quing quality in gender equality policies final … 12.pdf · quing quality in gender+ equality...
TRANSCRIPT
Contract No. 028545-2
QUING Quality in Gender+ Equality Policies
Integrated Project Priority 7 – Citizens and Governance in a knowledge based Society 7.1.2. Gender and Citizenship in a Multicultural Context
FINAL REPORT
Authors:
Mieke Verloo and the QUING consortium
Feride Acar, Susanne Baer, María Bustelo Ruesta, Vlasta Jalušić, Lut Mergaert, Maria Pantelidou Maloutas, Malin Rönnblom, Birgit Sauer, Tilly Vriend, Sylvia Walby& Viola Zentai
in collaboration with
Alba Alonso Álvarez, Gülbanu Altunok, Jo Armstrong, Erika Björklund, Maria Carbin, Stanislava
Chrobáková Repar, Rossella Ciccia, Magdalena Dabrowska, Saniye Dedeoğlu, Jasminka Dedić, Ana de Mendoza, Sara de Jong, Elena del Giorgio, Tamás Dombos, Ana Espírito Santo, Lucy Ferguson, Inês Nunes Fernandes, Ana Fernández de Vega, Maxime Forest, Ana Frank, Asuman Göksel, Elif
Gözdaşoğlu Küçükalioğlu, Zelia Gregoriou, Hannele Harjunen, Majda Hrženjak, Martin Jaigma, Julie Jarty, Manina Kakepaki, Janet Keim, Erika Kispéter, Andrea Krizsán, Roman Kuhar, Marja Kuzmanić,
Elin Kvist, Sophie Lauwers, Emanuela Lombardo, Valentina Longo, Silvia López, Laura Maratou-Alipranti, Saskia Martens, Gé Meulmeester, Petra Meier, Anna Nikolaou, Lucy Nowottnick Chebout,
Zuzana Očenašova, Kaja Ocvirek Krušić, Florence Pauly, Amaia Pérez Orozco, Elin Peterson, Vilana Pilinkaite-Sotirović, Raquel Platero, Raluca Maria Popa, Ana Prata, Aivita Putnina, María Reglero,
Julie Rigaudière, Conny Roggeband, Ingrid Röder, Lise Rolandsen Agustín, Maria Sangiuliano, Elena Stoykova-Doganova, Sofia Strid, Melinda Szabó, Karin Tertinegg, Maria Thanopoulou, Joanna
Tsiganou, Doris Urbanek, Marleen van der Haar, Anna van der Vleuten, Femke van der Wal, Renée Wagener, Lisa Wewerka
Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen (IWM) Period covered: from 01.10.2006 to 31.03.2011 Date of preparation: 31.05.2011 (revised: 31.01.2012) Start date of project: October 1, 2006 Duration: 54 months Preferred citation: Verloo, Mieke et al. 2011: Final QUING Report, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Project execution ........................................................................................ 4 1.1 Executive summary ............................................................................................... 4 1.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 27
1.3 QUING activities ................................................................................................... 28 1.3.1 LARG .................................................................................................................. 30
1.3.2 STRIQ ................................................................................................................. 46 1.3.3 WHY .................................................................................................................... 52 1.3.4 FRAGEN ............................................................................................................ 57
1.3.5 OPERA ............................................................................................................... 60
1.4 Thematic issues ................................................................................................... 67
1.4.1 General gender equality policies ................................................................ 68
1.4.2 Non-employment ............................................................................................ 72
1.4.3 Intimate citizenship ........................................................................................ 76 1.4.4 Gender-based violence ................................................................................. 77
1.5 Contributions to theoretical discussions ..................................................... 79
1.5.1 Intersectionality .............................................................................................. 79
1.5.2 State-civil society interfaces ....................................................................... 83
1.5.3 Quality in gender+ equality policies .......................................................... 86 1.5.4 Europeanisation .............................................................................................. 89
1.5.5 Gender training and knowledge transfer ................................................. 92 1.6 Policy recommendations ................................................................................... 94
1.7 References ............................................................................................................. 99
1.8 Annexes ............................................................................................................... 107
Annex 1: Contractors involved per activity and overview of all members of the QUING team ......................................................................................................... 107
Annex 2: List of QUING work packages, reports, and milestones ............... 111
2. Dissemination and use ........................................................................... 116 2.1 All activities undertaken during the lifetime of the project .................... 116
2.1.1 Exploitable knowledge and its use .......................................................... 116 2.1.2 Dissemination of knowledge ..................................................................... 117
2.1.3 Publishable results ...................................................................................... 152
2.2 Future route to full use and dissemination of knowledge ...................... 175
3. Final plan for using and disseminating the knowledge ....................... 176
4. Final management report ....................................................................... 177 4.1 Justification of major cost items and resources ...................................... 177
4.1.1 General description of activities .............................................................. 177 4.1.2 Description of work performed by each contractor ............................ 182
4.1.3 Explanatory note on major cost items .................................................... 220 4.1.4 Budgeted vs. actual costs .......................................................................... 222 4.1.5 Budgeted vs. actual person months ....................................................... 225
4.1.6 Summary explanation of the impact of major deviations .................. 226 4.2 Form C and Audit Certificates by each contractor ................................... 227
4.3 Summary Financial Report ............................................................................. 227
3
About this report1
This is the final report of the QUING project, but it cannot possibly give an overview of all
QUING results. Over the course of its 4,5 year existence, the QUING team produced a total
of 72 reports. Many of them are public, a smaller number were internal papers necessary for
the team to do its work well. Among the produced public texts, there are four final activity
reports: the LARG, WHY and STRIQ reports. There are also a number of manuals related to
gender+ training, conference reports for all activities, as well as four sets of 29 country-
specific reports, plus one European Union set (each containing a state of the art, issue
history reports, intersectionality reports and context studies). There is also a set of 35
academic papers (additional papers are forthcoming). Eight books and 67 articles have
already been published, and three books are in the making. Moreover, the QUING project
has resulted in two databases that have both been made public and handed over to major
institutions in the field: a database of important feminist texts in Europe – based at Aletta in
Amsterdam for the coming years – and a database of gender trainers, now based at EIGE,
the European Gender Institute in Vilnius. This final report is based on all the aforementioned
QUING work, and it highlights the main results as related to the objectives of our research
project, starting with an executive summary and ending with policy recommendations.
The report was compiled by Mieke Verloo on the basis of the QUING members’ work,
so footnotes and references refer to these works and credit their original authors. The
Annexes provide information on contractors and reports. The complete list of QUING team
members can be found in Annex 1. The complete list of QUING reports is in Annex 2. The
complete list of online public reports is in Section 2 of this Report (all public reports are on
the QUING website at http://www.quing.eu), along with the complete list of academic
publications.
At many venues and on many occasions in the past years, QUING team members
have presented work and received valuable comments from colleagues, practitioners, policy
makers, students and activists. We thank them all, and are looking forward to ongoing
debates. We are thankful to those people who helped us so well in dealing with
administrative duties, especially Barbara Abraham, Susanne Fröschl and Manuel Tröster at
the IWM, and the local administrators in Amsterdam, Ankara, Antwerp, Athens, Berlin,
Budapest, Lancaster, Ljubljana, Madrid, Nijmegen and Umeå, as well as our seven
subsequent scientific officers at the European Commission (Myria Vassiliadou, Pia Laurilla,
Carl Dolan, Alessia Bursi, Wolfgang Bode, Marina Marchetti and Simona Ardovino). We are
also grateful for the advice, help and active contributions from our Advisory Board members,
especially Carol Bacchi, Agnes Hubert, Myra Marx Ferree and Liz Kelly. We benefitted from
the detailed comments of our evaluators at the European Commission, and want to thank
them.
Though the direct funding of the QUING project has ended, many of us will continue
to work on the QUING data. We will continue as a network, keeping our website updated with
future QUING based work. To follow us see http://www.quing.eu
1Mieke Verloo wishes to thank the whole QUING team for their dedication, passion, care and hard
4
1. Project execution
1.1 Executive summary
Introduction
At the heart of the QUING project are concerns and questions about both the overall and the
specific quality of gender equality policies across the European Union (EU), and about the
degree to which these currently pay attention to the intersections of gender inequality with
other inequalities (such as race/ethnicity, age and disability) in the EU’s diverse populations.
These concerns and questions deal with gender+ (gender plus) equality policy: gender
equality policy that recognises that gender inequality and other inequalities are connected
and are thus best addressed with those possible intersections in mind. The QUING project’s
concerns and questions are rooted both in policy developments and in theory. At the policy
level, the Treaty of Amsterdam pushed forward new equality institutions and regulations that
introduce legal powers concerning discrimination not only in relation to gender, but also to
race/ethnicity, religion and belief, age, sexual orientation and disability, as well as on
trans/gender identity, pregnancy and marriage. At the level of theory, the growing body of
intersectionality theory recognises the interrelationship of different structures of inequality,
and explores how to conceptualise and effectively address them.
At the start of the QUING project, there was inadequate knowledge on the content
and quality of gender equality policies across the EU, and there was no comprehensive
conceptual framework to understand intersections between gender and other inequalities in
the context of the EU. There was also a lack of venues, channels and materials to supply
policy makers with improved gender+ equality knowledge. In order to contribute much-
needed knowledge to address these gaps, two sets of objectives were adopted.
The first set (1-4) conceptualises inclusive gender+ equality policies (i.e. policies that
are empowering, that contribute towards the active citizenship of all, and that are informed by
knowledge on the intersection of gender with other inequalities, so as to be adequate in
Europe’s diverse and multicultural contexts). Civil society, or the web of non-governmental
organisations or social movements interfacing or lobbying with various levels of government
or administration, plays an important role in this set. Its four objectives are:
1. Conceptualising the relationships between different inequalities, especially
between gender, race/ethnicity, religion, class and sexuality
2. Conceptualising and mapping the interfaces between civil society and policymaking
3. Conceptualising participatory forms of gender and diversity mainstreaming by
accentuating voice and civil society interfaces
4. Conceptualising and mapping civil society texts on gender+ equality
In order to fill some crucial knowledge gaps, QUING also wanted to collect and analyse new
empirical data. The second set of objectives (5-7) therefore is about systematically analysing
new empirical material.
5. Assessing the quality of gender+ equality policies in the EU’s multicultural context
6. Assessing the standing and voice of civil society in gender+ equality policies
5
7. Explaining variations, deficiencies, deviations and inconsistencies in EU and
member states’ gender+ equality policies
Based on its conceptualisation efforts and empirical analysis, QUING also had a clear
theoretical ambition. The third set of objectives (8-9) contributes to social science theory.
8. Developing an institutional approach to practices of citizenship
9. Developing a typology of gender regimes and of gender+ equality policies in
Europe
The last objective is to actively contribute to the further quality of gender policymaking in a
multicultural context by providing policy makers with improved gender+ equality knowledge
through the gender training of civil servants, by creating a useful database of gender+
trainers and by ensuring the maintenance of this database by a high-quality partner.
10. Defining more inclusive standards for gender+ expertise.
Structure of this Executive Summary
This Executive Summary is made up of four different sections. The first (I) covers the
different research activities that have been organised within the QUING project. These were
called LARG, STRIQ, WHY, FRAGEN and OPERA.
The second (II) addresses the four different thematic issues tackled within the analytical
parts of the project:
General Gender+ Equality policies (including the institutional arrangements)
Non-employment
Gender-based Violence
Intimate Citizenship
The third (III) deals with the contributions made to theory, highlighting contributions to
debates on intersectionality, state - civil society interface, gender+ equality policy quality,
Europeanisation and gender knowledge transfer.
The last (IV) consists of policy recommendations, distinguishing between
recommendations for gender+ equality policies in the context of Europe, recommendations
for research and for gender training, as well as suggestions for the conservation and
dissemination of feminist heritage. Various actors at different levels of politics and
policymaking are addressed here, at the level of the European Union, the member states and
of civil society.
The four parts of this Executive Summary can be read separately and therefore
cannot help but have some overlap. Further details can be found in the main body of the
report, as well as in previous QUING reports delivered to the European Commission, and in
our publications.
