Quality assurance mechanisms for gender training in the European Union : reflections from the online discussion.
Date: 2014-06-10
Institutions: European Institute for Gender Equality
Subjects: evaluation method, gender equality, position of women, quality control circle, vocational training, women's rights

Quality assurance mechanisms for 
gender training in the European Union

Reflections from the online discussion

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, 
phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

ISBN 978-92-9218-357-8
doi:10.2839/15900

© European Institute for Gender Equality, 2014
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

European Institute
for Gender Equality

Quality assurance mechanisms 
for gender training in the 
European Union

Reflections from the online discussion

This document reflects the process and the views expressed by a range of participants in an online discussion on 
quality assurance mechanisms for gender training in the European Union (EU) held on 18 and 19 September 2013. 
The discussion was the second to be held as part of the study ‘Gender training in the European Union: Mapping, 
research and stakeholders’ engagement (2012–13)’, undertaken by ICF GHK in association with BRIDGE on behalf 
of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). The report was prepared by Jenny Birchall, Hazel Reeves and 
Katerina Mantouvalou.

Neither EIGE nor any other person acting on its behalf may be held responsible for the content of the information 
contained herein.

The work on this publication was coordinated by EIGE’s gender mainstreaming team. A special acknowledgement 
is given to Jenny Birchall and Hazel Reeves for their expertise and moderation during the online event.

3

Foreword

Dear colleagues,

This document reflects the views expressed by a range of participants in an online discussion on quality assurance 
mechanisms for gender training in the European Union (EU) that took place on 18 and 19  September 2013. This was 
the second online discussion held as part of the study ‘Gender training in the European Union: Mapping, research 
and  stakeholders’  engagement  (2012–13)’.  The  discussion  used  the  online  platform  EuroGender  (1)  that  EIGE  has 
developed for its stakeholders. Discussion participants included gender training practitioners, gender training re-
searchers and members of EIGE’s Thematic Network for Gender Training. Over 30 people participated actively in the 
online discussion and an additional 50 followed it. A total of 167 responses were posted, from 16 countries across 
Europe as well as from the United States (US) and the Caribbean.

Sufficient gender equality competence of staff at all levels of public administration is a prerequisite for the successful 
implementation of gender mainstreaming. It is of particular importance to make sure that the quality of training is 
adequate and that it is fit to address the knowledge and skills gaps of civil servants across the EU. Looking for ways 
to make sure that gender equality training meets the needs well and is organised in an effective way is challenging, 
but necessary at the same time.

We thank Hazel Reeves, an independent gender consultant, and Jenny Birchall, from the BRIDGE team at the Insti-
tute of Development Studies in the United Kingdom, who facilitated the discussion. We also thank all the partici-
pants, who have devoted their precious time to express views and give ideas with regard to the quality standards for 
gender equality competence development. Your engagement is greatly valued and your thoughts will undoubtedly 
contribute to the improved quality of gender training initiatives across the EU.

Virginija Langbakk
Director
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

1 

http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/ 

4

Quality assurance mechanisms for gender training in the European Union  –  reflections from the online discussion

Background to the online 
discussion

This  time  the  discussion  centred  on  the  following 
questions.

  Why is there a need to introduce quality assurance 

mechanisms in gender training?

  What are the options for quality assurance 

mechanisms to improve the quality of gender 
training in Europe?

‘Due to its strategic position, the European 
Institute for Gender Equality could contribute 
to the ongoing debate on quality standards 
for gender training at an EU level by building 
bridges between gender trainers, academia 
and policymakers.

Reflections  from  the  conference  ‘Advancing  gender  train-
ing  to  support  effective  gender  mainstreaming’,  13  and 
14 November 2012 (2)

The discussions on the need to establish minimum qual-
ity standards and accreditation mechanisms on gender 
training in the EU have been around for a while. This topic 
inevitably came up as an issue during the first online dis-
cussion on gender training organised by EIGE in 2012 (3). 
Back  then  the  participants  were  outspoken  about  the 
need for quality assurance and standardisation of gen-
der training programmes and accreditation systems that 
are flexible and adaptable for audience needs, focus on 
outcomes  more  than  content  and  provide  minimum 
standards and general principles to follow. Similar ideas 
where expressed during a number of further occasions, 
including expert meetings organised by EIGE and a Eu-
ropean  conference  ‘Advancing  gender  training  to  sup-
port  effective  gender  mainstreaming’  organised  on 
13 and 14 November 2013 in Vilnius, Lithuania.

