ANECA publishes a Resolution to ensure effective equality, work-life balance and inclusion in evaluation

On 28 February, the Director of ANECA has published a Resolution making public the criteria to ensure that equality, conciliation and inclusion are effective in the evaluations of university teaching and research staff. ANECA adapts, with this Resolution, to the new regulatory framework created by the Organic Law 2/2023, of 22 March and the Royal Decree 678/2023, of 18 July, taking into account both the Organic Law 3/2007, of 22 March, for the effective equality of women and men, and the Royal Legislative Decree 1/2013, of 29 November, which approves the Consolidated Text of the General Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and their Social Inclusion.

This resolution replaces the Resolution of 1 December 2020, maintaining the criteria already established, but moving decisively towards guaranteeing that equality, conciliation and inclusion are effective in the evaluations of university teaching and research staff (accreditation programmes and six-year research or transfer periods), in line with recent reforms of the Workers' Statute and the Basic Statute for Public Employees.

The new provisions will complement the assessment criteria and minimum reference requirements for the merits and competences required to obtain accreditation as a Full Professor (PTU) and University Professor (CU), which will take into account the diversity of personal and family situations, without affecting the necessary quality of the university system.

In the section on the accreditation of teaching staff, specific measures are envisaged with respect to four blocks of issues: i) the assessment of merits in teaching and research activity (including knowledge transfer and exchange); ii) the waiver of the mobility requirement for accreditation as OCT; iii) the person with expertise in gender analysis integration in the ACADEMIA committees (civil servant teaching staff); and iv) the causes for resignation to form part of these committees. A second section contains specific rules regarding the evaluation of six-year periods. 

In relation to the assessment of merits, the reduction of requirements in the assessment of teaching activity is maintained in proportion to the duration of maternity or paternity leave, leave of absence for care, gender-based or terrorist violence, and long-term sick leave, as well as the extension, where appropriate and in the same proportion, of the periods for the assessment of research and transfer activity. And three new measures are added that could have a major impact.

Firstly, people who can accredit prolonged situations that prevent them from carrying out physical research stays, due to illness, leave of absence, work-life balance or caring for dependents, will be able to provide, in their place, sustained collaboration over time with international research groups and networks, which will be assessed with indications of quality similar to those of the former. 

Secondly, the same collaboration may be provided by applicants with moderate, severe or very severe disabilities that have prevented them from carrying out physical research stays. This is a particular reasonable accommodation in addition to the rule that obliges commissions and committees to assess special situations involving evaluation criteria that are difficult for people with disabilities to meet.

Thirdly, and also with regard to people with disabilities, the modulation of the teaching merit requirements is permitted in accordance with the characteristics of the adaptation of the job performed, with a reduction in teaching hours or modulation of the performance of teaching duties. 

In relation to the exemption from the mobility requirement for OCT accreditation, when a disability or a prolonged situation is justified that has prevented the performance of teaching, research or transfer activity in a centre other than the one in which the doctoral thesis was read, the system developed in the Accreditation Procedure published in January 2024 is included. It specifies the prolonged situation in time, which must be at least 2 years (non-continuous) in the 6 years prior to the application.

In relation to the person with expertise in the integration of gender analysis in the ACADEMIA committees (civil servant teaching staff), the selection criteria and the functions to be carried out are specified, in particular the identification of implicit gender biases of those who make up the committees, in order to eradicate or at least reduce them.

Finally, in order to facilitate the reconciliation of academic and family life in particularly problematic cases, two specific causes for resignation from the accreditation committees, not included in article 11 of Royal Decree 678/2023 of 18 July, are envisaged. These are: single parenthood with one or more minors in custody and the care of first-degree relatives with serious or very serious disabilities. It is also added as a cause for resignation to have a recognised disability of more than 33%.

In the section on the evaluation of six-year periods, the two measures already provided for in the Resolution of 1 December 2020 are maintained in order to make it easier for applicants who are in special situations due to leaves of absence, leaves of absence or sick leave to obtain and enjoy their six-year period, and the possibility of presenting four contributions instead of the required five, and obtaining the new six-year period with 24 points instead of 30, is added as an alternative to the extension of the six-year period.

You can consult the full Resolution here .