6
I. QUING’s five research activities
The first three research activities within QUING are strongly interrelated: LARG’s ambition to
systematically describe and analyse existing gender+ equality policies, STRIQ’s analysis of
intersectionality in gender+ equality policies, and WHY’s analysis of explanatory factors. The
fourth, FRAGEN, is concerned with mapping the feminist heritage in Europe. The fifth,
OPERA, focuses on gender+ training. This section gives more information on all five
activities. For each, this section provides more information as to who contributed, what the
activity’s methodologies and approaches were, and what their main end results and
achievements to the state of the art. Across all of these activities, there are numerous journal
articles and books already published and more underway.
See Annex 1 for contractors involved in all these activities, Annex 2 for an overview of
all reports, and Section 2 for the list of online reports.
LARG
The acronym LARG was chosen because this part of the project encompasses a large,
comprehensive and systematic overview of gender+ equality policies in terms of their design
and content, paying particular attention to the standing given to civil society voices. Finding
out how exactly civil society actors are referred to or designed to be part of the policy
process by governmental agencies is crucial in determining how engaged the member states
or communities are in addressing their populations’ concerns. This research activity
contributed important data that was also used in subsequent analyses (WHY and STRIQ).
LARG used an innovative combination of methodologies: for each country we drew up a
history of the development of equality policies (the ‘issue histories’); and policy process
mapping was combined with Critical Frame Analysis (CFA, a methodology that has proven
its potential) and Voice Analysis, building on experience from the 2003-2006 MAGEEQ
project (see http://www.mageeq.net). Critical Frame Analysis is a method that aims at
capturing the content and meaning of the crucial dimensions of policy texts: voice (who is
speaking in the text?), reference (to who or what is the text referring?), problem (what is
represented to be the problem and who is seen to cause the problem?), causality (what is
seen as the cause of what?), objective (what goal is articulated?), policy action (what is the
proposal for action and who should do this?) and mechanism (how are goals supposed to be
achieved?). The Critical Frame Analysis followed a rigorous syntactic coding of carefully
selected documents for qualitative processing of massive amounts of data. Within the
project, pioneering online software for collaborative data recording and processing was
developed. A separate methodology section on the QUING website presents the LARG
method in detail, illustrating it step by step, emphasising its innovations, and linking LARG’s
specific output to the different phases of the methodological work. The website also contains
a demo of the software so that it can be tested and tried by others.
The following research questions were crucial for LARG:
How can gender equality frames in the EU and its current and future member states
be systematically described?
What is the standing and voice of civil society present in gender equality policies?
What are the differences, similarities and inconsistencies in gender equality policies
between the EU and its member states?
To answer these questions, data has been collected for all EU member states, for the
European Union itself and for two of the candidate states: Croatia and Turkey. The data
7
collected and analysed in LARG hails from the period between 1995, when gender
mainstreaming first started to be used as a strategy following the Beijing Conference, and
2007. The analysis focused on four crucial policy themes relevant to gender equality:
General Gender+ Equality policies (including policies on gender equality machineries), Non-
employment, Intimate Citizenship and Gender-based Violence (more on these policy fields in
section II below). For each policy field four different types of texts were selected and
analysed: laws, policy plans, parliamentary debates and civil society texts.
Under LARG, the QUING researchers have made 90 country-level reports. This
sizable number consists of three reports on each of the 27 European member states, two
candidate states (Croatia and Turkey) and the European Union itself. These three different
country-level reports are: a state of the art report of existing literature; an Issue History report
that maps the history of gender equality policies, its main debates and its actors since 1995;
and a Comparative report comparing each national gender equality policy to the EU. For
each country the QUING researchers have also selected, coded and analysed 50-80 crucial
gender equality texts per country. Altogether 381 laws, 342 policy plans, 893 parliamentary
debates and 381 civil society texts were systematically studied using the Critical Frame
Analysis methodology. CFA made it possible to identify which frames – defined as more
specific understandings of what gender equality means – are present in the texts. This then
enabled comparison across countries, and across issues.
The chart below (Chart 12 from “Framing gender equality in the European Union and
its current and future member states”, Krizsán et al. 2009, final LARG report, p. 56), for
instance, shows that there is no easy South-North or East-West division. In this chart, the
highest rank is given to countries that – in the given period of 1995-2009 – have the most
transformative frames in their gender+ equality policies. Transformative is here used in the
sense that they can be considered to have the highest chance of effecting gender equality.
Clearly visible is the position of the European Union among the highest ranked. In contrast, a
mix of old and new member states has very low scores. Overall, this shows the tremendous
variety of the European landscape and the potential for further analysis and improvement of
gender+ equality policymaking and of the quality of people’s lives.
8
The standing of civil society in gender+ equality policies has been assessed by comparing
references to policy development processes that involve consultations with civil society
across types of texts and across issues. Here there are also clear differences between the
studied countries. The graph below makes these differences visible (from the final LARG
report, p. 70, graph 6: percentages of texts that have a reference to consultation with
women’s NGOs).
The highest number of references to consultations is found in civil society texts, except for
those civil society texts about Non-employment. As a type of text, policy plans have a
relatively high number of references to civil society consultations compared to the number
found in laws and parliamentary debates. Law texts have the lowest number of references to
consultations, except for law texts on General Gender+ Equality policies. Across issues, the
number of references involving civil society in consultation processes is lowest in texts on
Non-employment, then Intimate Citizenship and Gender-based Violence.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
law
policy plan
parl debate
civil society
9
LARG resulted in a systematic description and analysis of gender+ equality policies in
all EU member states, as well as in Turkey, Croatia, and at the level of the EU itself. A more
extensive description of its contributions can be found in the final LARG report
(http://www.quing.eu) (Krizsán et al. 2009). LARG represents the largest data collection and
analysis activity of the QUING project, and the data have also been used for the analyses in
STRIQ and WHY.
STRIQ
The European Union is committed to eliminating discrimination based on “sex, racial or
ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation”, addressing a broadening
range of structural inequalities in recent years, especially based on the Treaty of Amsterdam
(1997). The term STRIQ is based on the term STRuctural IneQualities. This research activity
not only addresses the individual inequalities, but also the implications of their intersection.
STRIQ addressed the way that equality policies addressed not only gender inequality, but
also the intersection of gender and other inequalities.
STRIQ produced eight reports, starting with conceptual and methodological reports,
and leading to reports on the intersection of gender and other inequalities in practice and in
policy for each of the 29 countries studied, as well as the EU itself.
. Conceptual work is at the heart of STRIQ, with the 2007 report by Walby, Armstrong
and Strid finding an important place in the final STRIQ report (Verloo, Walby, Armstrong and
Strid 2009). Walby, Armstrong and Strid (2007. They identify and offer new ways of
conceptualising the relationships between different inequalities, especially between gender,
race/ethnicity, religion, class and sexuality and present solutions to main theoretical
dilemmas. Building on previous work (Verloo 2006, Walby 2007), they conclude that it is
necessary to not only focus on citizens at the losing end of inequalities, but also on the
powerful, so that mechanisms of exclusion and inclusion can be better understood as part of
the relationship between both. Taking on board the full ontological depth (that is, including
the historical development of specific inequalities) can show that there is variety in the
presence or absence of different strands in various political projects or policies. They argue
for the importance of not forgetting inequalities that are not specifically mentioned in recent
policy initiatives; especially class inequality should always remain in focus. The question of
which inequality is the most important one should be an empirical, not a normative issue.
Similarly, the question of the relationship between different inequalities is best understood as
an empirical question, within the overall conceptualisation of this relationship as one of
mutual shaping. It should be recognised that though inequalities are not independent, they
can have a continued distinctive existence as well. Different categories related to inequalities
should be only temporarily stabilised for analysis, while keeping in mind their fluid and
dynamic character. For a more detailed overview of STRIQ’s theoretical and conceptual
advances, please see Executive Summary section III.
The work done by STRIQ on the intersection of gender and other inequalities was
used to inform the other QUING activities. STRIQ’s new approaches to intersectionality were
used in analyses of specific policy fields where gender equality was expected to intersect
with other inequalities, including QUING’s chosen policy fields: General Gender+ Equality
policies, Non-employment, Gender-based Violence and Intimate Citizenship. The changes in
the equality architecture (in laws, in consultative bodies, governmental policy-making units
and in the units that oversee the implementation of the laws) as policy makers sought to
10
include inequalities in addition to gender were analysed in several reports leading to
significant publications, both articles in refereed journals (Walby, Armstrong and Strid 2009a,
2009b; Lombardo and Rolandsen Agustin 2011; Lombardo and Verloo 2009; Alonso under
review; Krizsán under review; Verloo 2011), including a special issue of a journal (Walby and
Verloo, under review) and an edited collection of papers in a book (Krizsán et al.,
forthcoming; Krizsán and Zentai forthcoming; Alonso et al. forthcoming).
The intersection of gender and other inequalities in Non-employment has been
addressed in relation to the significance of targeting specific groups for the quality of gender
equality policy (Armstrong, Strid and Walby 2009). The extent to which the intersection of
gender and other inequalities has been addressed in the field of Gender-based Violence is
investigated by Strid, Armstrong and Walby (under review), who find that the pressure from
NGOs has been effective, at least in the UK, in securing some recognition of the importance
of these issues. However, in some countries, there seem to be few examples of good
practices in relation to intersectionality (Verloo, Walby, Armstrong and Strid 2009).
In reviewing the quality of gender equality policy in relation to intersections between
gender and other inequalities, the conclusion is that while there are some promising
practices many challenges remain.
WHY
The acronym WHY refers to this research activity’s ambition to contribute to the explanatory
analysis of the nature and quality of gender+ equality policies. WHY’s objectives were to:
Develop an institutional approach to practices of citizenship
Conceptualise and map the interfaces between civil society and policy making
Explain deficiencies, deviations and inconsistencies in EU and member states’
gender+ equality policies
Conceptualise participatory forms of gender and diversity mainstreaming by
accentuating voice and civil society interfaces
Following a review of the relevant literature and of gender equality policies in the EU, WHY
developed alternative theoretical models. The manuals on the WHY methodology ensured
that the collected data would allow addressing a range of theoretical questions derived from
the QUING agenda.
One manual guided the ‘Country Context’ studies, ensuring that comparable data was
collected on the structure of gendered political opportunities, including both civil society and
the state, in each EU member state (Walby, Armstrong and Strid 2007). These 30 reports
represent a major WHY contribution in their own right, as well as being used by QUING as
data for further analysis. They are publicly available online so that these data may be used
as empirical contributions to further analyses of gender relations in the EU.
A further set of reports within WHY contained analyses that sought to explain the
varied nature and quality of gender equality policies. Drawing on data and concepts
generated in LARG and STRIQ, as well as WHY, these 35 papers have been the basis of
significant numbers of journal articles and book contributions. Several themes are addressed
in these reports, including the explanation in variations in the nature and quality of gender+
equality policies, the development of the concept of discursive institutionalism, the
implications of different kinds of engagement between civil society and the state, and the
nature and significance of the process of Europeanisation.
11
FRAGEN
The acronym FRAGEN is derived from FRAmes on GENder, but it also means “questions/to
question’ in German. In choosing this name for an activity that intended to make a qualitative
selection of feminist movement texts in Europe, we highlight that such texts question existing
gender relations in different contexts. The main objective here was to conceptualise and map
civil society texts on gender+ equality. FRAGEN was the work of a special group of
collaborators in the project – many active in gender studies or in feminist documentation
centres – gathered and organised by Aletta in Amsterdam. FRAGEN produced eight reports
(mainly manuals outlining the work procedures and conference reports) and a public
database that is guaranteed to be kept online for at least three years beyond the project.
