How do we know what we know? Feminist epistemologies have long demonstrated that scientific knowledge is socially situated and that claims to neutrality often obscure structural biases embedded in research questions, methods, and interpretations. Rather than undermining objectivity, the systematic integration of sex, gender and intersectional perspectives has been shown to strengthen it, contributing to what Harding (1991) conceptualised as “strong objectivity”. Over the past two decades, initiatives such as Gendered Innovations (Schiebinger, 2008) have provided compelling evidence that incorporating sex and gender analysis enhances research quality across science, engineering, medicine, as well as the humanities and social sciences (HSS). Despite these advances, and notwithstanding its status as a mandatory requirement in EU-funded research, the integration of gender as a research dimension remains one of the least developed areas of gender equality in the research sector (ERAC, 2020).

This paper addresses the persistent gap between policy requirements, conceptual consensus, and research practice by focusing on the training of researchers. It argues that sustainable change in research content depends on embedding gender and intersectional approaches at the formative stages of academic careers, when research habits, disciplinary norms and methodological reflexes are still being shaped. Drawing on feminist theories of knowledge production, as well as recent training experiences and institutional initiatives, the paper explores how and why sex, gender and intersectionality should be incorporated throughout the research cycle.

The contribution combines conceptual reflection with empirical and practice-based insights. First, it revisits the social foundations of scientific knowledge, highlighting how androcentrism, gender blindness and the exclusion of marginalised perspectives continue to structure research canons, objects of study and evaluative standards. Using examples from the history of science and other HSS disciplines, the paper illustrates where gender and intersectionality can intervene in the selection of research topics, the construction of concepts, the choice of sources, methodological design, and the interpretation and dissemination of results. These reflections demonstrate the transferability of gender-sensitive approaches across disciplines and their relevance beyond HSS.

Second, the paper presents training initiatives aimed at researchers as a key lever for change. Building on observations from VOICES training school in 2023 and NEXT GENDER capacity-building workshop in 2026, it shows that many researchers have received little or no formal education in sex- and gender-sensitive research, despite being expected to address these dimensions in funding applications and publications. Interactive, peer-based training environments—where participants engage directly with their own research projects and exchange with experienced scholars—are shown to foster reflexivity, methodological innovation and the formulation of more inclusive research questions.

Third, the paper discusses the added value of co-creative and community-based approaches, such as communities of practice, in supporting the long-term adoption of gender and intersectionality methodologies. Unlike fragmented or short-lived resources, these collective spaces allow for ongoing learning, disciplinary translation and mutual support across institutional roles, including researchers, evaluators and trainers. By articulating training workshops with sustainable communities of practice and open-access toolkits, such initiatives address the diverse needs and constraints of stakeholders within the research ecosystem.

In conclusion, the paper argues that integrating sex, gender and intersectionality into research content is not merely a compliance exercise but a transformative epistemic practice. Training researchers plays a crucial role in normalising these approaches, expanding research imaginaries and enhancing scientific quality. By combining conceptual grounding, practical tools and collaborative learning formats, the proposed approaches contribute to more inclusive, reflexive and robust knowledge production across disciplines.

This contribution adopts a qualitative and reflexive methodological approach combining literature review, conceptual analysis and participant observation. The first, conceptual part of the paper is based on an extensive review of interdisciplinary literature on intersectionality, feminist epistemology and European policy frameworks, complemented by conceptual thinking aimed at critically examining how intersectionality is defined, translated and operationalised in continental European contexts. The second and third parts of the paper combine literature review with empirical insights drawn from participant observation. The empirical material is collected through direct involvement in the co-creative capacity-building workshop organised by the NEXT-GENDER project in April 2026, as well as through ongoing observation of the Communities of Practice (CoPs) launched within the same project in February 2026. Participant observation allows for the analysis of how sex, gender and intersectionality is discussed, negotiated and translated into practice by researchers across disciplines and institutional contexts. Attention is paid to interactions, collective problem-solving processes, and the emergence of shared understandings and points of tension. This mixed approach makes it possible to link conceptual debates with situated practices, highlighting how intersectionality is learned, adapted and enacted within European training and policy-oriented settings.

This paper aims to demonstrate the heuristic value of sex, gender, and intersectional methodologies in research, highlighting their potential to generate new insights and inform more inclusive knowledge production. Practically, it offers co-creative capacity-building workshops, communities of practice, methodological toolkits, case studies, and structured training programmes, enabling researchers to collaboratively develop inclusive and reflexive approaches while fostering innovation and shared learning across disciplines and institutions.

Theoretical Foundations •Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. •Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Cornell University Press. •Rocchi, J.-P. (2021). L’intersectionnalité ou la conceptualisation de la chose vécue. In M. Boussahba et al. (Eds.), Qu’est-ce que l’intersectionnalité (pp. 35–62). Éditions Payot & Rivages. •Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking from things: Essays in the philosophy of archaeology. University of California Press. Policy, Governance, and European Institutional Frameworks •Müller, J., & Humbert, A. L. (2025). Data collection and analysis for inclusive GEPs: Intersectional challenges and solutions for R&I institutions. In She Figures 2024: Policy report (pp. 39–76). Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/934401 •Woodward, A. E. (2003). Building velvet triangles: Gender and informal governance. In T. Christiansen & S. Piattoni (Eds.), Informal governance in the European Union (pp. 76–93). Edward Elgar Publishing. •European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC). (2020). Position paper on the future gender equality priority in the European Research Area (ERAC 1204/20). Council of the European Union. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1204-2020-INIT/en/pdf Gender as Research Content and Knowledge Production •Gendered Innovations. (2025). Guidelines for intersectional analysis in science and technology: Implementation and checklist development. Stanford University. https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/methods-sex-and-gender-analysis.html?utm •Schiebinger, L. (2014). Gendered innovations: Harnessing the creative power of sex and gender analysis to discover new ideas and develop new technologies. Triple Helix, 1, Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-014-0009-7 •Schiebinger, L., & Klinge, I. (Eds.). (2020). Gendered innovations 2: How inclusive analysis contributes to research and innovation. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/316197 •Schiebinger, L., & Schraudner, M. (2011). Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science, medicine, and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1179/030801811X13013181961450 •Schiebinger, L., Klinge, I., Sánchez de Madariaga, I., Paik, H.-Y., Schraudner, M., & Stefanick, M. (2011). Gendered innovations in science, health & medicine, engineering, and environment. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1179/030801811X13013181961450 •Tannenbaum, C., Ellis, R. P., Eyssel, F., Zou, J., & Schiebinger, L. (2019). Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering. Nature, 575(7781), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1657-6 Communities of Practice and Co-Creative Methodologies •Palmén, R., & Müller, J. (Eds.). (2024). A community of practice approach to improving gender equality in research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003225546 •Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068