If you hear the sound of a trumpet blowing, you can be certain that it’s not Dr Dorothy Ngila blowing her own. But her quiet forcefulness in working on gender in science is something her colleagues are quick to acknowledge. They note her big heart, her force of conviction and purpose, and how she turns passion into action by gently drawing others into her quest for gender equality and inclusivity in scientific research.

Dr Ngila is a Programme and Research Management Leader at the National Research Foundation (NRF). She has been the driving force behind the incorporation of gender considerations in research funding and institutional policies through the Science Granting Councils Initiative (SGCI), and oversees the NRF-funded Gender Equality and Inclusivity (GEI) project implemented by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC).

Since 2023 the GEI project has analysed the science grant-making cycle to integrate GEI so that research is more equitable and robust. As part of this two-year project, there are 13 participating councils from Botswana, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Dr Ngila’s colleague, Dr Lorenza Fluks, senior research specialist at the HRSC, says she has been instrumental in the success of the GEI project, and praises her personal qualities.

“Dorothy speaks with heart,” she says. “When she comes into a room, you know that Dorothy’s there. She’s got a presence, an honesty, a realness and brings a very personal touch to the funder-grantee relationship”.

Dr Ngila insists, in turn, as we talk on Zoom, on praising the work the HSRC does on the GEI      project and its work with the African councils.

But first, the background.

Examples of gender considerations in research

“There is a lot of research that shows us that when we don’t integrate sex and gender into research, it’s just not good. It’s not good enough for every single individual,” says Dr Ngila.

Failing to integrate sex and gender in scientific studies clearly affects outcomes. For instance, studies on arthritis, safety belt designs, and breast cancer have demonstrated how research outcomes can be limited when gender-specific factors are ignored. Likewise, COVID-19 research showed that the pandemic affected women and men differently, emphasising the importance of a gender lens in scientific inquiries.

Diverse research teams have also been shown to generate more comprehensive and inclusive research questions. Historically, science has been dominated by homogenous teams, often composed of white men. This has influenced research priorities and methodologies in ways that overlook broader societal needs. Policies, such as those developed by the NRF, that enforce gender equity and inclusion help to counteract these historical biases and foster more representative research environments.

Focusing the gender lens

The SGCI was launched in 2015 across Sub-Saharan Africa, and “it was evident that gender and science components were not sufficiently incorporated into the capacity strengthening provided to councils. This realisation led to a key decision to integrate gender and inclusivity into the capacity-strengthening efforts.”

The HSRC was engaged in the project in 2019 to ensure that councils developed their own strategies for gender and science, aligning these efforts with their research and grants management processes.

“The idea is to see the ways in which councils are able to engage in their own questions, conceptualisation, and implementation of activities that are linked to gender and science, gender and inclusivity, in the research and grants management process: how they prioritise their research areas, how they fund who they fund, how they think about their partnerships, whether they are bilateral, multilateral, circular,” says Dr Ngila.

Transforming institutional mindsets

Beyond policy implementation, a paradigm shift was necessary. Officials within councils needed to internalise why gender considerations matter in science. This extended beyond funding policies to broader institutional cultures and operational approaches. The aim was to instil a deep-seated understanding that gender and inclusivity are integral to all aspects of research governance.

To support this, resources were allocated to enable councils to commission research contextualised to their specific landscapes.

It has been important to tread very carefully, says Dr Fluks.

“The initial focus was to raise awareness of the importance of a gender lens when it comes to research. And, we had to be guided by a development approach where you look at the gender balance within the country. It’s important to recognise that if half of the population is excluded from development and science investments, countries miss out on significant potential.. We were cautioned not to engage in a way that might shut down conversation, and participation. Because in some of the countries it’s still illegal to be identified as having gender diverse identities or sexualities. We’ve gained the councils’ trust, and they’ve seen the importance of the gender lens in their work and not directly linking it to sexuality, for example.

“The gender at work approach focused on a series of workshops to listen to what gender means in a specific council and use that as a starting point for whatever actions the councils initiate.”

Only then “did we focus on the grant making cycle as a key tool through which councils can initiate actions. So, in calls for proposals, for example, what do they say about gender equality? Is there diversity on the team of reviewers, etc? Do you have maybe ring-fence funding where you have targeted calls to include women, but then also other marginalised identities as they pertain to the country? For example, are you also reaching out to universities and researchers in the more rural areas of your country and not just locating your funding in the urban centres and then leaving out the rest.”

Dr Fluks says the strategy has borne fruit. “I’ve seen shifts where people grasp the importance of the work, and wanting to create better futures where everyone really can thrive. And there’s also that strong sense of respect for men within the different countries, while understanding that the idea is not taking opportunities away from men or disadvantaging boys if you focus on women. They do get the importance of creating opportunities for women, but then not forgetting the younger men still coming up in the ranks.”

Institutional change and challenges

Dr Ngila stresses that advancing gender equity in research requires institutional transformation, which is inherently a long-term process. It demands leadership commitment, advocacy, and persistent efforts from all members of an organisation. While challenges exist in shifting institutional culture, the focus should be on progress made rather than obstacles encountered.

She emphasises that the seeds planted through the SGCI and other related initiatives will yield long-term benefits for research councils and the broader scientific community. This work is not about quick fixes but about creating a sustainable and inclusive research ecosystem that considers diverse perspectives.

Dr Ngila also emphasises the importance of how one approaches creating change. “It is important to make sure that you have got allies and champions within the organisation. You don’t come into this work as somebody who just wants to action something. You also bring your activism, your advocacy, your lobbying into the process for organisations to be able to change.”

Most importantly, “this is a lifelong process, not something that has a beginning and an end. Changing the ways in which research is undertaken to ensure diversity is not something that started yesterday. It is not something that is going to end tomorrow. It is something that we need to improve on to make sure that the research that is being undertaken is right for the right reasons and eventually so that that research is able to cater for the needs, the capacities, and the potential of every single one of us regardless and in spite of all our gender, sex, class; all the social categories that we become as human beings.”

It’s personal

For Dr Fluks, the GEI work has been life-changing.

“When I started working in this project, coming from a community psychology academic background rather than a formal gender studies background, I realised that gender-related issues influence so many other aspects and research areas.

“It’s not limited to just scientific fields; it’s evident everywhere. We need to eliminate these barriers because it’s hard to understand why such inequality has become so normalised over the years. The gender gap has persisted for too long, and with the current developments under the Trump administration, it feels like we’re regressing even further.”

“Women bring insights. We bring different perspectives to research projects. We bring different ways of doing things. This is powerful. This is a generalisation, and there are people who operate differently, but traditionally, women are associated with a more relational approach, or a softer approach to leadership. And that’s valuable and it needs to be tapped into more, so that in the end, when you see science and technology breakthroughs, people won’t ask, ‘is this a man or a woman who came up with this idea?’

Dr Fluks says that “since I’ve had my two children, I’ve felt the struggle of that work-life intersection, where I’ve started to feel that barrier, the proverbial glass-ceiling coming lower on me, where I need to navigate being a good mother, being a present wife, and being an excellent worker wanting to reach my goals.

“And that is the (I don’t want to say a trap), but that’s the situation where so many women find themselves where they want to have a family and a career. And I want to see that it becomes easier for them to navigate both and not to have to choose between the two.”

“That is what drives me,” she concludes.

 Conclusion

Dr Ngila’s insights, as well as those of Dr Fluks, underscore the significance of integrating gender considerations into research funding and governance structures. The journey toward inclusivity in science is ongoing, requiring continuous advocacy, institutional commitment, and the cultivation of champions who will drive change. While the process is slow, the progress made so far provides a strong foundation for future advancements.