The database consists of a small number of carefully selected feminist texts for each
country of the European Union, plus Turkey and Croatia. These texts have been selected in
collaboration with many local experts, and the selection process has also been documented:
all texts proposed by experts have been included in a longlist that is accessible on the
website. The final selection was made through a collective process of choosing from within
the long list. The selected texts are not only described using classic bibliographical data, but
are additionally included in full in the database (copyrights arranged for), as well as
described in more detail using a specially developed set of codes. The database was
launched in Budapest at the Second ECPR Conference on Gender and Politics in January
2011. There are currently almost 300 texts in the database. See http://www.fragen.nu
The FRAGEN database can be seen as the first step towards a full text European
Feminist Collection that will enable and encourage comparative research into the history of
feminist thinking in Europe. Experience so far shows that it is urgent to continue the
collection of this material in the next years as some of it was originally made public through
channels that no longer exist, and is thus in danger of disappearing altogether.
OPERA
OPERA is plural for opus, the Latin word for work, and as acronym in the QUING project this
is used to refer to the actual work of ‘doing gender+ equality’ that is needed to change
policymaking towards the achievement of gender+ equality. For the future of gender+
equality, OPERA was and is seen as crucial, given the lack of channels for transfer of
gender+ equality knowledge between academia, social movements, and policy practitioners.
OPERA was set up to improve this transfer through its focus on gender+ training. The
questions it has set out to address are:
What gender equality training is necessary in public and private bodies in the EU and
its member states?
How can trainers best be trained, and by whom?
What should be the standards and contexts of gender training courses?
What bodies should be responsible for maintaining and updating gender equality
training programmes and standards?
Along the way, the QUING research team benefitted from its collaboration with the QUING
consultant partner (Yellow Window Consultancy) ensuring the necessary reality check. The
OPERA work also benefitted from more theoretical work (Bustelo and Verloo 2009). OPERA
produced 12 reports, including ones on gender training in all countries, a manual for gender
trainers, as well as a monitoring and evaluation protocol for the training of trainers. Several
pilot trainings have also been held by various teams. Expert meetings and virtual
12
Communities of Practice have been used to bring together the knowledge that exists among
gender+ trainers, commissioners, and researchers.
Among OPERA’s most important achievements are the construction of a database of
gender trainers in Europe, and its contribution to a growing Community of Practice on gender
training. In 2011, OPERA’s final conference in Madrid resulted in the Madrid Declaration,
which outlines the basic criteria of quality and content to be advocated in Gender+ training
activities in Europe in order to fully assume the role of gender training practitioners
(commissioners, trainers, and researchers) in the improvement of Gender+ Equality policies.
This Madrid Declaration has already been signed by numerous gender+ trainers, gender+
training commissioners, and gender+ training experts who have thereby expressed a
commitment to the further development and improvement of gender+ training as an emerging
professional field. The database of gender trainers has found a good permanent home with
EIGE, the European Institute for Gender equality in Vilnius. The final OPERA report also
includes a more prospective dimension, which aims at ensuring the sustainability of OPERA
reports through different channels.
II. Thematic issues
The main reason to address the content, quality, and dynamics of gender+ equality policies
through thematic issues is theoretical in nature: we can expect a policy’s political dynamics,
and hence its content, quality, and potential success or failure to be domain specific.
Following Walby’s landmark contribution to social theory (2009), which creates a useful
framework to conceptualise complex systems of influence, we can distinguish two types of
systems. These are each understood to make up the other’s environment (with each thus
separately analysable as existing within the context of the other system), and they can be of
two different kinds: institutional systems (domains) and relational systems (inequality
regimes). In QUING research, this means that inequality regimes can be seen as a part of
domains, and vice versa.
There are two reasons to expect issue specificity (meaning that an issue is
particularly connected to one or more of these systems): one is that issues are connected to
different domains, or different sets of domains, and the other is that they can be part of
several inequality regimes. In both cases, this means that different actors have different roles
and power positions, which causes issue specificity (Verloo 2011).
Besides specific, targeted gender equality policies and policies on gender equality
machineries – called General Gender Equality policies in the project’s terminology – three
other major issues were selected: Non-employment, Intimate Citizenship, and Gender-based
Violence. All four are described in greater detail immediately below.
General gender+ equality policies, including machineries
The main focus of these studies of General Gender+ Equality policies and machineries has
been on the developing and developed legislation concerning gender inequality, particularly
the policies’ and machineries’ inter-relationship with other intersecting inequalities. The
implications of the transposition of EU directives for policies, as well as the significance of
other international processes (for example, CEDAW) were considered. We studied the
creation and the restructuring of gender equality machineries (or more general equality
bodies where no specific gender focus was present), analysing debates on the creation of
13
new institutions, the reform of existing institutions, and the integration of governmental
gender machineries with those concerning other inequalities. In the period under analysis,
one of the most important changes here has been the shift from a focus on gender equality
to a more complex equality architecture that addresses a wider set of inequalities. The
theoretical discussions about the concept of intersectionality have been useful in
understanding these developments, and the study of this level of gender+ equality policies
has enabled the team to contribute to both policy recommendations and theory. There have
been several reports and actual or planned journal articles on this issue (Walby, Armstrong
and Strid 2009b; Lombardo and Agustin 2011; Alonso under review; Verloo, Lauwers,
Martens and Meier under review; Lombardo and Bustelo forthcoming), as well as a planned
special issue of a journal (Walby and Verloo under review).
The team also mapped the range of inequalities addressed by gender equality
policies. This is visible in Table 1 below. As the table shows, the range of inequalities
addressed in the 29 studied countries is wider than the six inequalities that are at the heart of
European Union regulations. While this table was based on information on inequalities in one
way or another linked to gender equality policies, and therefore cannot be complete, the
overview it provides shows that the variety across Europe is large, and that class, political
position, marital or family status, and health are the most common extensions.
14
Table 1 Overview of links to inequality in laws and regulations beyond the EU-6 Links to inequality
beyond EU-6
Country class politics marital/family status
health other
Austria family status, marital status
Belgium birth/descent, property, social descent
political preferences civil status current or future health condition
Bulgaria education, property status
political belonging marital status personal or public status, any other grounds
Croatia marital, family status
Cyprus
Czech Republic
social origin, property, political or other conviction
marital status, maternity and paternity
or other status
Denmark social origin, social background
p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n
Estonia property, origin or social status
political or other opinion
EU marital status
Finland marital status health
France union activities political conviction marital status, family situation
health origin?
Germany political opinion parentage
Greece
Hungary social origin, financial status, part-time, temporary and other types of employment contract, the membership of an organisation representing employee interests, education
political or other opinion family status, motherhood (pregnancy) or fatherhood
state of health
or any other criteria
Ireland marital status, family status
Italy social condition political opinion marital status, pregnancy status, motherhood,
Latvia social origin, social status, wealth, economic position
political beliefs marital status, family situation
Lithuania social status
Luxembourg
Malta membership in a trade union or employers' association
political opinions pregnancy or potential pregnancy, marital status, family responsibilities
Netherlands political conviction civil/marital status (E,S),
Poland participation in unions
Portugal marital status
Romania social origin persons infected with HIV
persons belonging to a disfavoured category (e.g. refugees, asylum seekers, pensioners, abandoned children, convicted persons who have served their sentences etc.
Slovakia social origin, property political opinion, marital and family status
Slovenia marital status
Spain marital status
Sweden
Turkey political opinion marital status or maternity
UK marriage trans/gender identity
This overview is not exhaustive, as it is based on data gathered for the QUING series of Intersectionality reports, for more see: http://www.quing.eu. Overview compiled by Lisa Wewerka and Mieke Verloo.
15
Non-employment
The focus in the Non-employment policy field, as conceptualised by QUING, is on the
legitimisation of non-employment as an exception from the routine expectation of
‘employment as the norm’. It is about defining who is not employed, who does not need to be
employed, and for what reasons. As such, it is about categorising citizens (citizens who study
or are old, provide care to other people, or who do not have a legal status) and investigating
the links between the rights and duties associated with these categories. There is
considerable variation in which groups of women are regarded as legitimately non-employed
both within countries and between countries. Non-employment is a good concept through
which to look anew at how policy fields, actions, and discourses embedded in different types
of European gender regimes regulate labour market entry and exit paths for men and
women, the short-term and long-term rewards of paid jobs, and the distribution of social
welfare provision benefits.
This approach allows us the scope to examine both the older structural inequalities
and the newly shaped ones that face men and women in general, but particularly also men
and women in ethnic and religious groups, different in their material status, sexual
orientation, migrant or citizen status, and/or abilities in the labour market and the workplace.
These are related to important issues concerning the quality of gender equality policy in the
field of Non-employment (Armstrong, Strid and Walby 2009), including the implications of the
intersection of gender with other inequalities for the quality of policy (Armstrong, Walby and
Strid 2009). Many policy topics in this field are connected to some aspect of work-life
balance, through connections to sub-issues such as reconciliation, care work, tax and
benefits, the availability of various childcare benefits, and parental leaves (including paternity
and maternity leaves), but also to equal treatment of women in the labour market.
On this issue, a large comparative analysis was performed on the variety of leave
regulations in the studied countries as well as in the European Union itself. Ciccia and Verloo
(2009), building on an earlier internal QUING paper by Lauwers (2009), use fuzzy-set ideal
types to grasp the variety in leave regulations across the European Union member states,
and a theoretical framework based on Nancy Fraser’s work to evaluate the gendered quality
of leave regulations. Table 2 below, taken from their paper, shows the index of concentration
of leave entitlement, which measures the extent to which both parents are similarly entitled to
parental leave benefits in terms of time and monetary compensation (Switzerland, Iceland,
and Norway were added for contrast purposes).
16
Figure 1: Index of concentration of FTE (full time equivalent)
Formula: (FTE Maternity entitlement – FTE Paternity entitlement)/(FTE Maternity entitlement – FTE Paternity entitlement)
One of the most striking conclusions from this analysis is that in spite of claims about the
demise of the male breadwinner ideal, none of the analysed countries has a universal
caregiver model, while more than one third of European countries (Austria, Czech Republic,
Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, United Kingdom) still
present policies based on a traditional division of gender roles. Leave policies in this group of
countries are characterised by long leaves, a low level of benefits, strong gender gaps in
entitlements, as well as a lack of incentives for fathers to share leave more equally (Ciccia &
Verloo 2011).
Intimate Citizenship
Intimate Citizenship is understood here as a set of policies that regulate intimate
partnerships, claims about the body, traditional and non-traditional relationships, and
sexuality. These policies take shape around issues such as sexuality, reproductive
capacities, (new) living arrangements, (new) families, care for the partner/s, ways of raising
children, and questions about identities and representation of identities. The consequences
of these policies are that certain groups within a political community, although they have
formal citizenship status, can be subjected to inequality and exclusion due to the unjust
distribution of not only economic but also legal, symbolic, social and cultural rights (Verloo
2010). Intimate Citizenship is important because of its implications for sexuality and for
equality within private relationships through the legislative and cultural structuring of gender
itself. Intimate Citizenship is thus a central component of gender (in)equality, closely linked to
other policy domains such as Non-employment and Gender-based Violence.
The following highlights from the results of the analysis show how much exclusion
based on gender still takes place in Intimate Citizenship issues. The first deals with
reproductive rights, the second with partnership regulations. In a comparison of three Nordic
countries made in the context of WHY, Carbin, Harjunen and Kvist (2009) analysed
differences in intersectional reproductive rights: fertility treatment policies for lesbian
1,11
1,06 1,05
1,00
0,66
0,60 0,59
0,530,50
0,47
0,39
0,250,24
0,220,20
0,13
0,09 0,09 0,08 0,070,05 0,05 0,04
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,000,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
1,20
SE PT NO IC LU FI DE BE NL IT LT SL ES FR DK LV RO PO HU UK GR BU ML AT CY CZ ET EU IE SK CH
17
mothers. In the process, they not only show how these policies are very different in these
three similar countries, but also how they construct exclusions for different citizens. While
Sweden’s case is based on coupledom and excludes all single (lesbian) mothers, in Finland
the co-mother is not recognised, and in Denmark the existence of a known biological father
excludes co/motherhood. The countries are similar in their absence of attention to
heteronormativity and to fatherhood by homosexual men (Carbin, Harjunen and Kvist 2009).
