TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

- experts that were involved in the different steps of the proposal selection process; experts from other programmes fundingexcellent collaborative research with no focus on gender sensible evaluation and management (policy and implementationlevel) – i.e. the wider target group of the programme- programme management and programme owner of the initiative programme LBC itself (i.e. policy and implementation level)These qualitative approaches will be complemented with a standardized survey, addressing heads and staff of the LBCs.Findings, contributions, implicationsThe paper will present the findings along the following research questions:What are the effects of the specific ex ante evaluation procedures and criteria of the initiative programme LBC on the evaluationoutcome – i.e. the proposal selection?What are the effects on the proposals themselves (incentive for submitting proposals, considering specific aspects in theproposals that are usually not subject to evaluation in other selection procedures) and what are the effects on the centres?What can be learned on the policy level in terms of the design of RTDI funding measures that support gender equality andscientific excellence? These learning effects will be one of the foci of the whole evaluation, hence deliberately focusing on theintertwine and mutual interdependency of the triple helix elements.References- Bornmann, L./Mutz, R./Daniel, H-D. (2007): Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Zürich: ETH Zürich- Budden, A/Tregenza, T./Aarsen, L./Koricheva, J./Lemu, R./Lortie, C. (2008): Double-blind review favours increased reprenstationof female authors, in: Trends in ecology and evolution, Vol.23(1), S.4-6- Wennerås, C. / Wold, A. (1997): Nepotism and sexism in peer-review.I In: Nature, Vol.387/341-3Madrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 2010223