Sex and gender perspectives as indicators of research quality in the humanities, social sciences and educational sciences
With recent changes in science policy, control of gender biases in science has been extended from monitoring the approval rate of applicants of different sexes, to requiring that sex and gender perspectives are integrated in research content. The legitimacy of this extention hinges on the argument that sex and gender perspectives is not exclusively about ethical and political values, but are concurrently aspects of the research quality undergoing assessment. The new policy testifies to the successful institutionalisation of a critique against systematic biases in peer review by feminist science studies scholars. To some, the objectivity of science is strengthened when biases are corrected through affirmative action. To others, the value-neutrality of science is threatened by an undue politisation of research. The interpretation and application of the new quality criteria will foreground these different ideas about how to accommodate ethics in research. The aim of this research project is to investigate how the integration of sex and gender perspectives as an indicator of quality is negotiated in the humanities, social sciences and educational sciences, where the relation between ethical and political values, on the one hand, and scientific values, on the other, is particularly teneous. The study will cover science policy and public debates, as well as successful research proposals and review assessments of Swedish research councils FORTE and Vetenskapsrådet between 2018-2021
Final report
The project has examined, from various perspectives, how the requirement introduced in 2016—that sex and gender perspectives be included as a criterion for assessing scientific quality—has affected Swedish research. The aim was to study how this notion of quality is interpreted and applied within the humanities, social sciences, and educational sciences, that is, within fields where the boundary between ethical and political values, on the one hand, and scientific values, on the other, is particularly difficult to draw. The empirical material consisted of research policy guidelines and media debates, as well as awarded research grants and evaluations conducted by the Swedish research councils FORTE and the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) between 2018 and 2021, along with interviews with principal investigators and reviewers.
The project’s main finding is that the policy has had a very limited impact on the epistemic and institutional practices of the scientific community. Reviewers engage in boundary work to uphold what are considered traditional scientific quality criteria in assessments. Researchers adapt to the formal requirements for applying for funding without any deeper conviction. In both cases, this points to a significant gap between formal compliance and internalized values among the key actors in the research funding system.
In the article “Equality is a quality!”, published in Science & Public Policy, Lundgren, Söderberg, and Carlsson (2025) show, on the basis of evaluations and interviews, that the peer review system continues to be largely governed by traditional quality norms. Although sex and gender perspectives are officially included in the assessment, they rarely have a decisive influence on the overall rating of research proposals. Reviewers tend to assign significance to sex and gender perspectives when the outcome confirms their assessments of the other quality criteria.
Carlsson and Johansson Wilén examine how researchers themselves experience these requirements in “It is controlling, but you don’t really care,” also published in Science & Public Policy (2024). Many researchers perceive the requirement for sex and gender perspectives as politically driven and therefore lacking full legitimacy. They accept it as a form of governance, but often in an instrumental way: they comply with the rules because they are part of the application process, not because they believe the requirements improve research quality. At the same time, researchers express a desire to conduct socially relevant research, but want legitimacy to be grounded in professional norms or societal needs—rather than in top-down directives.
In “Sex and Gender Perspectives as Quality?” published in Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research (2024), Johansson Wilén analyzes the debate surrounding the introduction of sex and gender perspectives as a dimension of quality and shows that it is characterized by deep epistemic divides. Proponents describe it as a way to improve the robustness of research, reduce bias, and increase societal relevance, while critics interpret it as an ideological intervention that threatens scientific objectivity and academic freedom. At its core, the conflict rests on differing views of what science is, which values it should embody, and how the relationship between research and politics ought to be structured.
In the article “Gender Equality Policy as Ideology or Science?” by Johansson Wilén, Carlsson, and Söderberg in Tidskrift i genusvetenskap (2021), the same debate is analyzed with a focus on how gender mainstreaming is positioned as either ideology or science. The authors show how the concept of ideology is used as a rhetorical weapon to delegitimize gender equality work, while simultaneously arguing for an “epistemic concept of ideology,” which acknowledges that all research is situated and value-laden. They call for a more constructive discussion of how values and science coexist.