The absences and exclusions negatively impact the quality of these policies and obstruct
progress in gender+ equality.
Kuhar (2009) analyses an issue where national competences still have primacy:
same-sex partnership regulations. While top-down Europeanisation therefore cannot be
expected, he shows that this issue does show evidence of a form of Europeanisation where
transfer of practices takes place between countries, strengthened by links made in the
framing of the issue along existing lines of anti-discrimination legislation. This horizontal
transfer takes place through the use of role-model countries (such as the Netherlands) and
the positioning of countries vis-à-vis these countries (Kuhar forthcoming).
Gender-based violence
Gender-based Violence is understood to include any form of violence that is based on
gender, or in which women disproportionately suffer, and includes, at minimum, intimate
partner violence, rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, forced marriage, female genital
mutilation, ‘honour’-based violence and trafficking; further forms, such as prostitution, are
treated as violence in some countries in our studies, but not others.
The intersection of violence against women with other inequalities produces some
complexities for policy development. Three decades ago, Crenshaw (1991) drew attention to
problematic aspects of this intersection that made the issue less visible for black women in
the US. QUING studies have investigated whether this remains such a problem, with at least
one finding that pressure from NGOs had reduced the problem (Strid, Armstrong and Walby
under review).
While policies to reduce and eliminate gender-based violence are an important part of
gender equality policy, there is a division of responsibility between the EU and the member
state level. This division is changing, and the remit of the EU in this field appears to be
increasing. In a comparative analysis, Krizsán and Popa (2010) assess the formulation and
adoption of domestic violence policies in five countries: two first-round accession countries
(Hungary and Poland), two second-round accession countries (Bulgaria and Romania), and
one candidate country (Croatia). In spite of the lack of formal European regulations or
accession conditions in this field, the development of domestic violence laws in three of
these countries (Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania) shows the significance of a process of
Europeanisation. This at times happened through inclusion in the accession criteria, but
more often through social-learning mechanisms and through strategic discursive action by
women’s movements actors and their allies, who capitalised on the idea of a shared and
desired Europeanness as an advocacy tool in their efforts to pass a specific law on domestic
violence.
18
III. Theoretical discussions
Some of the main theoretical contributions of the QUING project are strongly linked to its
original objectives: these are contributions on intersectionality, on civil-society interfaces, and
on quality in gender+ equality policies. Additionally, the work in QUING has contributed to
debates on Europeanisation, contributing to current theoretical debates on patterns of
similarities and differences between European Union member states, or between the
European Union and its member states. In addition there is a contribution to gender
knowledge transfer.
Intersectionality
Gender relations can be transformed by their intersection with other inequalities. Exactly how
this process should be conceptualised and how policies can be devised to address this issue
has been an important part of the QUING project.
Walby, Armstrong and Strid (2007) offer new ways of conceptualising the
relationships between different inequalities, especially between gender, race/ethnicity,
religion, class and sexuality. They identify and offer solutions to five main theoretical
dilemmas. Building on previous work (Walby 2007), they conclude that both the ontology of,
and the relationship between, different inequality ‘strands’ needs to be taken into account. As
we have seen earlier, the STRIQ report argues that focusing on relationships prevents the
powerful from fading from view (as would happen when only focusing on those on the losing
end of inequality), while taking on board the full ontological depth can show variety in
presence or absence of different strands in various political projects or policies. The
tendency to obscure class should be countered, and the question of which inequality is the
most important one should be empirical not normative. Similarly, the question of the
relationship between different inequalities is best understood as an empirical one that falls
within the overall conceptualisation of this relationship as one that mutually shapes the
inequalities involved. It should at the same time recognise that inequalities are not
independent, yet that they can have a continued distinctive existence as well. Different
categories related to inequalities should be only temporarily stabilised for analysis, while
keeping in mind their fluid and dynamic character.
The theoretical work on intersectionality has been used to inform other QUING
analysis. The intersection of gender and other inequalities in Non-employment has been
addressed in relation to the significance of targeting for the quality of gender equality policy
(Armstrong, Strid and Walby 2009). Strid, Armstrong and Walby (under review) investigate
the extent to which the intersection of gender and other inequalities has been addressed in
the field of Gender-based Violence, and find that pressure from NGOs has been effective, at
least in the UK, in securing some recognition of the importance of these issues. The new
approaches to intersectionality were used in analyses of the four specific policy fields. The
changes in the equality architecture (in laws, in consultative bodies, governmental policy-
making units and in the units that oversee the implementation of the laws) as policy makers
sought to include inequalities in addition to gender were analysed in several reports that are
leading to significant publications, both articles in refereed journals (Walby, Armstrong and
Strid 2007a, 2007b; Lombardo and Rolandsen 2011; Alonso under review; Krizsán under
review; Verloo, Lauwers, Martens and Meier under review; Lombardo and Bustelo
forthcoming), including a special issue of a journal (Walby and Verloo, under review) and an
edited collection of papers in a book (Krizsán et al., forthcoming).
19
State–civil society interfaces
In the context of the QUING project, civil society is a broad concept, including NGOs, social-
movement type organisations, trade unions, and some other non-state organisations. Civil
society is understood here as those parts of society that are distinct from formal political
institutions and organisations as well as from the formal market sector. This is in line with
work that sees civil society as the "third sector” next to politics and the economy (but
recognizing that the boundaries between civil society and formal politics, and between civil
society and the market can be blurred or unclear as is the case with government funded or
profit making citizen advocacy groups). Examples can be found among all formal or informal
organisations that engage in socio-political activities centred on specific or more general
interests, such as professional associations, religious groups, labour unions and citizen
advocacy organisations, but also sports and leisure time associations.
In the context of the QUING project, especially those organisations that attract or
target specific politically relevant groups, or that articulate specific interests of specific groups
of citizens are relevant. In the field of equality policies, civil society organisations that share a
goal of ‘equality’ have a distinct position of course from civil society organisations that
actively engage in promoting various forms of inequality (sometimes as part of other general
activities such as religious services). Whether the civil society–state interface permits and
deploys civil society engagement with policy development and implementation is seen as
crucial, and some characteristics of this interface are shaped in part by both EU and UN as
influential actors.
Many of the QUING reports engage with the dilemmas of the state-civil society
interface in one way or another (Acar and Altunok 2009; Alonso 2009; Armstrong, Walby and
Strid 2009; Del Giorgio and Lombardo 2009; Frank 2009; Jaigma 2009; Kispéter 2009;
Lombardo and Verloo 2009; Krizsán under review; Krizsán and Zentai forthcoming; Strid,
Armstrong and Walby under review; Tertinegg 2009; Van der Wal and Verloo 2009, Walby,
Armstrong and Strid under review).
There are four major conceptual conclusions that can be drawn from the papers that
focus on the interface between civil society and the state. The first concerns alliances
between women and between women’s organisations. Here the findings are that these
alliances are constructed by, and impact on, political structures and opportunities. The
second concerns the empowerment of civil society in general and feminist civil society in
particular and here the findings show how this empowerment is conditioned by the actions
and policy frames at the national and supranational levels. The third one is the specific role
of civil society organisations that act politically against gender equality policies or strategies,
and the importance of including them in an analysis of the content and quality of gender+
equality policies. The last conclusion is that in the field of employment the class logic is so
strong that there is a need to broaden the perspective to policymaking and include class-
based institutions and other institutions for consultation with civil society.
There is also an additional lesson to be found in the papers that analyse the
institutional shifts linked to giving more attention to multiple inequalities. That lesson is that
first of all consultation mechanisms are a crucial element of the equality architecture.
Additionally, the ‘separate but connected’ model that exists in Portugal is found to be the
most innovative practice in Europe at this moment (Alonso under review).
20
Drawing on QUING, Walby is publishing a book analysing the future of feminism that
addresses these state-civil society interfaces. It asks whether new organisational forms,
including coalitions and alliances, can meet the challenges of the neoliberal turn, while
successfully navigating the dilemmas of gender mainstreaming and intersectionality (Walby
2011).
Quality in gender+ equality policies
At many times during the QUING project, dilemmas around defining the quality of gender+
equality policies were discussed. A significant outcome of these discussions is a paper by
Andrea Krizsán and Emanuela Lombardo, entitled “‘Successful’ gender+ equality policies in
Europe? A discursive approach to the quality of policies”, which was presented at the “Equal
is not enough” conference in Antwerp in December 2010. In this paper, Krizsán and
Lombardo (2010) propose a two-dimensional model for understanding quality in this context.
The first dimension is procedural, capturing quality by understanding policy processes
through empowerment criteria at different stages of the policy process, and through their
transformativity in relation to the policies’ previous states. The second dimension is more
substantive, content driven, and can be captured along the factors of genderedness,
intersectionality, and the policies’ structural or individual focus. Rather than attempting to pin
down ‘one size fit all’ criteria, Krizsán and Lombardo use policy debates revolving around
these dimensions to illustrate that these criteria depend on the different discursive,
institutional, and structural factors defining the specific policy context.
The intersectionality papers also contribute further reflections on the quality of the
equality architecture’s engagement with intersectionality. Here, not only Walby, Armstrong
and Strid (2009), but also Lombardo and Bustelo (forthcoming) stress that when it comes to
the overall quality not only do the format and the specific configuration of equality institutions
(as well as their institutionalised relationship, also stressed by Krizsán under review) matter,
but also the vision of equality that they incorporate. This is in line with earlier work on
intersectionality in Europe that sees a reduction in the ‘vision’ of equality, accompanying the
institutional changes in dealing with multiple inequalities (Verloo 2006; Kantola and
Nousiainen 2009). Walby, Armstrong and Strid (under review) show that a more complex
analysis of the equality architecture makes it possible to see both the positive and negative
elements that need to be jointly assessed in order to understand the overall impact of
equality institutions. Their criteria for quality are comprehensive, including the model of the
relations between multiple inequalities; the range of people and inequalities encompassed;
the range of policies included; the scope and ambition of the vision of equality; and the scale
and depth of the available resources. Alonso (under review) as well as Lombardo and
Bustelo (under review) show that the European laboratory of equality institutions has come
up with new ‘solutions’.
Europeanisation
A very substantial explanation for the variety and similarities of gender+ equality policies in
European countries has to do with the character of a country’s membership of the European
Union. One aspect of this is inclusion (whether or not they are a member state), another
timing (when they acceded to the European Union). As a consequence of the increased
diversity of the EU after the Eastern enlargement, analyses of the relations between EU
member states have blossomed, providing more sophisticated and realistic frameworks for
21
understanding the interactions between the EU and its member states. QUING contributes to
theoretical debates in this area of study through a focus on discursive institutionalism,
challenging the idea of Europeanisation as a convergence with the EU norm. Several papers
are currently being re-written as part of a book contract with Palgrave in its Gender and
Politics Series: The Europeanization of gender equality policies. A discursive-sociological
approach, edited by QUING members Emanuela Lombardo and Maxime Forest, which also
contains extra chapters by invited non-QUING researchers.
Emphasising questions such as ‘what meaning is given to EU norms?’ and ‘how do
domestic political actors that resist or support EU ideas actually use EU policies?’, a major
conclusion is that all contributions show divergent rather than converging ‘impacts of
Europe’. Some highlights: Lombardo and Bustelo (under review) apply a discursive
institutionalist perspective to the analysis of gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation
inequalities on the political treatment of inequality in three Southern European Countries
(Spain, Portugal and Italy), combining analyses of these countries’ equality legislation,
machinery, and policy frames. While they show that there is a ‘domesticated
Europeanisation’, leading to divergent results in Italy, Portugal, and Spain, they also
demonstrate that this takes place within a common horizon of antidiscrimination, which lets
the EU retain a key role in creating discourse and setting norms on equality. The work done
by QUING researchers on Europeanisation shows differences across different gender issues
in national political agendas that were already apparent in the previous MAGEEQ project, but
that can now be better understood. For instance, they have shown that though Spain has
greatly progressed in its policies against domestic violence over the last decade (Krizsán et
al., 2007), it has not similarly advanced in policies that aim at promoting more equal gender
roles between women and men in the care for children, the elderly, and dependent relatives
(Meier et al., 2007).