2 

3 

‘Advancing gender training to support effective gender 
mainstreaming: reflections from the conference’: http://eige.
europa.eu/content/document/advancing-gender-training-
to-support-effective-gender-mainstreaming-reflections-
from-conference 
‘Gender training in the European Union: reflections from the 
online discussion’: http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/
gender-training-in-the-european-union-reflections-from-
the-online-discussion 

EIGE5

Why do we want quality 
assurance mechanisms?

Online discussion participants identified three main rea-
sons why we need quality assurance mechanisms in the 
European Union:

To ensure that training leads to 
better gender equality outcomes

 
 

 

to improve the quality of training;
to ensure that training leads to better gender 
equality outcomes;
to improve the process of commissioning training.

To improve the quality of training

Research  findings  from  the  study  on  gender  training 
in  the  EU  suggested  that  gender  training  is  diverse: 
approaches  to  gender  training  differ  and  quality  and 
results  often  vary.  Taking  this  into  consideration,  most 
online  discussion  participants  thought  that  quality  as-
surance mechanisms for training would be useful. Cur-
rently anyone can call themselves a gender trainer and 
any organisation can offer gender training. The premise 
of  this  online  discussion  was  that  the  gender  compe-
tence  of  public  administrators  and  policymakers  is  of 
paramount  importance  if  gender  mainstreaming  is  to 
work. Assuring quality of the competence development 
processes therefore deserves specific attention.

If we are talking about training for institutional capacity 
development — quality of training is closely related 
to the quality of the overall institutional capacity 
development strategy and its relevance to the very 
specific context of people’s working environment. So yes, 
there is need for quality assurance of the training design, 
delivery and evaluation process: relevance, inclusiveness, 
(potential) impact on behavioural change. (Benedetta 
Magri, ITC/ILO, Italy)

A common theme emerging from the discussions was 
that gender training — if it is of real quality — should 
have  clear  objectives,  including  in  relation  to  attitude 
and behaviour change. We were reminded that gender 
training requires strong political commitment and is not 
only a technical process.

There is a lot of training being done of very diverse 
quality with very diverse results. For GTC [UN Women 
Global Training Centre] the quality of gender training 
is directly linked to its desired end result/impact, 
i.e. gender equality. Therefore we refer to ‘training for 
gender equality’ … a transformative process that aims 
to provide knowledge, techniques and tools to develop 
skills and changes in attitudes and behaviours. We 
envisage it as a long‑term continuous process that 
requires political will and commitment from all parties 
involved (both decision‑makers and trainees) with the 
objective of creating an aware, competent and gender 
equitable society. (UN Women Global Training Centre, 
Dominican Republic).

There was agreement that a quality assurance mechanism 
that  involves  just  ticking  boxes  around  the  process  will 
not necessarily lead to better gender equality outcomes. 
Any mechanism should be embedded in organisational 
learning and development processes. It should serve the 
end goal of improvements leading towards gender equal-
ity, including transformative behaviour change, and help 
to keep gender equality as the focus of policies.

6

Quality assurance mechanisms for gender training in the European Union  –  reflections from the online discussion

I’m all for quality criteria in themselves: they would 
offer a tool to organisers of gender training and help 
them verify the quality of the training modules that 
are offered. I see these quality criteria that I as a trainer 
could use in my negotiation with those interested in 
organising gender training. Very often the quality of 
gender training is not what it could be, not so much 
because of the trainer or the lack of quality of materials 
and methods, but because of the often very restrictive 
demands of the organiser (budget, training length, etc.). 
(Katlijn Demuynck, Genderatwork, Belgium)

To improve the process of 
commissioning training

Some  participants  felt  that  quality  assurance  mecha-
nisms (whether in the form of certification or standardi-
sation) could benefit trainers in their negotiations with 
those  commissioning  training,  providing  legitimacy. 
And  in  turn,  they  would  assist  bodies  commissioning 
training to understand more about quality training and 
the outcomes it could achieve. They would also provide 
a clearer picture with regard to what qualifications good 
gender trainers should possess.

I believe that one solution could be to help companies 
and municipalities to know what to ask for. Some sort 
of demands on what to expect from a gender equality 
consultant would be more helpful than [giving] the 
consultants certification. (Jenny Claesson, Add Gender 
AB, Sweden)

EIGE7

What are the key issues in relation 
to quality assurance mechanisms?

Participants identified the following areas where further 
discussion is needed before we start developing a qual-
ity assurance framework in the European Union.

equality outcomes, given the frequent lack of resources 
and political will behind building gender competencies.

  We need to clarify why quality assurance 

mechanisms are wanted.

  We need to define ‘quality of training’ and agree on 

who sets the standards.