In two Swedish-language anthology chapters, “Science and Ideology in the Debate on the Autonomy of Research” (2021) and “Has the Scientific Method Changed Its Political Color? From Postmodernism to Post-Truth” (2025), Söderberg reflects more broadly on the classic dilemma in theory of science of how the boundary between science and politics is drawn, using the example of sex and gender perspectives as an indicator of scientific quality.
In the article “Just another cell in the beehive,” which was under review at the time this final report was submitted, Johansson Wilén, Werner Sellbjer, and Söderberg examine the ambiguity of the designation “sex and gender perspectives.” The hallmark of feminist philosophy of science—emphasizing subjectivity and embodied experience as sources of knowledge, and thus potentially colliding with traditional scientific quality ideals—was invoked to a very limited extent in research proposals. Although these theoretical approaches played a significant role in paving the way for the policy in question, it was other interpretations of sex and gender studies (such as increased diversity and intersectionality) that were most commonly invoked in the applications.
Taken together, these publications show that the introduction of sex and gender perspectives as a quality indicator has led to new formal requirements and rhetorical positioning, but without fundamentally reshaping scientific norms and practices. Traditional quality criteria continue to be decisive in the assessment of research proposals. This finding contrasts with how the policy was debated in the media at the time of its introduction. Proponents expressed great hopes that the policy would not only address injustices between men and women, but also lead to increased innovation and better research. Critics warned that politically motivated steering of research content would undermine free inquiry at Swedish universities. More broadly, the project has contributed to a deeper reflection on the boundary between science and ideology within a policy area—gender equality policy—characterized by a high degree of polarization.
The project attracted considerable interest among relevant stakeholders, and we were invited to present preliminary findings to the research council FORMAS, the Swedish Gender Equality Agency, the National Secretariat for Gender Research, and its Norwegian counterpart, Kilden genderresearch. In addition, we presented article drafts at six academic seminars and conference papers at four academic conferences (see the list below for details). The project group held two internal working meetings per year. During the first year, a part-time research assistant worked on the project, Filippa Werner Sellbjer. Partly thanks to the qualifications and experience she gained as a research assistant in this project, she later obtained a position as a doctoral candidate in theory of science.
During the course of the project, the political climate shifted markedly, both in Sweden and internationally. Political support for the research policy initiative disappeared, and with it the explosive potential the issue had previously had within the research community. It was instructive to study the issue in the midst of such a transition and to observe how practices changed even though the criteria and guidelines remained the same. This has inspired us to continue exploring the boundaryland between science and politics.
Empirical and theoretical insights from this project concerning the relationship between experts, activists, and policymakers, as well as different actors’ perceptions of legitimate political influence, form the basis for a new project proposal by the same research group. The proposal will examine how the “epistemic authority” of medical experts and patients’ experience-based knowledge has been negotiated in light of the politicized debates surrounding gender-affirming care.
The project’s main finding is that the policy has had a very limited impact on the epistemic and institutional practices of the scientific community. Reviewers engage in boundary work to uphold what are considered traditional scientific quality criteria in assessments. Researchers adapt to the formal requirements for applying for funding without any deeper conviction. In both cases, this points to a significant gap between formal compliance and internalized values among the key actors in the research funding system.
In the article “Equality is a quality!”, published in Science & Public Policy, Lundgren, Söderberg, and Carlsson (2025) show, on the basis of evaluations and interviews, that the peer review system continues to be largely governed by traditional quality norms. Although sex and gender perspectives are officially included in the assessment, they rarely have a decisive influence on the overall rating of research proposals. Reviewers tend to assign significance to sex and gender perspectives when the outcome confirms their assessments of the other quality criteria.
Carlsson and Johansson Wilén examine how researchers themselves experience these requirements in “It is controlling, but you don’t really care,” also published in Science & Public Policy (2024). Many researchers perceive the requirement for sex and gender perspectives as politically driven and therefore lacking full legitimacy. They accept it as a form of governance, but often in an instrumental way: they comply with the rules because they are part of the application process, not because they believe the requirements improve research quality. At the same time, researchers express a desire to conduct socially relevant research, but want legitimacy to be grounded in professional norms or societal needs—rather than in top-down directives.