Gender training and knowledge transfer
Through QUING’s OPERA project (see also section I of this summary), a continuous and
organised process of reflexivity through expert meetings and virtual ‘Communities of
Practice’ has led to the identification of several elements that are seen to be of crucial
theoretical importance. Four of them were articulated in particular: The first is about
assuming the diversity of audiences and policy sectors in the definition of standards for
gender+ training. Here, gender training is seen as a highly contextualised activity that leads
to an inherent preference for minimum quality criteria over curriculum standards, and a
preference for practices with potential over the promotion of best practices. The second is
about the knowledge created in the process of gender training and the need to incorporate
this knowledge in the process of professional development of gender training, in a sense
thus also learning from practitioners, not only by practitioners.
This creates a two-way link between research and gender training practices. The third
is about the political economy of knowledge circulation among gender training practitioners,
including potential resistances towards sharing information and the diffusion of ‘best
practices’. In this, resistances from trainees and from potential commissioners are seen as a
diverse phenomenon, both individual and institutional. The last is about the need for
reflexivity in gender+ training and in the further development of gender+ training. Here, a
conceptual paper on reflexivity by QUING Advisory Board member Carol Bacchi, made for
and presented at the OPERA final conference in Madrid in January 2011, and included in the
22
OPERA Conference Programme, has contributed essential knowledge in clarifying this
much-used concept.
IV. Policy recommendations
IV. Policy recommendations
The future of gender equality policy and research
The QUING project has produced many, diverse outputs and initiatives (reports, conference
papers, journal articles, books, datasets) that have had, and will continue to have, an impact
in and beyond Europe. As well as this clearly visible research output, the project has reach in
additional, less-measureable ways. These include the establishment of working relationships
and networks (within academia, and between academics, civil society actors and state
actors); and the knowledge that will be carried forward by the researchers involved into new
projects. This means that the QUING project will have a significant potential impact in the
much longer term. The QUING network is committed to further active dissemination of its
work, at the national and international level, and among all stakeholders of gender equality
policies, including researchers.
The QUING leadership will also closely follow what happens with the OPERA and FRAGEN
databases and other QUING output.
The QUING project was conducted during a specific period when gender equality policies
were expanded and deepened in many member states. The post-‘financial crisis’ era with its
large cutbacks in terms of public spending and a turn to the political right across many EU
member states both mean that the progress that was made in relation to gender+ equality
policies is, or is in danger of, being undermined. This provides the potential for important
research to compare the next time period in EU policies with policies produced during the
QUING period.
Recommendations
Though crucial, it is still quite rare for gender equality policies to pay attention to the
structural character of gender inequality. It is also rare for them to be rooted in, and shaped
by, constructive dialogue with civil society organisations working towards the abolition of
gender inequality. Lastly, they hardly ever pay attention to all relevant other inequalities, or
address intersectionality in a way that helps achieve gender equality. Based on the QUING
research in LARG, WHY and STRIQ, the following recommendations for policy making can
thus be made.
It is necessary that gender+ equality policies:
Intervene in the social and political construction of privilege.
Pay attention to the structural dimension of all inequalities linked to gender.
Eliminate fragments of anti-gender equality activities that are currently part of gender
equality policies.
Engage in constructive dialogue with civil society organisations working towards
gender equality.
Enable dialogues across movements working towards equality based on other axes
of inequality.
23
Pay attention to interlinkages between different gender equality policy areas.
Take as a default option to work on visibility and explicitness, and only make
exceptions to this as a deliberate and monitored strategy.
Have human and financial resources available to them, and not be limited to being
texts on paper.
These general recommendations might seem overly obvious, but they are based in solid
research which shows that violating them negatively impacts the quality of gender+ equality
policies. It is therefore worth including these recommendations in any effort to re-design or
improve gender+ equality policies in Europe, be it at the national or at EU level.
As has become clear from the work QUING has done, the following recommendations are
made:
There is a need to support the member states’ equality architecture in their work to
monitor and enforce existing laws in member states, to conduct research, as well as
to consult with those civil society organisations that are working towards gender
equality. In the context of creating single equality commissions for gender and all
other inequality grounds, we recommend that some existing agencies (e.g. divisions,
committees, consultation platforms) are retained to ensure that the specificities and
interests of each equality strand are represented, and to prevent expertise from
getting lost. Including such inequality-specific devices (for gender and also other
inequalities) leads to more productive and constructive dialogue across inequalities
and hence to better policies for all. This would prevent the loss of gender-specific
expertise and the dilution of resources devoted to gender inequality, which appears to
have been the case in some of the recent mergers of equality institutions. The
combination of separate equality agencies and single equality bodies would
implement the European Commission policy of both specific actions and gender
mainstreaming, and would avoid the dangers of only mainstreaming.
Long-term impact and effectiveness of gender+ equality policy requires concrete and
sustained resources (which enable e.g. monitoring and enforcement of laws, as well
as securing the funding of NGOs working towards gender equality). The importance
of adequate resources cannot be overestimated.
To improve gender+ inequalities in caring there is a need for a Directive to ensure
gender equality in paid parental leave. Commission monitoring and intervention is
needed to ensure that the principle of gender equality is articulated throughout
policies on employment and care-work, and to make sure that policies are not
differentially applied to women situated differently because of class, ethnicity and
partner status. It is necessary to avoid the outcome of targeted interventions
promoting gender equality in employment only for some social groups and not others.
This demands a nuanced approach to intersectionality, so as to ensure that paying
attention to differences is not at the expense of the gender equality project.
There is a need for a Directive on policies regarding violence against women. Given
the impact of the EU (albeit diverse in different contexts), and following from the soft
measures put in place by the EU (e.g. Daphne programme), hard policy measures on
VAW (i.e. an EU Directive) are required in order to secure minimum standards in
member states in terms of, for example, services to combat violence against women
24
(e.g. measurement of gender-based violence; appropriate number of shelters;
effective domestic laws). This is particularly urgent given the impact of gender-based
violence on individuals and economies, and in light of current threats to existing
measures in the contemporary context of severe cuts in public spending taking place
across Europe.
There is a need to improve the measurement of gender-based violence through
official national and European Union statistics. It is important to make sure that the
statistics and data cover the whole range of gender-based violence and are not
confined to domestic violence (thus including rape, etc.). It would be productive to
consider the use of health services as an additional source of data, for example,
through the use of routine enquiry or the obligatory recording of gender-based
violence. The further engagement of both research and advocacy groups and
organisations working towards gender+ equality in the study of gender-based
violence would aid developing the knowledge base needed for policy development.
In the pursuit of gender equality, there is a need to pay careful attention to the inter-
relationship between different policy areas. For example, changes in economic policy
have implications for the vulnerability and resilience of women to gender-based
violence. Each policy area should examine its implications for other aspects of gender
inequality.
Monitoring gender inequality at the point of its intersection with other inequalities is
needed in order to more fully address gender citizenship in a multicultural Europe.
Data is not always available to enable this monitoring across all protected equality
grounds. The provision of this data to enable evaluation of policy developments
should be considered an integral issue in policy development.
Based on the QUING research in LARG, WHY and STRIQ, the following recommendations
for research can be made:
Inequalities in institutional arrangements for caring, such as leave regulations,
childcare and elderly care institutions and regulations, as well as arrangements that
regulate migration for domestic services should receive more attention in research
programmes and projects. The differential access of different social groups to
institutionalised forms of care is an example of where the analysis of intersectionality
can help wider research aims.
The study of gender-based violence requires further resources for research, including
comparative research. This requires the effective mobilisation of quantitative and
qualitative methodologies as well as agreement on international standards for its
measurement. The EU-wide surveys that are currently under development need to be
provided with resources so as to enable replication over time and the full analysis of
their findings. The creation of indicators has been under development in recent years,
and requires further resources so as to ensure that the measures are robust and gain
consensus among researchers and policy makers.
The inter-relationship between gender-based violence and other aspects of gender
inequality needs further research; in particular, the implications of the current
changes in economic conditions and welfare provision for the level of gender-based
violence. The range and effectiveness of policy interventions into gender-based
25
violence is in need of further research since, while it initially appears as if gender-
based violence is on the margins of the EU legal remit, many examples were found of
policies that did draw on EU Treaties and Directives.
Intimate citizenship issues should be included in research on gender equality policy
studies as they harbour many inequalities in contemporary Europe. Inequalities in
partnership and reproductive technologies negatively impact gender equality for some
categories of women that are positioned at crucial intersections of gender and
sexuality, gender and class, or gender and race/ethnicity.
There is a need for research that analyses the interconnections between gender
equality policies across domains and across issues. It is important that the fields of
general gender+ equality policies, employment, violence and intimate citizenship do
not develop separately, since they each have significant implications for the others.
An example would be research to measure the cost of gender-based violence to the
EU economy and society, drawing on previous research at a national level, gender
budgeting techniques and research on gender-based violence.
Processes of contestation on gender equality are a promising research area. This
might include comparisons in order to ascertain the conditions under which effective
alliances and coalitions to support gender equality policies are made.
The study of Europeanisation can be improved by integrating discursive analysis
alongside the analysis of institutions and laws.
Intersectionality needs to be studied at the institutional level. Many of the existing
studies of intersectionality have been conducted at the micro level. It is important to
extend this analysis to institutions, especially those that are important for policy
development.
The heritage of feminist movements in Europe can be studied as contextual feminist
master frames that impact policy innovations, and it can help explain differences and
similarities in engagement and outcome across Europe.
The gendering of the causes and consequences of the financial crisis and its ensuing
waves of economic recession need research. There is an urgent need to follow what
is happening to the range of gender equality policies since the hard times of the
financial crisis and the move to the political right in some parts of Europe. This
includes research into issues such as the reduction in resources and the narrowing of
the remit of the equality commissions, as well as the increase in policies working
against gender+ equality that are being reported in some member states.
Based on the overall QUING research and its activities in OPERA, the following
recommendations for gender+ training can be made:
There is a substantial need for gender training and for integrating intersectionality in
gender+ training.
There is a substantial need for networking and for the joint development – by gender+
trainers, gender+ experts and gender+ trainer commissioners – of the quality of
gender+ training.
The Madrid Declaration, developed in the OPERA context, is an excellent starting
point for developing and discussing the quality of gender+ training.
26
Based on the overall QUING research and its activities in FRAGEN, the following
suggestions can be made for feminist movements and for conservation and dissemination of
feminist heritage:
The rich feminist heritage in Europe from the period starting in the 1970s in the West,
and in the 1990s in most of East and Central Europe is in danger of disappearing.
There is a need to bring this knowledge together and open it for new generations as
well as for policy makers.
The FRAGEN database should be enlarged by digitising, coding and acquiring
copyrights for all texts selected to be on its long list.
Overall, QUING has developed sophisticated analyses of the variations in nature and quality
of gender equality policies in a multicultural Europe. There is much more to be done in order
to achieve fundamental EU values and human rights, to which these recommendations are
proud to contribute.
27
1.2 Introduction
The QUING research project is coming to an end in 2011. What did this project intend to do?
And what did it do?
Within broader questions of gender and citizenship in a multicultural Europe, the concerns
and questions that are at the heart of the QUING project are about the overall and specific
quality of gender equality policies across the European Union, and on the degree to which
they currently pay attention to the intersections of gender inequality with other inequalities.
These are concerns and questions on gender+ (gender plus) equality policy: policy on
gender equality that recognises that gender inequality and other inequalities are connected.
The concerns and questions of the QUING project are rooted both in policy developments
and in theory. At the level of policy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaty of
Amsterdam and Lisbon have pushed forward new institutions and regulations that aim at
bringing equal treatment to a more universal level and to a de facto realisation, by
incorporating not only gender, but also race/ethnicity, religion and belief, age, sexual
orientation and disability. At the level of theory, the growing body of intersectionality theory
recognises the interrelationship of different structures of inequality, but struggles with the
questions how to conceptualise them and how to effectively address them.