  We must take into account the importance of 

context.

  We need to systematically evaluate existing training 

programmes.

Clarifying why quality assurance 
mechanisms are necessary

In  their  comments,  contributors  stressed  that  we  pos-
sibly jumped to discussing the different types of qual-
ity  assurance  mechanisms  before  we  were  clear  what 
purpose quality assurance mechanisms serve. They un-
derlined that the broader context of quality assurance 
needs to be considered first.

I think it would be helpful if we made clear what we 
specifically want to promote with quality assurance 
mechanisms — as this is still not really clear to me. Not 
that we should all agree, by any means … And I am not 
saying that we have to define quality. Instead, I think 
it would be useful to know — what kind of changes in 
the training happening now does each trainer believe 
quality assurance mechanisms will make? Or what kind 
of changes should they make? (Krini Kafiris, Greece).

It  emerged  that  there  is  not  yet  any  common  under-
standing on some basic terms and the language to de-
scribe certain quality assurance mechanisms.

… we have different approaches depending from 
which perspective we are talking. It’s interesting 
but hard to discuss so openly when you are not sure 
everyone means the same with ‘quality’, ‘certificate’, 
‘gender training’ or even ‘gender equality’ for that 
matter. (Alice Marshall, Add Gender AB, Sweden).

Not  everyone  was  convinced  that  quality  assurance 
mechanisms  are  the  answer  for  improving  gender 

There is increasingly limited time and funding for 
gender training and little political commitment to 
it — at institutional but also individual levels. This 
includes participants … How can gender training be 
developed with these issues in mind so that it can make 
a difference? I am not convinced that quality assurance 
mechanisms — as I understand them at least — [are] 
the way to go. (Krini Kafiris, Greece)

Defining ‘quality of training’ and 
agree on who sets the standards

Participants  did  have  some  concerns  around  the  idea 
of quality assurance mechanisms. They wondered who 
would define quality, who would set the standards and 
who  would  monitor  and  evaluate  them.  In  addition, 
questions  were  asked  about  the  relationship  between 
standardisation, quality assurance and effectiveness. Are 
there  dangers  in  setting  a  minimum  quality  standard? 
Will the hands-on experience of gender trainers be suf-
ficiently recognised?

We believe that quality standards of gender training 
are required at both a national and EU level. However, 
standardisation does not always lead to quality 
assurance. How do we even define ‘quality’? Based 
on which criteria? Standardisation does not entail 
quality assurance, and even if quality is assured, this 
does not necessarily lead to effectiveness. (Panayiota 
Chrysochou and Floria Valanidou, Cyprus)

Similar  concerns  were  raised  by  another  participant 
from Sweden.

My biggest issue with certification of the consultants 
is who will hand [it] out? Who can get it? In Sweden 
we have people that have been working with gender 
equality for so long that gender studies did not exist 
in the university. So do we need to force them back to 
school or should education not be one of the criteria to 
get the certificate? How do you measure knowledge? 
(Alice Marshall, Add Gender AB, Sweden).

8

Quality assurance mechanisms for gender training in the European Union  –  reflections from the online discussion

Quality assurance mechanisms 
must take into account the 
importance of context

There  was  discussion  around  what  standardisation 
means  both  in  principle  and  in  practice.  While  some 
participants  felt  that  standardisation  of  the  basic  ele-
ments of gender training would be useful, others were 
concerned that standardisation might cause training to 
become fixed and inflexible, limiting the ability to tailor 
training for different contexts.

Participants spoke about the context for gender train-
ing in their countries, noting the differences, with some 
countries not having an official body coordinating gen-
der training or any equality legislation making capacity 
development  for  gender  mainstreaming  compulsory. 
Such  differences  of  context  need  to  be  considered  in 
the design of quality assurance mechanisms.

In some countries gender training is compulsory and 
on an extensive basis, in others it is not compulsory or 
on a very limited basis. For this reason, at least at EIGE 
level, this diversity should be taken into account in order 
to decide on standardisation and quality assurance. 
(Despina Charalambidou‑Solomi, Cyprus)

It was agreed that there is no ‘one size fits all’ training 
method or content. Potential areas for ‘standards’ might 
be the ‘basics’ of training or the development of quality 
criteria.

