The Complexity of Defining Institutional Change in Academia

Fernanda Campanini Vilhena, María López Belloso and María Silvestre Cabrera
Additional contact information
Fernanda Campanini Vilhena: Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Deusto, Spain / Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Genoa, Italy / Gender Equality and Gender‐Based Violence Unit, EDE Foundation, Spain
María López Belloso: Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Deusto, Spain
María Silvestre Cabrera: Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Deusto, Spain

Social Inclusion, 2025, vol. 13

Abstract: In recent decades, the European research and innovation landscape has shifted from addressing gender inequality by focusing on “fixing women” to prioritising “fixing the institution,” with gender equality plans (GEPs) as the primary tool for transformation. While policies have spurred initiatives across EU member states and associated countries, progress remains uneven. Existing studies often attribute the gap between policy intentions and outcomes to GEP implementation issues. This article argues, however, that the complexity of framing institutional change strategies during GEP planning and design contributes equally to this policy–practice gap. Drawing on feminist institutionalism and complexity theories, this article examines how different stakeholders receive, interpret, and reshape policy ideas surrounding institutional change. It interrogates whether there is a shared definition of institutional change among those responsible for planning and implementing GEPs and discusses the (in)consistencies in the assessment of concrete initiatives as institutional change. Empirical data derive from a case study of six European institutions implementing GEPs under the Horizon 2020 project GEARING‐Roles, complemented by interviews with representatives from other 7th Framework Programme and Horizon 2020 GEP‐implementing projects. The findings reveal significant ambiguity in how institutional change is interpreted and translated into actions, with this ambiguity manifesting both among GEP implementers and the European Commission. We conclude that clearer guidelines and more consistent assessments are necessary, alongside theory‐based and practice‐oriented definitions of institutional change, which we propose as an attempt to address this gap.

Keywords: academic organisations; complexity theory; European research; gender equality plans; institutional change (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/9981 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cog:socinc:v13:y:2025:a:9981

DOI: 10.17645/si.9981

Access Statistics for this article

Social Inclusion is currently edited by Mariana Pires

More articles in Social Inclusion from Cogitatio Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by António Vieira () and IT Department ().