At the start of the QUING project, there was inadequate knowledge on the content and
quality of gender equality policies across the European Union, and there was no
comprehensive conceptual framework to understand intersections between gender and other
inequalities in the context of the European Union. There was also a lack of venues, channels
and materials to supply policy makers with improved gender+ equality knowledge. In order to
contribute to highly needed knowledge addressing these gaps, two sets of objectives were
adopted.
The first set of objectives are about conceptualising inclusive gender+ equality policies (i.e.
policies that are empowering and contribute towards active citizenship of all and that are
informed by knowledge on the intersection of gender with other inequalities, so as to be
adequate in Europe’s diverse and multicultural contexts).
1. Conceptualising the relationships between different inequalities, especially between
gender, race/ethnicity, religion, class and sexuality
2. Conceptualising and mapping the interfaces between civil society and policy making
3. Conceptualising participatory forms of gender and diversity mainstreaming by
accentuating voice and civil society interfaces
4. Conceptualising and mapping civil society texts on gender+ equality
In order to fill some gaps in the knowledge, QUING also wanted to collect and analyse new
empirical data. The second set of Objectives (5-7) therefore is about systematically analysing
new empirical material.
5. Assessing the quality of gender+ equality policies in the EU’s multicultural context
6. Assessing the standing and voice of civil society in gender+ equality policies
7. Explaining variations, deficiencies, deviations and inconsistencies in EU and member
state’s gender+ equality policies
Based on the conceptualisation and the empirical analysis, QUING also had a clear
theoretical ambition. The third set of Objectives (8-9) is about contributing to social science
theory.
8. Developing an institutional approach to practices of citizenship
9. Developing a typology of gender regimes and of gender+ equality policies in Europe
28
The last Objective, 10, is to actively contribute to the further quality of policymaking on
gender in a multicultural context by providing policy makers with improved gender+ equality
knowledge through gender training of civil servants, by creating a database and by ensuring
the maintenance of this database by a high quality partner.
10. Defining more inclusive standards for gender+ expertise.
Overall, QUING has delivered 72 reports (see Annex 2).
This Final Report of the QUING Research Project has four parts. The first part reports along
the lines of the different activities that have been organised within the QUING project to do
the work. These were called LARG, STRIQ, WHY, FRAGEN and OPERA. The second part
reports from the perspective of the four different thematic issues tackled within the analytical
parts of the project. Those have been: General Gender+ Equality policies, including the
institutional arrangements, Non-employment, Gender-based Violence and Intimate
Citizenship. The third part reports about the contributions made to theory. Here we highlight
contributions to debates on intersectionality, state-civil society interface, quality in gender+
equality policies, Europeanisation, and gender knowledge transfer. The last part consists of
policy recommendations. Here a distinction is made between recommendations for gender+
equality policies in the context of Europe, recommendations for research and for gender
training as well as suggestions for feminist movements and for conservation and
dissemination of feminist heritage. Various actors at different levels of politics and policy
making are addressed: at the level of the European Union, member states, candidate states,
and civil society. The four parts of this Final Report of the QUING Research Project can be
read separately, and therefore show some overlap. The Annexes provide information on
contractors and QUING reports. Publications are listed in Section 2. Readers are strongly
encouraged to visit the QUING website and browse all our work at http://www.quing.eu.
1.3 QUING activities
The first three activities within QUING are strongly interrelated: LARG, where a systematic
description and analysis of gender+ equality policies was the main ambition, STRIQ, with its
analysis of intersectionality in gender+ equality policies, and WHY with its analysis of
explanatory factors. This section gives more information on all three. For each activity, more
information is given as to who contributed, what were the methodologies and approaches,
the end results and the achievements to the state of the art.
Four core policy fields in LARG, STRIQ and WHY
All three activities focused on policy fields that are of core relevance to gender+ equality
issues. Besides specific targeted gender equality policies and policies on gender equality
machineries called General Gender Equality policies in the project terminology, three other
issues were selected. These were: Non-employment, Intimate citizenship and Gender-based
Violence. Each of these wider issues was operationalised along 3-4 sub-issues. See the final
LARG report (Krizsán et al. 2009, pp. 90-96) for the variation of sub-issues chosen within
each country.
29
General gender+ equality
The policy field General Gender Equality was operationalised to include two sub-issues:
1. General gender+ equality legislation. This sub-issue encompasses new legislation of
general importance concerning either gender specifically or, when specific gender equality
policy was absent, inequality more generally. Policies transposing EU Directives or CEDAW
were also considered here.
2. General gender+ equality machinery. This topic was meant to include policies creating
gender equality machineries or more general equality bodies, when no specific gender focus
was present: debates on new institutions, reform of existing institutions, integration of
governmental machineries dealing with gender and other inequalities.
Non-Employment
The focus here is on the legitimisation of Non-employment as an exception from the routine
expectation of ‘employment as the norm’. It is about those parts of employment-related
regulation that either define sanctions or privilege states of Non-employment for very specific
groups and for very specific reasons. There is considerable variation in which groups of
women are regarded as legitimately non-employed both within countries and between
countries. There were four policy sub-fields:
1. Tax and benefit policies. Social insurance, active labour market policies,
disablement/sickness, parenting, pensions, including care component of state pension and
age of retirement, special attention paid to exclusions from benefits through partnership and
citizenship status.
2. Care work. Care for others including unpaid and paid work in the home, state provision,
privately purchased care, voluntary provision, special attention paid to use of
migrant/minoritised labour;
3. Reconciliation of work and family life in employment. Maternal, paternal and parental
leave (also for adoption), flexible hours working, also for breastfeeding, part-time work;
4. Gender pay gap and equal treatment in employment. Equal pay influences women’s
decisions about employment: includes implementation of equal pay and equal treatment
legislation, as well as pay audits.
Intimate citizenship
Intimate citizenship is understood as a set of policies that regulate intimate partnerships,
claims about the body, traditional and non-traditional relationships and sexuality (Plummer
2003). These policies are about sexuality, reproductive capacities, (new) living
arrangements, (new) families, care for the partner/s, ways of raising children, and questions
about identities and representation of identities. Three policy sub-issues were chosen:
1. Divorce, marriage and separation. Legal conditions for marriage and divorce; the
regulation of post-marital relations; child custody; matrimonial property; partnership rights on
crossing borders.
2. Sexual orientation discrimination and partnerships. Decriminalisation and age of
consent for same-sex relationship, discrimination, legal recognition of same-sex couples,
registered partnership and same-sex marriage.
3. Reproduction rights. Legality and availability of abortion, funding and availability of
assisted reproduction, reproductive health and contraception.
30
Gender-based violence
We defined Gender-based Violence as any form of violence rooted in structural, gender-
based inequalities that results or is likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm
or suffering, including threats, coercion, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty in public or private
life of women, men or children. Gender-based Violence is understood in QUING to include
any form of violence that is based on gender, or in which women disproportionately suffer,
and includes, at minimum, intimate partner violence, rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment,
forced marriage, female genital mutilation, ‘honour’ based violence and trafficking; further
forms, such as prostitution, are treated as violence in some countries in our studies, but not
others.
The following policy sub-issues were chosen:
1. Domestic violence. Defined as between intimate partners or family members, civil law
restraining orders, criminal restraining orders, variations by minoritised groups;
2. Sexual assault. Rape, marital rape, sexual assault/abuse, stalking, and sexual
harassment
3. Forced marriage, female genital mutilation, ‘honour’ crimes and trafficking for
sexual exploitation, ability to cross borders to seek refuge/asylum on grounds of
Gender-based Violence. State responses to forms of violence defined as culturally specific,
forms that relate to migration and cultural-ethnic-religious diversity.
1.3.1 LARG2
LARG started off from the premise that the concept of gender equality in the current
European political space is dynamic and contested: it takes on different meanings in different
spatiotemporal contexts (Lombardo, Meier & Verloo 2009), depending on policy fields, the
protagonists articulating them, and the interaction of multiple contextual factors. The study of
such a concept and such processes of interpretation and contestation includes a discursive
approach to politics and policy. The main aims of the LARG activity were twofold: to map
these multiple meanings of gender equality in 29 countries and the European Union and
across a variety of policy fields that are highly relevant from the point of view of gender
equality, and to understand the standing and voice of civil society in gender equality texts
and in the process of contestation leading to the articulation of these meanings.
LARG Methodology: Critical Frame Analysis combined with policy process
information
The key innovations of the LARG methodology are:
A combination of policy process mapping, frame and voice analysis methodologies;
Policy process mapping done through issue histories
A rigorous frame and voice analysis methodology based on syntactic coding for
qualitative processing of massive amount of data;
A hierarchy based code standardisation enabling comparative analysis on several
levels of generality;
2 This section is a synthesis from the final LARG report (Krizsán, Andrea, TamásDombos, Erika
Kispéter, Melinda Szabó, JasminkaDedić, Martin Jaigma, Roman Kuhar, Ana Frank, Birgit Sauer, Mieke Verloo 2009, Framing gender equality in the European Union and its current and future member states).
31
A pioneering online software for collaborative data recording and reporting.
Critical Frame Analysis: theoretical background
A key methodological tool used by existing discursive approaches is policy frame analysis, in
which a policy frame is defined as an “organising principle that transforms fragmentary or
incidental information into a structured and meaningful problem, in which a solution is
implicitly or explicitly included” (Verloo 2005: 20). Within the QUING project, a differentiation
is made between three levels of policy frames: issue frames, document frames and
metaframes. Issue frames are policy frames that provide a relatively coherent
story/reasoning in which issue-specific prognostic elements respond to issue-specific
diagnostic elements. Document frames describe how a particular document or actor
constructs the issue at hand. Document frames can articulate coherent, fragmented or hybrid
versions of issue frames. Finally, metaframes are overarching frames that can be
operationalised as the normative aspects of issue frames. Metaframes are to be understood
as the common, non-issue specific elements of issue frames, while document frames are
concrete mobilisation (and usually combinations) of issue frames.
Policy documents contain the following descriptive/normative features that are relevant
elements for policy frames:
1. Problem-orientation. An analysis of the situation and how it differs from a desired/ideal
situation.
2. Causation. Analysing causes of the current situation; assigning responsibility to particular
actors for causing the problem.
3. Future-orientation. A vision about the desired/ideal situation: objectives.
4. Practice. Activities to pursue to achieve the set objectives (ends-means logic).
5. Delegation. Assigning or delegating responsibilities in terms of who should pursue what
activity.
6. Targets. Defining social groups affected by the problem, and in need for activities.
7. Budget. Information on how to finance the activities proposed.
8. Authority. Mobilising scientific studies, statistics, legislative and policy examples in other
countries, expert opinions or references to binding (international) norms.
9. Categorisation. Naming of certain groups of citizens, social groups and identities.
When analysing particular documents, these features are translated to questions and the
different responses to these questions are the core aspects of issue frames. If a set of
document shares a particular feature, while another set does not, the claim can be made that
the two sets of documents exemplify two different policy frames.
There are five further evaluative criteria of policy documents:
10. Specificity. Details are given both in terms of problems to fight and ways to achieve it.
11. Consistency. There is a logical consistency between different features.
12. Comprehensivity. The degree of complexity of problems and of the range of activities
proposed.
13. Inclusive policymaking. Reference to consultations with a wide range of stakeholders.
14. Structural understanding of gender. A complex multi-dimensional understanding of
gender.
32
15. Intersectional inclusion. Looking at how gender and other forms of inequalities are
intertwined.
16. Commitment to gender equality. Explicit endorsement of gender equality.
17. Gender-explicitness. Explicit discussion of the problem in gendered terms.
The 17 points above form the theoretical background for Critical Frame Analysis for the
comparative study of policy frames in gender equality policies and for assessing the quality
of these policies. It achieves the first purpose by providing interpretative tools to
identify/construct policy frames. It achieves the second purpose by generating a set of
criteria and gathering necessary data to evaluate the policy design aspects of gender
equality policies.
Critical Frame Analysis in practice
Although the QUING project could build on the MAGEEQ methodology (Verloo et al. 2007),
the following challenges still had to be met:
Qualitative approach needed. Detailed, in depth information had to be recorded about
documents.