We could start with ensuring the quality of the basics, 
that is the quality, experience and motivation of 
teachers/trainers and the types of pedagogy (i.e. the 
curriculum and teaching strategies) they use. This will 
lead to an improvement in the quality, equity and 
efficiency of training. (Mary Koutselini, Cyprus)

I’m all for quality criteria in themselves: they would offer 
a tool to organisers of gender training and help them 
verify the quality of the training modules that are offered. 
I see these quality criteria that I as a trainer could use 
in my negotiation with those interested in organising 
gender training... I’m not for a type of quality criteria 
that would fix, for example, content elements or specific 
methods and such. Gender [training] is in my long 
experience always very sensitive to context and should be 
constructed as such. (Katlijn Demuynck, Belgium)

A valuable illustration of the complexity is the UN Wom-
en  Global  Training  Centre,  which  has  experience  of 
widely varying contexts and training and hence works 
towards minimum quality criteria for gender training.

In the UN system, and in the countries there is wide 
diversity of training in terms of content, quality and 

scope, not always with clear results. TfGE (training 
for gender equality) is implemented in an incredible 
variety of socioeconomic and political contexts and 
cultures. Standardising represents therefore a major 
challenge. Rather than standardisation seen as one size 
fits all training, we foresee a minimal quality common 
denominator. (UN Women Global Training Centre)

Mechanisms must not serve as 
barriers to skilled trainers

Some participants were also keen to stress that mecha-
nisms such as certification  or accreditation  should not 
serve as a barrier to trainers (for example, through charg-
es which freelance trainers or small organisations could 
not afford). Trainers need support in order to excel, es-
pecially if they are to compete with large organisations.

I agree that some sort of standardisation would be 
good. It just needs to be in a way that doesn’t make it 
harder for equality companies to start up and grow. 
(Add Gender AB, Sweden)

Existing training should be 
systematically evaluated

There  was  also  a  concern  that  there  is  not  sufficient 
evidence  of  what  works  in  terms  of  gender  training. 
More  systematic  measurement  of  training  outcomes 
and impacts is needed before meaningful quality assur-
ance mechanisms can be developed and implemented. 
Evaluations of gender training should go beyond the as-
sessment of participants’ learning processes to measure 
the impact of the training.

I have also come across an issue that I think would 
need to come before the question of standardisation 
or quality assurance, namely the lack of evaluation 
of existing gender training. If the commissioning 
institutions don’t measure the outcomes (let alone 
impact) of the gender training, it seems difficult 
to establish quality assurance mechanism. (Karin 
Heisecke, Germany)

It seems to me that quality assurance mechanisms 
are put in place in order to improve outcomes and 
impacts. However, in some kinds of training at least, we 
don’t really know what those are. Evaluations are very 
limited and there is little opportunity for follow up over 
longer periods of time. There is also little independent/
academic research on these issues. So, if we don’t know 
exactly what gender training has resulted in, how do 
we know how to improve it?’ (Krini Kafiris, Greece)

EIGE9

What quality assurance 
mechanisms are available?

During  this  part  of  the  discussion,  some  examples  of 
quality  assurance  mechanisms  were  highlighted  from 
the  preparatory  paper  written  by  Marianne  Dauvel-
lier  and  Thera  van  Osch.  This  paper  lists  a  number  of 
mechanisms for capacity development related to gen-
der  mainstreaming  and/or  gender  training,  including 
the European Quality Mark, GemTrEx Quality Standards 
for  Gender  Workers/Trainers,  and  the  Gender  Equality 
Score  Card.  In  addition,  several  examples  of  existing 
mechanisms  and/or  ideas  for  new  mechanisms  were 
shared by participants, including those for gender-spe-
cific  training  and  for  integrating  gender  issues  into 
non-gender-specific training.

Standards and/or minimum 
criteria for gender training and 
competencies for gender trainers

The discussion was lively around the concept of ‘stand-
ards’ and the desirability of using ‘minimum’ standards 
or  criteria,  and  questions  of  who  sets  the  standards/
criteria.  Examples  of  these  types  of  quality  assurance 
mechanisms  shared  by  participants  included  ideas  for 
quality criteria from the UN Women’s Training for Gen-
der Equality (TfGE) approach:

We propose identifying and defining minimal criteria 
including:

•	

•	

•	
•	

•	

responsive to international norms and agreements 
(starting with CEDAW, Beijing Platform, regional 
agreements, resolutions, etc.);
relevant to the context and needs of the audience 
(content, examples and case studies, trainers, 
language and methodology);
state‑of‑the‑art knowledge on the specific topic;
learner‑centred, participatory and transformative 
methodologies;
competent, culturally sensitive trainers that can 
respond to the needs of the audience and training 
objectives.

(UN Women Global Training Centre, Dominican 
Republic)

There  was  discussion  about  whether  such  standards 
should be set by institutions or groups of institutions, or 
by  gender  trainers  themselves.  EIGE  shared  the  exam-
ple  of  the  Madrid  Declaration  on  Advancing  Gender+ 

Training  in  Theory  and  Practice,  which  emerged  from 
a group of gender trainers, training commissioners and 
gender training experts.

