9th Biennial International Interdisciplinary conference (Web)

Time: 29th June-1st July, 2016
Venue: Keele University, UK
Proposals by 1st November 2015

Stream convenors:

• Cecile Guillaume, Sociology, Lille 1 University, Lille, FRANCE
• Gill Kirton, Queen Mary University, London, ENGLAND
• Cathrine Seierstad, Business and Management, University of Sussex, ENGLAND
• Patricia Gabaldon, IE Business School, Madrid, SPAIN

A significant body of political science studies exists focusing on the conditions under which female representatives act in the interests of the women they represent ‚in a manner responsive to them‘ (Pitkin, 1967) in legislative life and political leadership. Less work has been done on the issue of the substantive representation of women (SRW) outside the legislative arena. Moreover, scholars argue that research should not limit SRW to one set of actors, a single site and/or mode of political representation (Childs and Krook, 2006; Celis et al. 2008) and rather look into multiple and varied actors, sites, motivations, and outcomes of SRW which might include extra-parliamentary actors, such as women’s agencies, NGOs and trade unions. These calls resonate with many other studies concerned with the implementation of equality laws and diversity policies outside the legislative arenas, but that also look into the role of multiple actors in the promotion of women’s interests (Seierstad et al. 2015) and the effects of senior management feminisation on approaches to business. This stream explores how SRW is achieved in organizations and the conditions for its realization.

Can feminisation be considered to be a necessary although not sufficient condition for ‚making a difference‘ in political and economic life? Whereas many scholars have argued for a “politics of presence” (Phillips, 1995) by which women are represented in decision-making bodies, this presence does not deliver SRW in a straightforward manner (Childs, 2006). The link between descriptive and substantive representation opens up many questions. Whereas scholars argue that shared gendered concerns arise from gendered positions and experiences (Young, 2000), the definition of ‚women’s interests‘ equates with various concerns that can belong to the private sphere, or refer to the position of women in the public sphere with regard to the labour market and welfare state policy or derive from the analysis of women’s subordination (Celis, Childs and Krook, 2009). Clearly, women are not an homogeneous group : individual characteristics (age, race, class, sexual orientation), organisational, and institutional factors can interfere with the ability or propensity ‚elite‘ women act for the women they represent or manage. If feminine leadership is frequently promoted as a ‘progressive’ and `transformative’ way of managing organizations, women directors, managers or union leaders are not necessarily inclined to promote feminist values and women’s concerns or/and to endorse feminine ways of exercising leadership (Kirton, Healy, 2013).

Literature on equality structures has demonstrated that the presence of a group of minority women can affect the bargaining agenda (Heery, 2006, Dickens, 2000) but it is not a sufficient condition for a gendered agenda (Colgan and Ledwith, 2002; Mc Bride, 2001). Similarly, critical mass theory (Kanter, 1977) argues that once the minority composes between 15 and 30% of a group, it starts to assert itself and from this assertion there eventually follows a transformation of the institutionnal culture, norms and practices. However, scholars are advocating a switch to a focus on critical actors (Childs and Krook, 2009 ; Mackay, 2008 ; Celis et al 2008) – men and women – and the ways by which they seek to promote what they regard as women’s concerns and/or equality matters. SRW can then be envisaged as ‚a market of claims‘ (Saward, 2010), ‚an interactive process of interest articulation during which a multitude of interests and perspectives can be formulated by many actors and during which the representative and the represented respond to one another in an interactive fashion‘ (Celis, 2012, p.527). Against a static vision of interests as entities that exist ‚out there‘, ready to be brought into the representational process, studies should look into the ways and manner in which representatives claim to be representative, and in so doing, construct the group that they claim to represent. In so doing, representatives articulate multiple interests in ways that are both enabling and constraining for those represented (Bacchi, 1999). This theoretical framework calls for an inductive approach to women’s interests and equality issues, and a more explicit attention to the constitutive aspects of this representation (Celis, Childs, Krook, 2009).

In the workplace/organizational level, this approach leads us to the following research questions :

• where and when does acting for women and equalities occur? Under which economic, political and organizational circumstances do actors or groups mobilize for the promotion of women’s concerns?
• who are the critical actors defined as individuals (managers, diversity managers, board members, bureaucrats/femocrats, women and men) or groups (trade unions, women’s networks, business associations, public bodies) who initiate policy proposals? What are their relationships (competition and conflict, collaboration and mutual reinforcement) and what are their motivations?
• why is acting for women and equalities attempted ? What are the a priori assumptions about the nature of women as a group and their interests? Are there conflicting definitions or framing of what `acting for women’ and equality mean in terms of its content, direction and purpose?
• how is acting for women and equalities expressed ? What are the processes through which claims are formulated, refined and advanced?
• how effective is the representation? What are the effects of the framing of equality bargaining, diversity policies or individual managerial action on the (de)legitimisation of women’s concerns, depending on age, qualification, race or family situation? How is this framing consonant with neo-liberal policy orientations or managerial issues rather than socio-economics rights? What are the outcomes of SRW, how can they be evaluated (indicators, measures…)?

This theoretical and methodological approach is suggestive rather that exhaustive. Contributors may choose to draw on material from a wide range of empirical spheres, theoretical perspectives and methodological orientations. We welcome papers from any national context.

Abstracts of approximately 500 words (ONE page, Word document NOT PDF, single spaced, excluding references, no header, footers or track changes) are invited by 1st November 2015 with decisions on acceptance to be made by stream leaders within one month. All abstracts will be peer reviewed. New and young scholars with ‚work in progress‘ papers are welcomed. Papers can be theoretical or theoretically informed empirical work. In the case of co-authored papers, ONE person should be identified as the corresponding author. Note that due to restrictions of space, multiple submissions by the same author will not be timetabled.

Abstracts should be emailed to: c.guillaume@qmul.ac.uk Abstracts should include FULL contact details, including your name, department, institutional affiliation, mailing address, and e-mail address. State the title of the stream to which you are submitting your abstract. Note that no funding, fee waiver, travel or other bursaries are offered for attendance at GWO2016.

Source: Genus mailing list