Linguistic diversity. Retaining the richness of the data, the processing needed to be in
English.
Amount of data to analyse. Selection of the most relevant documents was necessary, and
2000 documents needed to be managed in a systematic manner.
Comparability. Combining flexibility of selection and qualitative coding with the
standardisation needed for comparability.
High number of researchers. Easy to use methodology and tools to ease collaboration in a
large team of researchers.
To respond to these challenges, the following methodology for selecting, coding and
interpreting documents was developed. The major steps of this methodology are described
below:
Mapping Policy Processes: Issue Histories
After defining the four policy fields, chronological listings of policy developments were made
for each country in the period covered by the project (1995-2007). This step followed the
methodology of policy process analysis (Sutton 1999): the main aim was to trace when and
how issues appeared on the political agenda, who had contributed to the debates (especially
which groups from civil society) and what documents were produced. The types of
documents collected includes bills, laws, policy plans, policy reports, party programmes,
parliamentary debates, court decisions, consultation papers, position papers, as well as
official letters and statements. To complement these primary sources, additional information
about policy developments (such as media coverage, published interviews with actors
involved) was also collected. Besides a chronological list of documents, researchers
provided short summaries of the key points of each policy moment. Issue histories thus
provide a systematic overview of the policy developments in each country, a list of actors that
participated in policy formulation, as well as a rich collection of policy documents to analyse.
The Issue Histories for all countries studied and for the EU are available on
http://www.quing.eu.
33
Sampling
The next step was to choose documents for analysis from the long list of documents
collected for the issue histories. For the purpose of comparability, documents selected had to
be similar in topic and type. Four categories of policy documents were found to be crucial to
understanding policy debates: Laws as binding legal documents, with their explanatory
memorandum; policy plans, as they are usually more comprehensive, include a detailed
analysis of the problem, and cover soft law; parliamentary debates in order to understand
how the policy resonates within the larger policy environment, and especially what types of
contestations of the state policy are present; and civil society texts to cover the voice of non-
state actors, most importantly the women’s movement, but in some cases trade unions,
human rights organisations and opposing voices. Researchers were asked to choose one
text from each of the four categories of documents. Researchers were asked to choose one
document for each sub-issue, and from each type of text if available.
By combining the two criteria above, researchers were asked to choose a minimum of 48
documents (4 types of documents, one for each of the 12 sub-issues) and add additional
documents up to 60 if it was needed to cover the variety of debates and voices in the local
context. If more than one document fitted the criteria above, researchers were asked to
choose the ones that: (1) are the most recent; (2) are the most comprehensive; (3) are the
most authoritative; (4) are the most debated; (5) have the highest potential impact on gender;
and (6) contain the greatest policy shift.
All together 2086 documents were selected for analysis in the 29 countries and the European
Union. Of those, 381 were laws, 342 policy plans and 893 texts from speakers in
parliamentary debates. 381 texts originated in civil society and have been selected and
analysed in LARG, STRIQ and WHY. Among those civil society texts, 190 were texts from
organisations linked to gender, 12 from organisations linked to race-ethnicity, 30 from
organisations linked to class, 37 from organisations linked to sexual orientation. In total 76
texts were from general civil society organisations (charities, human rights, academic), and
16 from organisations that mobilise against gender equality.
Coding
Documents chosen for the sample were entered into an online database (created within the
project) containing the full text of the documents as well as codes describing various aspects
of the document (date, occasion, audience) and its content. The content of the documents
was recorded using qualitative coding following a coding scheme based on the features of
policy documents described in the above section on the methodological framework. To
balance the openness of coding and the need to standardise the coding for the purpose of
comparison, a syntactic coding scheme was used. Syntactic coding (Roberts 1989, Franzosi
1989) is a coding method in which statements in documents are coded as structured sets of
simpler codes following a pre-given structure (story grammar). The following story grammar
contains the most important elements found in policy action statements, and gives an
example.
34
POLICYACTION {
responsible: civil society organisations
activity: training
targetgroup: police dealing with domestic violence
qualifier:
motivation: they have information
budget: no}
There were 10 such story grammars: on voice, reference, problem, past policy action,
causality, diagnostic dimension, objective, policy action, mechanism, and prognostic
dimension. The Voice story grammar records the person or entity responsible for producing
the text including background information such as affiliation, known personal characteristics
and the group the speaker represents. The Reference story grammar records all the
documents, actors, events, etc. the document refers to create authority (such as international
documents, research results, existing policy commitments, etc.). The Problem story grammar
records information about the problems the document aims to address including information
on whom the project affects, who is responsible for causing the problem, and why is it
considered a problem. The Past policy action story grammar records activities taken in the
past to address the problem and their evaluation. The Causality story grammar records in a
structured format what causes the problem or what it leads to and the actors involved in this
causation. The Diagnostic dimension story grammar records analytic information about how
gender and intersectionality appears in the diagnostic part of the document. The Objective
story grammar records the abstract, general goals the policy aims to achieve. The Policy
action story grammar records information about proposed action to take, their target group
and the actor responsible for implementing it. The Mechanism story grammar records in a
structured format how the document argues the proposed policy action will lead to the
desired objective. Finally, the Prognostic dimension story grammar records analytic
information about how gender and intersectionality appears in the prognostic part of the
document. For a list of all story grammars with their relevant fields, see Annex I in the final
LARG report.
Additionally, a simpler coding scheme with a small set of closed questions corresponding to
the most important concerns of the research was added. For a full list of these questions, see
Annex II in the final LARG report.
Code Standardisation
Even though syntactic coding introduces one level of standardisation to the coding, open
coding still means that in some cases, different words were used in the fields of story
grammars to code the same basic information. This results from the nature of qualitative
coding, since codes are closely following what is said in the texts. In a standardisation
process, codes that are similar to each other were organised into more general, higher-level
codes, focusing on standardisation and logical organisation.
Frame Construction
Following coding and code standardisation, the next step was to construct issue frames for
each of the four issues. The frame construction process started from the hypothesis that
some of the fields in story grammars are more relevant to the core of frames than others.
35
The fields that appeared to be most decisive and can be considered ‘marker fields’, are the
actor, norm, location and causality/mechanism dimension fields. We worked with the
hypothesis that variance in marker fields explains variance in the other fields. We
concentrated first on marker fields, and later checked if the groups of texts created based on
the marker fields were, in fact, similar in other aspects as well. The first step in frame
construction was to standardise and reduce the amount of codes for each of the marker
fields to a manageable number. As a next step, co-occurrence of different marker field –
value pairs were examined to identify combinations that appear more often than others,
resulting in a frame list. The frame list (with its content) was sent to country researchers to
check if they make sense in their local context, i.e. if the frames identified this way cover the
major points in the topics in the local context, leading to the final list of frames.
Mapping Frames to Documents
For the next step of the research, researchers decided if a document belongs to a frame or
not, using the final list of frames, based on their codes and knowledge of the documents.
They coded the presence of frame(s) in the diagnosis, and in the prognosis of the document.
Constructing Metaframes and Country Comparison
Parallel to the mapping of frames to documents, we constructed metaframes: more abstract,
non-issue specific frames found in documents. Frames from different sub-issues were
grouped together according to their relationship towards gender equality into inclusive,
transformative, rejective and ambiguous frames. For the comparative frame analysis in
LARG all issues in all the countries are compared based on the metaframes (see final LARG
report p. 23 for technical details).
To answer the question concerning standing and voice in policy documents, the actor fields
in reference and policy action story grammars, as well as the summary codes were used to
assess whether civil society actors – in particular, women’s NGOs, trade unions,
transnational advocacy groups,– were given roles to play.
Typology of gender equality frames: transformative, inclusive and rejective frames 1500 -
1892
Research in LARG has identified a large number of frames that are typical to each issue. The
comparative analysis has been done across issues, for all 2086 texts that were analysed,
and focuses on the frames in their relation to gender equality: what vision of gender equality
is underneath? The cross-issue reading geared towards the relationship of documents to
gender equality has shown that in current European debates on gender equality, policy
frames can be grouped into three main clusters. These are: transformative approaches to
gender equality, inclusive understandings of gender equality, and approaches that reject or
at least contest main tenets of gender equality. Besides these frames, which explicitly
express their standing for or against gender equality, a large number of frames remain
gender-neutral but resonate with one of the three main approaches. In such ’resonant’
frames, gender equality is not directly addressed; however, the analysis has been able to
identify implicit gender sensitivity or to draw analogies that imply views that are resonant with
the explicit gender equality approaches. Resonant frames were identified along all three
approaches. They were least frequent in the case of transformative approaches. For the
inclusive and rejective frames, there is a wide spectrum of frames that resonate with either of
the two. Resonant frames were of special importance in the case of frames rejecting gender
36
equality. As explicit rejection of gender equality is by now very rare in European debates,
more indirect and less explicit resonant rejective approaches stand to indicate a
contemporary form of contesting gender equality. In terms of quality, laws and policy plans
that contain such frames can be said to be of poor quality indeed. As such, this forms an
important finding of the LARG framing typology and the LARG analysis.
Description of transformative, inclusive or rejective frames (and frames resonant with those)
In the group of transformative frames, gender inequality is seen as the result of unequal
power relations between men and women, which is a social problem in itself. Policy actions
are proposed with the aim of transforming society into a more gender equal one. The focus is
on the equality of outcomes – that is, on ’real’ gender equality. These frames take a specific
form for each of the studied issues.
Within texts on General Gender Equality, the Structural gender inequality framing puts
forward a solidarity-minded, collectivist model of gender equality. It can propose a broad mix
of policies, and names NGOs as important actors in the policy process, or it sees the policy
goal as mainstreaming gender equality into all aspects and practices of society. The frame
also has an intersectional version, labelled Structural intersectionality where
multiple/intersecting inequalities are all seen as structural social problems that necessitate a
transformative approach.
Within texts on Non-employment, the frame Transform the division of labour: strong gender
equality, emphasises the importance of social structures, and aims at social transformation.
These policies include changing the division of labour and the promotion of active
fatherhood. The frame also has an intersectional version, Transform the division of
labour/strong gender+ equality, where different inequalities are usually seen as additive, and
the most oft-named group is that of migrant women.
Within texts on Intimate Citizenship, Gender and power in partnership frames the core
problem as economic dependence of women on men supported by strong normative gender
roles; the solutions proposed are greater economic independence of women and partnership
policies that take into account this vulnerable position of women. The related intersectional
frame, Gender and power in partnership, migrant couple version claims that in migrant
couples, the power and economic disparity between spouses is greater than in majority
couples, and aims to empower especially migrant women through paid work. In
Transformation of parenthood, the rigid, socially prescribed roles for men and women are
identified as the problem causing gender inequalities, and social transformation is proposed
through encouraging men’s greater participation in childcare and family planning.
Within texts on Gender-based Violence, the frame Gender-based Violence as a problem of
structural gender equality, understands Gender-based Violence as a cause and an outcome
of structural inequality between men and women, and stresses unequal gender power
relations as key factors. Varieties of this frame range from mere recognition (naming) of
forms of violence (such as domestic violence against women, marital rape and femicide) as
forms of gender inequality on one end of the continuum, to proposing policies that would
address Gender-based Violence in the context of a gender equal society at the other end.
The intersectional frame, Gender-based Violence as a manifestation of intersectional
inequality, shows a complex understanding of how violence affects different groups of
women, while maintaining the claim that Gender-based Violence is a universal phenomenon.
The framing may explicitly argue against the culturalisation/relativisation of violence
37
(discussed below in the section on rejective frames) and include a focus on minority
organisations’ involvement in policymaking.
The basis for grouping frames in the category Resonant with transformative frames is mostly
that they focus on power relations or on structures. At times they focus predominantly on
racism or heteronormativity or call for non-traditional forms of families.