Participants  also  raised  the  question  of  whether  qual-
ity standards should only apply to gender training pro-
grammes or to other training programmes as well.

Should quality standards only be developed for gender 
training? Or should we also develop quality standards 
for gender mainstreaming in other training? Or should 
we do both in a kind of twin‑track approach? At the 
moment [the Directorate‑General for Development and 
Cooperation — EuropeAid] is doing both: for example 
they have mainstreamed gender in the core training on 
project cycle management. And they developed gender 
modules for other core‑training, including water and 
sanitation, energy, climate change, anticorruption, 
peace and security, justice and democracy. In this 
way [the DG] tries to reach EU officers and staff who 
never would attend gender training. (Thera van Osch, 
OQ Consulting, the Netherlands)

Certification of trainers 
and/or training

During  the  discussion  mixed  views  were  expressed 
about certification, particularly of trainers. For some, it 
was the  obvious, and  easiest, option. For others, certi-
fication  was  not  a  global  panacea  —  quality  is  reliant 
on the motivation of the individual trainers and wheth-
er they apply effectively the knowledge and skills they 
have acquired.

We understand that certifying trainers would be the 
easiest. For UN Women Global Training Centre, the ideal 
authority to standardise trainers would be a pool of 
renowned institutions working in TfGE that commonly 
develops minimal criteria for that purpose. Without 
overlooking other already mentioned important factors 
for quality training, the trainer plays a key role in 
ensuring the quality of the training and the impact on 
the trainee. (UN Women Global Training Centre).

The  relation  between  individual  motivation  and  cer-
tification  was  further  discussed  by  a  participant  from 
Cyprus.

10

Quality assurance mechanisms for gender training in the European Union  –  reflections from the online discussion

It all comes down to the question of motivation — both 
extrinsic and intrinsic. Via certification it is possible to 
ensure extrinsic motivation but what about intrinsic 
motivation? This takes us back to people’s belief 
systems, attitudes and perceptions. Just because gender 
educators and teachers receive the adequate training, 
skills or certification does not mean that they will apply 
the knowledge and skills that they have acquired in 
order to effectively influence their trainees’ actions, 
beliefs and perceptions. (Mary Koutselini, Cyprus)

There was a warmer reception for the idea of certifica-
tion if it is embedded in learning processes and based 
on peer review.

Certification could be the result of peer‑to‑peer 
reviews within the learning community according to 
a certain procedure. Once you are certified, it helps to 
increase demand for gender training. (Thera van Osch, 
OQ Consulting, the Netherlands)

Quality checklists for training 
in institutional settings

Examples of checklists and self-assessment tools includ-
ed the ITC/ILO Gender Marker, which is a simple check-
list  developed  to  help  training  managers  when  they 
design, plan, deliver and evaluate non-gender specific 
training courses, with the aim of making them gender 
sensitive.

The checklist is just a little part of the story because we 
have trained all our colleagues in their use through 
an organisation‑wide ‘participatory self‑assessment’ 
where each training unit was actively involved in 
a self‑reflection exercise. We provide them with 
technical assistance (gender analysis of topics, names 
of experts, resources, revision of training material) 
and direct inputs in their courses when required. The 
gender marker is used as a self‑assessment tool, but we 
monitor the scoring to make sure that no one uses it 
inappropriately. (Benedetta Magri, ITC/ILO, Italy)

The ITC/ILO Gender Marker has been developed further 
with the Learn4Dev Quality Scorecard.

Our idea is that gender sensitivity (or more) is an 
important element for overall quality of any training 
done in the field of development cooperation. It is not 
an easy task and we meet a lot of resistance but we have 
managed to work and apply it in two quite important 
‘mainstream’ courses. (Benedetta Magri, ITC/ILO Italy)

Participants also heard about EIGE’s ‘A step-by-step ap-
proach to quality in gender training’, which is intended 
to  guide  institutions  when  they  plan  gender  training. 
The five steps are: ensuring commitment from top-man-
agement; ensuring standards; addressing needs; getting 
started; and measuring impact and evaluation.

Databases of selected trainers 
who meet certain criteria

Some participants shared their initiatives involving da-
tabases and rosters of selected gender trainers, which 
could have the potential for quality assurance functions.