In “Sex and Gender Perspectives as Quality?” published in Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research (2024), Johansson Wilén analyzes the debate surrounding the introduction of sex and gender perspectives as a dimension of quality and shows that it is characterized by deep epistemic divides. Proponents describe it as a way to improve the robustness of research, reduce bias, and increase societal relevance, while critics interpret it as an ideological intervention that threatens scientific objectivity and academic freedom. At its core, the conflict rests on differing views of what science is, which values it should embody, and how the relationship between research and politics ought to be structured.
In the article “Gender Equality Policy as Ideology or Science?” by Johansson Wilén, Carlsson, and Söderberg in Tidskrift i genusvetenskap (2021), the same debate is analyzed with a focus on how gender mainstreaming is positioned as either ideology or science. The authors show how the concept of ideology is used as a rhetorical weapon to delegitimize gender equality work, while simultaneously arguing for an “epistemic concept of ideology,” which acknowledges that all research is situated and value-laden. They call for a more constructive discussion of how values and science coexist.
In two Swedish-language anthology chapters, “Science and Ideology in the Debate on the Autonomy of Research” (2021) and “Has the Scientific Method Changed Its Political Color? From Postmodernism to Post-Truth” (2025), Söderberg reflects more broadly on the classic dilemma in theory of science of how the boundary between science and politics is drawn, using the example of sex and gender perspectives as an indicator of scientific quality.
In the article “Just another cell in the beehive,” which was under review at the time this final report was submitted, Johansson Wilén, Werner Sellbjer, and Söderberg examine the ambiguity of the designation “sex and gender perspectives.” The hallmark of feminist philosophy of science—emphasizing subjectivity and embodied experience as sources of knowledge, and thus potentially colliding with traditional scientific quality ideals—was invoked to a very limited extent in research proposals. Although these theoretical approaches played a significant role in paving the way for the policy in question, it was other interpretations of sex and gender studies (such as increased diversity and intersectionality) that were most commonly invoked in the applications.
Taken together, these publications show that the introduction of sex and gender perspectives as a quality indicator has led to new formal requirements and rhetorical positioning, but without fundamentally reshaping scientific norms and practices. Traditional quality criteria continue to be decisive in the assessment of research proposals. This finding contrasts with how the policy was debated in the media at the time of its introduction. Proponents expressed great hopes that the policy would not only address injustices between men and women, but also lead to increased innovation and better research. Critics warned that politically motivated steering of research content would undermine free inquiry at Swedish universities. More broadly, the project has contributed to a deeper reflection on the boundary between science and ideology within a policy area—gender equality policy—characterized by a high degree of polarization.
The project attracted considerable interest among relevant stakeholders, and we were invited to present preliminary findings to the research council FORMAS, the Swedish Gender Equality Agency, the National Secretariat for Gender Research, and its Norwegian counterpart, Kilden genderresearch. In addition, we presented article drafts at six academic seminars and conference papers at four academic conferences (see the list below for details). The project group held two internal working meetings per year. During the first year, a part-time research assistant worked on the project, Filippa Werner Sellbjer. Partly thanks to the qualifications and experience she gained as a research assistant in this project, she later obtained a position as a doctoral candidate in theory of science.
During the course of the project, the political climate shifted markedly, both in Sweden and internationally. Political support for the research policy initiative disappeared, and with it the explosive potential the issue had previously had within the research community. It was instructive to study the issue in the midst of such a transition and to observe how practices changed even though the criteria and guidelines remained the same. This has inspired us to continue exploring the boundaryland between science and politics.
Empirical and theoretical insights from this project concerning the relationship between experts, activists, and policymakers, as well as different actors’ perceptions of legitimate political influence, form the basis for a new project proposal by the same research group. The proposal will examine how the “epistemic authority” of medical experts and patients’ experience-based knowledge has been negotiated in light of the politicized debates surrounding gender-affirming care.