. Anti-Ragging/Anti-Bullying and Disciplinary Processes	How well does the institution address the core issue of ensuring gender sensitization and creating a safe, secure, inclusive and nurturing environment for all? Has the effectiveness of deterrents, prevention strategies/plans and relationship with organizational culture and gender climate been explored? Are there clearly laid and well publicized policy statements on anti-ragging/anti-bullying, disciplinary processes and mechanisms for redressal?
4.4	Audits, Reviews and Resources
	1. Gender Dimension in Audits	Does the institution maintain comprehensive gender disaggregated data on access to infrastructure, resources, services, and opportunities? Is there a periodic review on equity in access to resources?
	2. Gender Responsive Budget	How does the institution relate resource allocation with efficacy of the initiatives for gender responsive growth? • What has been the budget allocation for initiatives promoting gender equity? Are there policies which encourage gender specific allocation of resources?
5	Gender Climate and Organizational Culture
5.1	Student Support and Curriculum Enrichment
	1. Orientation and Diversity Sensitization	How does the institution evaluate the effectiveness of its orientation programmes for imparting familiarity with the institutional ecosystem and sense of belonging? Has evidence of both positive and negative student experiences been recorded and analyzed?
	2. Gender Issues in Curriculum	How does the institution leverage expertise within the institution to create interdisciplinary perspective on gender issues? How is the impact of such courses in the curriculum evaluated? How does the institution gauge if academic knowledge translates into lived experience?
	3. Diversity and Student Advancement in Science	How does the institution evaluate the academic needs of diverse student populations, including female students? Have issues of intersectionality been considered? How does the institution evaluate the impact of special programmes for advanced learners and slow learners in science and influence on progression?
	4. Feedback and Satisfaction Surveys	How does the institution encourage stakeholders to participate in providing structured feedback, ensuring confidentiality of responses? How does the feedback influence policy, especially in context of gender?
5.2	Gender Responsiveness
	1. Sensitization Programmes	Is there description of how some sensitization programmes have proven to be more successful than others; and how they can be enlarged in scope? Is there an understanding of how various programmes can be leveraged to identify barriers, challenges and opportunities?
	2. Gender Aspects in Research	Is there documented evidence on how research on gender and integration of gender dimension in research can deepen understanding of gender issues? How effective are mechanisms for integrating gender dimension in research? How such research is promoted, encouraged and rewarded?
	3. Workload Models for Committee and Extramural Work	How effectively is gender bias observed in the nature of work allocated to female staff and students? Does the institution demonstrate effective measures to overcome stereotypes in roles and responsibilities across gender?
5.3	Promoting Women in Science
	1. Visibility and Role Models	Is there an evidence-based description of how female, and also male, staff feel about roles given to them at events? Are issues of intersectionality explored? Is there a sensitive understanding of challenges female members of the community encounter at all levels in academic and social events?
	2. Awards and Recognition	How broad-based is the institutional understanding of terms such as ‘merit’ and ‘achievement’? Does evidence suggest bias in recognizing and rewarding the contribution of staff by gender?
5.4	Promoting Science Outreach
	1. Outreach and Engagement Activities	Is there institutional commitment to promoting science at various levels and using this to attract talent towards formal study of science? How is the impact of outreach activities evaluated, especially for female stakeholders?
5.5	Assessing Gender Climate and Organizational Culture	Is there a nuanced understanding of how gender climate and organizational culture impacts performance of individuals? Have the results of the GATI Gender Climate and Organizational Culture survey been shared in a fair and transparent manner? How insightfully have the challenges, barriers and opportunities been correlated with the findings of the survey?
6	Institutional Values, Best Practices and Case Studies
	1. Institutional Values	Does the narrative convey clearly how the institution upholds the universal values of diversity, inclusion and equity in letter and spirit?
	2. Institutional Best Practices	Do the best practices narrated provide an exemplary glimpse into the functioning of the institution? Do the best practices described have the potential for being scaled up and adopted by other institutions?
	3. Case Studies	Do the case studies narrated provide an exemplary glimpse into how individual community members are empowered to overcome barriers, challenges, inequities and leverage opportunities? Do the case studies described have the potential to inspire others?
7	Institutional Strategy for Gender Advancement
	1. Prioritized Short-term SMART Action Plans More detail might be needed here, e.g. is the rationale for action evidence based, are there clear start and end dates for the actions spread across the validity of the award, is there clear responsibility and accountability for each action?	Is the rationale for suggested Short-Term SMART Action Plans sufficiently evidence-based? Are these plans designed to address barriers, challenges and gender inequities as unraveled in the self-assessment process? Are they specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time bound with clear start and end dates? Is responsibility and accountability clearly assigned? Does the institution lay a clear roadmap and allocate adequate resources for implementation of action plans over the stipulated short-term of 18-months?
	2. Prioritized Long-term SMART Action Plans	Is the rationale for suggested Short-Term SMART Action Plans sufficiently evidence-based? Are these plans designed to address barriers, challenges and gender inequities as unraveled in the self-assessment process? Are they specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time bound with clear start and end dates? Is responsibility and accountability clearly assigned? Does the institution lay a clear roadmap and allocate adequate resources for implementation of action plans over the stipulated short-term of 18-months?

Gender Advancement for Transforming Institutions