UN Women has a roster of consultants organised 
by UN Women strategic areas that includes specific 
sections for trainers. In addition to professional 
qualifications and experience (there is a profile to 
register in the roster) there is a test on training that 
candidates need to pass to be included in this specific 
roster (for trainers). We have recently launched the 
roster and are populating it. The roster envisages in 
the long run a post‑training confidential evaluation 
by commissioners. Also, members of the roster can ask 
for endorsement references from colleagues, trainees, 
supervisors, etc. which can act as an additional 
quality assurance mechanism. We cannot provide 
further details at this stage but we can say that there 
has been a great demand from candidates and [we] 
have received more 2 500 applications in 5 months. 
(UN Women Global Training Centre)

EIGE has introduced a similar initiative with a European 
focus.

We have a gender trainers’ database available through 
EuroGender. The database features up‑to‑date profiles 
of gender trainers and organisations offering gender 
training across the EU … This database was created to 
help in finding gender trainers with specific thematic 
knowledge, skills and expertise to design training 
courses tailored for different needs and policy areas. 
While trainers who currently are in the database were 
identified through a specific project, EuroGender seeks 
to serve as a platform where trainers will be able to 
advertise their work. Of course, here comes again 
the question of standardisation and certification. 
(Katarzyna Pabijanek, EIGE)

EIGE11

Spaces and networks for 
reflection, learning and standard 
setting among trainers

One of the areas that was of most interest to discussion 
participants was the importance of support and learn-
ing  networks,  or  communities  of  practice,  for  gender 
trainers and their development.

In my experience it has to be a quality assurance for 
trainers which is considered a learning cycle and 
not a fixed certificate. I feel it is important to set up 
a community of practice where trainers have the 
possibility for constant reflection and peer review on 
a supportive basis, not as a control! (INDERA Gender 
Consultancy)

A similar approach was taken in Sweden.

In Sweden, we have started a business network called 
Genusföretagarna (gender workers) and through that 
network we are trying to make the equality business 
more professional. (Alice Marshall, Add Gender AB, 
Sweden)

There  were  some  mixed  feelings  about  the  potential 
of communities of practice (COPs) — in terms of their 
potential to promote greater quality of gender training, 
and views about whether this potential would be rec-
ognised by commissioners of training.

Networks and communities do provide an important 
legitimacy for training commissioners. We are 
doing both — offer training [sessions] ourselves and 
commission them. And if we are looking for appropriate 
trainers we first look if they are active and known within 
the gender training community. This is for us personally 
more important than a certificate. (Ursula Bauer and 
Jana Schultheiß, Austria)

Even though it was agreed that networks have a learn-
ing potential, the extent to which they can assure the 
quality of a trainer was questioned.

Although I strongly support CoPs with a purpose and 
some funds to make them work, I am afraid that just 
the fact of belonging to a CoP cannot assure the quality 
of a trainer... I think having a formalised process of peer 
review on the basis of some broadly established criteria 
would still be needed. (Benedetta Magri, ITC/ILO Italy)

We would like to share our experience with the Global 
Training Centre CoP. We don’t think that the CoP, as 
an open space that anybody can join, can legitimate 
quality of trainers per se. The aim of the CoP is to 
provide an opportunity to share knowledge, tools and 

experiences, and meet other trainers or stakeholders... 
It has to be a safe environment for horizontal 
knowledge sharing and learning between peers. This is 
the added value of the CoP: the diversity of viewpoints, 
ideas and profile of participants. (UN Women Global 
Training Centre)

Improved training 
methodologies and practices

Participants  shared  ideas  and  experience  on  training 
methods and practices that can act as quality assurance 
mechanisms. For example, the UN Women Global Train-
ing Centre has developed a participatory quality assur-
ance methodology for course design.

Through this methodology a group of experts and 
practitioners (and sometimes end users as well) is 
involved in the definition and development of content 
from a very early stage, revising and giving feedback 
in the definition of the topics and the design of the 
course content. They accompany the whole process 
ensuring collective learning and bringing in the 
different perspectives. The participatory nature is 
crucial for UN Women in order to ensure that diversity 
in terms of contexts, development levels and gender 
equalities realities (legislations, roles, participation, 
etc.) is factored into the courses. It is time consuming, 
requires negotiations and may involve additional costs. 
From our perspective this approach is coherent with the 
fundamental principles of gender equality. We aim to 
‘walk the talk’ in all our activities. (UN Women Global 
Training Centre)

Examples  were  also  given  of  quality  assurance  pro-
cesses being used in training design at the International 
Training Centre of the International Labour Organisation 
(ITC/ILO), which involve training needs assessments and 
developing  the  curriculum  by  including  experts  and 
target groups, country and context specific curriculum 
design and training of trainers.

An option that has always worked is the coupling of an 
‘international expert’ mastering the curriculum with 
a national expert really conversant with the topic at 
hand in the country. (Benedetta Magri, ITC/ILO Italy)

A  Swedish  example  that  was  shared  involves  gender 
training that includes time for applying what has been 
learned.  Training  participants  from  the  public  sector 
across  Swedish  regions  have  2  days’  gender  training, 
which is tailored to their field. They then go away and 
engage in ‘change work’ where they can begin to put 
their learning into practice. Later they return for a 1-day 
follow-up  session.  This  is  seen  as  a  way  to  promote 

12

Quality assurance mechanisms for gender training in the European Union  –  reflections from the online discussion

sustainable change on gender equality. Over 1 000 par-
ticipants have so far been through the process and re-
searchers are currently evaluating it. In terms of quality 
standards for the trainers running these sessions, plans 
are in place for a list of trainer competencies, train the 
trainer sessions, and then annual follow-up training. (Ex-
ample shared by Marie Trollvik, Sweden, in advance of 
the online discussion.)

Accountability frameworks and 
mechanisms

Examples  of  gender  equality  accountability  mecha-
nisms, in which quality of training is included and nec-
essary,  were  also  shared.  These  might  come  from  the 
international, state or regional levels.

We would like to share the UN System‑wide Action Plan 
on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women 
(UN SWAP), an accountability framework designed 
to measure, monitor and drive progress towards 
a common set of standards to which to aspire and 
adhere for the achievement of gender equality and 
the empowerment of women. It applies to all entities, 
departments and offices of the UN system. UN entities 
are to meet all the UN SWAP performance standards 
by 2017. The SWAP includes six elements, two of which 
address training for gender equality: developing and/or 
strengthening staff capacity and competency in gender 
mainstreaming; and ensuring coherence/coordination 
and knowledge information management at the 
global, regional and national level. Each element has 
corresponding performance indicators. (UN Women 
Global Training Centre)

EIGE13

Quality assurance mechanisms 
need not be ‘top-down’ only, 
and can be multidimensional 
and overlapping

It was recognised that there are many different options 
for  quality  assurance  in  gender  training  and  that  they 
don’t necessarily have to be ‘top-down’ but can be mul-
tidimensional and overlapping. We should not rush to 
select one quality assurance mechanism.

From my experience it is important not to put one 
mechanism over the other and try to find the solution in 
one aspect. We have to see it from a multidimensional 
perspective... we need to look at the different aspects 
and interlink them in order to assure quality... For me 
a community of practice is a very important tool (if 
I may call it like this), but it cannot be the only one … it 
is for me a central one because it gives us the possibility 
to review other established tools constantly and from 
diverse perspectives (such as procedures, training 
material, capacities, programmes, etc.). (INDERA 
Gender Consultancy)

Many  discussion  participants  agreed  that  ‘top-down’ 
quality  assurance  mechanisms  alone  would  not  be 
helpful, and there was clear support for additional ‘bot-
tom-up’ mechanisms. This led to the sharing of several 
examples and ideas on the best ways to go about this.

[In the Czech Republic] there are no quality 
assurance mechanisms applied specifically to 
gender training/expertise. The only existing one is 
a ‘top‑down’ mechanism applied to courses for public 
administration. Therefore relevant parties (gender 
NGOs, academic departments and also companies 
focusing on the topic) are planning to introduce 
‘bottom‑up’ mechanisms reacting to current situation 
and together establish a professional association or at 
least a gender trainers/experts network. The ‘gender’ 
community is not big therefore the first phase will 
probably be based on personal contact and knowledge 
of the work and expertise of the others. But in order 
to create more a sustainable network/association we 
are planning to introduce some mechanisms such as 
certification. The question is to which extent it will be 
recognised by the state authorities and other ‘clients’. 
(Veronika Šprincová, Czech Republic)

14

Quality assurance mechanisms for gender training in the European Union  –  reflections from the online discussion

How we can work together 
to take the agenda forward

There  was  clear  support  for  EIGE  taking  a  lead  role  in 
developing  a  community  of  practice  of  gender  train-
ers,  building  on  the  first  steps  made  by  this  online 
discussion.

I would very much like EIGE to look at the possibility 
to open up and support a CoP on gender training, but 
with a true commitment of the people and a working 
program based on reflexivity. Being a member of 
this CoP can also represent a quality assurance on 
international level and the quality is based on constant 
peer‑review and the commitment of the people. 
(INDERA Gender Consultancy, Spain)

The final part of the online discussion focused on pos-
sible  routes  forward,  how  participants  could  work  to-
gether in the future and the potential roles of specific in-
stitutions such as EIGE. There was care first of all to take 
stock  of  gender  training:  what  types  of  training  there 
are,  what  works  and  what  doesn’t  work.  There  is  also 
ae need to work towards finding a common language 
around training and quality assurance mechanisms, and 
to clarify what purpose quality assurance mechanisms 
serve.

Perhaps a first step for EIGE could be to generate 
outlines based on a review of existing training and 
the categories already established by entities like UN 
Women and the Directorate‑General for Development 
and Cooperation — EuropeAid (whose approach of 
creating gender units for all other training modules 
sounds great!). Once there is an outline of the key areas 
and types of training we’re subsuming within the term 
‘gender training’, a systematic approach to evaluation 
could be developed... After that, a comparative set of 
evaluations could be undertaken with an emphasis 
on clearly identifying the specific goals of each kind of 
training, and the lasting impact/degree and kinds of 
change resulting from training. Once the findings of this 
kind of evaluation are analysed we might then move 
forward more confidently to a discussion of quality 
assurance/certification issues. (AnnJanette Rosga, US)

EIGE15

Conclusions

During  the  online  discussion,  participants  expressed 
a range of insightful views on quality assurance mecha-
nisms for gender training in the EU. Discussion focused 
not  just  on  specific  mechanisms  that  could  be  put  in 
place, but also the enabling conditions that it is neces-
sary to consider and recognise before more detailed dis-
cussion on quality assurance can take place. Participants 
felt there was a need to consider the broader context for 
quality assurance first. Thus the discussion went back to 
reconsider  the  basic  questions  on  why  we  want  qual-
ity assurance processes, whom they should serve, who 
they should involve and how can they ultimately lead to 
better gender equality outcomes.

Some of the main concluding points were as follows.

rather than a technical process. Training should 
be transformative, result in better gender quality 
outcomes and be embedded in organisational 
learning processes.

  Any quality assurance process needs to understand 
the importance of context, and that there is no 
‘one-size fits all’ approach to gender training. 
Thus any attempts to ‘standardise’ must not cause 
training to become fixed and inflexible, limiting the 
ability to tailor training to different contexts.
  We should not rush to choose one mechanism. 
There are many different options for quality 
assurance in gender training — from minimum 
standards to peer-to-peer review — that don’t 
necessarily have to be ‘top-down’, and can be 
multidimensional and overlapping.

  While there is a clear appetite for quality assurance 

  A lot of expertise and experience on gender 

mechanisms, we should not be too hasty in 
pushing forward the idea of specific mechanisms 
such as certification, before there can be a more 
systematic understanding of what works and what 
successful training is, in terms of transformative 
outcomes as well as participant experiences.
  We first need to be clear what purpose quality 
assurance processes serve. Quality assurance is 
about more than just certification. Mechanisms 
need to move beyond just ticking boxes relating 
to process, given that gender training is a political 

training and, more specifically, quality assurance 
already exists but is not necessarily brought 
together in one place.

  Participants appreciated having this opportunity 

to discuss the issues and would like more 
opportunities in the future. Several people pointed 
out that ‘This discussion platform can already 
be seen as an activity of a CoP’ (INDERA Gender 
Consultancy). There is an appetite for EIGE to take 
the lead here.

16

Quality assurance mechanisms for gender training in the European Union  –  reflections from the online discussion

References

During the discussion, participants referred to a range of resources and sources of further information. These are 
listed below.

EIGE reference sheet on a step-by-step approach to gender equality training: http://eige.europa.eu/content/
document/gender-training-stepbystep-approach-to-quality

EuroGender Gender Trainers’ Database: http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/gender-trainers

‘Liberating structures’ website: http://www.liberatingstructures.com

Madrid Declaration on Gender+ Training: http://www.quing.eu/files/madrid_declaration.pdf

Overview of quality assurance systems by Marianne Dauvellier and Thera van Osch: http://eurogender.eige.europa.
eu/web-discussions/quality-assurance-mechanisms-gender-training-european-union

EIGE report on investing in gender competence: http://eurogender.eige.europa.eu/documents/
investing-gender-competence

Swedish Gender Business Network: http://www.genusforetagarna.se/

UN SWAP: http://www.unwomen.org/en/how-we-work/un-system-coordination/promoting-un-accountability

UN Women trainer database: http://unwomen.unssc.org/

UN Women Global Training Centre community of practice: http://gtcop.unwomen.org/?lang=en

EIGEM
H
-
0
1
-
1
3
-
6
0
4
-
E
N
-
C

http://eige.europa.eu