The group of Inclusive frames is characterised by an understanding of gender equality that
envisages women’s inclusion in existing social structures without radical transformations of
society in general or gender relations in particular. They most often focus on a ‘sameness’
vision, in which women and men are fundamentally the same, and gender equality can be
achieved by applying the policy tool of equal treatment. Occasionally, they focus on a vision
of difference, based on the view that women are fundamentally different from men, because
of women’s larger share both in the biological and in the socially constructed aspects of
reproduction. To compensate for these differences, special programmes are then proposed
as a policy tool.
Within texts on General Gender Equality, there are varieties of the Discrimination frame,
seeing gender as one axis of discrimination (Discrimination of women), mentioned along a
few or several other ones (General antidiscrimination), and calling for legal regulation:
protective legislation or strict equal treatment (Strict equal treatment-Individual rights).In the
intersectional version of the frame (Double discrimination), a few groups of women are
mentioned as suffering discrimination along two or multiple axes of inequality. A less
individualistic frame, (Un)equal representation and (un)equal opportunities sees the lack or
the low rate of representation of either women or men as a problem, seeing the under-
representation of women and men as equally problematic, and calling for the promotion of
equality through positive actions in order to achieve ‘gender balance’.
Within texts on Non-employment, gender equality along with the norm of economic
development is an important element of both the problem formulations and the proposed
policies. In the Women’s inclusion (in the labour market) frame, the problem is identified as
women’s low labour market participation, and the solution is seen in increasing it. The
intersectional form of this frame, Include poor and migrant women, focuses on groups of
women described along the axes of gender+ race/ethnicity or class. The frame
Independence and flexibility for women is centred on the claim that women’s low level of
participation in the sphere of paid work makes them financially dependent on their partners;
the policy solution is seen as their inclusion in the paid workforce. In contrast, the frame
Social justice for women is based on the values of social citizenship, rather than the values
of economic development. Women are mentioned as a group whose access to the social
rights of citizenship raises special problems and requires particular policy solutions.
Within texts on Intimate Citizenship, the frame Formal equality of spouses identifies existing
marriage legislation as a source of women’s lower social status compared to that of men,
and calls for gender-neutral legislation. A variation of the frame broadens the narrow legal
focus by adding that codifying a more equality-based form of intimate relations also sends
the message of equality to the whole society, shifting the vision of inclusion towards that of
transformation.
Within texts on Gender-based Violence, the frame Women-centred approach to Gender-
based Violence understands Gender-based Violence as a universal problem, which is also a
public matter, and recognises that women are a major victim group. However, the framing
explains violence at an individual level and the policy solution focuses on the usage of the
38
existing legal framework by women to solve their special problems. In a variation, the frame
Women are responsible centres on women’s individual responsibility in reducing Gender-
based Violence: they should come forward with their complaints about violence and initiate
action against perpetrators.
The basis for grouping frames in the category Resonant with inclusive frames varies. It can
be that they show analogies such as calling for an inclusive understanding of the equality of
sexual minorities or migrants; see gender equality not as a goal in itself but as contributing to
the goal of demographic growth, human rights, safety or public health; address the lack of
carers; focus predominantly on giving women the opportunity to choose or on the lack of
knowledge or awareness on gender issues.
In stark contrast to both transformative and inclusive frames, the group of rejective frames
question the main tenets of gender equality frames. These frames aim at maintaining the
current, gender unequal status quo or even want to stop policy actions aiming at gender
equality. It is a major finding that the analysis showed the presence of such frames in texts
that are ‘about’ gender equality policies. Within General Gender Equality, the Anti-equality
framing argues that gender equality is the problem, caused by ideologies such as socialism
or feminism. According to the conservative version of the frame, the promotion of gender
equality undermines the traditional, patriarchal family. In the libertarian version of the frame,
gender inequalities, such as the pay gap, are seen as objectively justifiable, and it is state
intervention against inequalities that is seen as problematic. The Abolish existing equality
initiatives version of the frame takes a rather extreme rejective position when it proposes an
end to existing equality initiatives and legislation. Within Non-employment, the Against
gender equality frame opposes gender equality and favours the ‘traditional’ gender division of
paid and unpaid work. The more libertarian variant sees women’s lack of choice as the
problem, especially the lack of choice for the traditional roles of women, and argues that
equality is ‘forced’ onto people. Proposed policies aim at keeping women at home, or
relieving men from compulsory parental leaves. Within Intimate Citizenship, the
Discrimination of fathers frame calls for ending discrimination against (divorced) fathers by
mothers and judges in divorce and visitation cases. The frame Protect the foetus is also
explicitly against gender equality: it calls for the prohibition of abortion and the penalisation of
pregnant women and doctors who are involved in terminations of pregnancies. Within
Gender-based Violence, the frame Men as victims emphasises the ways in which men,
including the perpetrators of Gender-based Violence are ultimately the victims of violence.
The frame’s problem formulation may pit the rights of victims and of perpetrators against
each other. For example, restraining measures, designed to protect women victims of
violence are seen violate men’s property rights or their freedom of movement.
Frames grouped in the category Resonant with rejective frames contest different tenets of
the gender equality framework without openly questioning the norm of gender equality. In an
intersectional form, they localise the gender inequality problem exclusively in migrant or
ethnic communities, or oppose equality for other groups such as sexual minorities.
Alternatively, these frames may see gender inequality as not a real problem, or propose the
introduction of policies that can be seen to implicitly endorse the rejection of gender equality,
such as strengthening ‘classic’ families, or protecting the privacy of the family against
interventions against violence.
39
Results: patterns of gender equality frames in Europe
What is the presence of transformative, inclusive and rejective types of frames across
different countries, across different texts, coming from governmental or NGO voices, and
across the four analysed issues? Presenting an answer to these questions, means that the
strength of transformative and inclusive visions of gender equality emerging in European
debates is compared; the prevalence of framing that rejects gender equality, in one way or
another, across Europe is understood; and the presence of gender in different ways of
talking about issues of high relevance to gender equality is assessed. In order to be able to
answer the questions, a series of decisions were made in order to standardise the framing of
the analysed texts. Based on these decisions, texts were allocated numerical indicators (see
LARG final report Krizsán et al. 2009, p. 23 for specifications).
In order to better understand the variation between countries, resonant and explicit frames
are treated separately for transformative and inclusive frames on gender equality. In contrast,
frames that reject gender equality explicitly are combined with more sophisticated resonant
forms of contestation to gender equality in order to capture better the rejection of gender
equality in Europe.
The first presentation here compares governmental frames and civil society frames, in Chart
2 and 3 respectively. They are copied from pp. 43 and 44 of the LARG final report.
Chart 2. Explicitly transformative and inclusive, and both explicitly and implicitly rejective frames of governmental texts (weighted by frame strengths)
,00
2,00
4,00
6,00
8,00
10,00
12,00
14,00
16,00
Transformative_explicit Inclusive_explicit Rejective_all
40
Chart 3. Explicitly transformative and inclusive, and both explicitly and implicitly rejective frames of NGO texts (weighted by frame strengths)
Chart 2 shows that transformative approaches have a lower presence in many countries, yet
not in the EU, or in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. In
Bulgaria, transformative approaches have no presence at all in governmental texts.
Meanwhile (and this is a particularly interesting finding of our analysis), in Spain, the state
seems to transform from above, that is, the government approach is even more
transformative than the approach of the overall debate taken together with civil society.
Similarly, in some countries, framing that is explicitly rejective or contests gender equality in
some resonant ways is entirely absent from governmental texts. This happens in the EU,
Finland, Estonia, Portugal, Sweden and the UK.
Chart 3 presents the same data for civil society texts. It unsurprisingly shows the massive
increase in the weight of transformative frames and the massive drop, or even
disappearance of rejective frames. Relevant presence of rejective frames can be explained
by sampling decisions to include openly rejective civil society voices (such as the Catholic
Church) in countries where these were particularly relevant. An interesting finding in the
NGO realm is the parallel presence of both inclusive and transformative frames, indicating
variation in understanding gender equality across even the NGO sector. Similar presence of
transformative and inclusive content can be found in Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia, Malta,
Poland, Portugal and Romania, mainly latecomers to the EU. Inclusive content is dominant
even in the civil society realm in Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Luxemburg,
Slovakia, and Turkey. The rest of the countries have dominantly transformative content in the
civil society texts. Interestingly, these countries again include Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia
from among the new member states along with such strongholds of gender equality thinking
as Sweden, Spain, EU, Finland and others (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece,
Italy, the Netherlands and the UK. An additional analysis (see p. 45 final LARG report)
including resonant pro-gender equality frames showed that some countries, including
,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
7,00
8,00
9,00
Transformative_explicit Inclusive_explicit Rejective_all
41
Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Slovenia, and the UK, improve their position
considerably in terms of the weight of pro-gender framings. This indicates that in these
countries there is a tendency to use de-gendered yet gender equality-sensitive framing in the
course of gender equality-relevant policy debates.
The following maps present these data in another way. Map 1 disconfirms regional
homogeneity in gender equality framing. It shows that inclusive approaches are dominant in
many countries. Transformative approaches stand out only in Spain. Inclusive approaches
dominate in: Portugal, France, the UK, Belgium and Luxembourg, Austria, Slovakia, Greece,
Malta, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Cyprus. Transformative approaches and inclusive ones are
balanced in several countries including Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
Hungary, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and
Sweden.
Map 1. Relationship between transformative and inclusive
gender equality framing in governmental texts
Comparing the weight of rejective frames in all texts compared to governmental texts, Map 2
and 3 show important differences. While mainly Denmark, Italy, Malta and two of the Baltic
states (Latvia and Lithuania) have high overall rates of rejective frames, if only government
voices are considered the decrease in rejective framing is notable almost everywhere in
Europe indicating that while governments are generally not overly transformative in speaking
about gender equality, most of the time, they also avoid engaging strongly in the rejection of
gender equality. However, in a few countries, including Lithuania and Poland, the rejective
content seems to remain relatively strong in governmental texts. Still, the rejective hubs
change with the mapping done for the overall debates: in a few old member states, with
specific regard to Denmark, and in some new member states, with specific regard to
Hungary and Latvia. In Turkey, too, rejective framing becomes relatively weaker if only
governmental texts are scrutinised.
Transformative
Inclusive
42
Map 2. Map 3 Weight of rejective framing in European debates Weight of rejective framing in governmental texts
Results: Typology of Framing Gender Equality
The three aspects of gender equality framing discussed above provide the elements for a
typology of countries for framing gender equality. The combination of them implies the
following typology including five categories.
Dominant transformative countries where transformative approaches to gender
equality have the strongest weight in the overall debates. The countries that fit into
this category are:
– Estonia, Finland, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.
Inclusive-transformative countries have balanced high weights of both transformative
and inclusive frames, their total weight is very high and the presence of rejective
frames is relatively low. Countries included are:
– Czech Republic, the EU, France, the Netherlands, and Germany,
Dominant inclusive countries are the ones which have a very high presence of
inclusive frames, with transformative frames lagging behind. This includes most of the
countries in the middle range:
– Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal,
Romania, Slovakia, Turkey, and the UK.
Polarised countries have high or moderate inclusive or transformative content along
with high rejective rate. In our sample:
– Denmark and Malta would qualify here because their very high pro-gender
equality framing goes along with strong rejective content.
Strong rejective are the countries which have high rejective rate and relatively low
rates on both transformative and inclusive approaches. These include:
– Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
Results: Standing and Voice of civil society
This section looks at the standing and voice of civil society across the four researched policy
issues. Standing and voice is understood along the lines of the definition used by Ferree et
al. (2002) to mean: having a voice in the policy debate. Along these lines, we see ‘standing
and voice’ as implying more than ‘being mentioned’ in documents. It also means being
quoted (that is, given a voice) and being attributed a role in the policies that are proposed.
Strong Mild
Rejection
Strong Mild
Rejection
43
The LARG data provide information on standing and voice in several ways. First, the report
looks at who has been an active participant in the policy debate. The report calls this
standing. In order to analyse standing, the report uses the chapters of the issue history
reports where all major actors (women’s NGOs, women’s platforms of political parties, trade
unions) that participated in or contributed to the policy debates are listed. Second, the report
looks at voice by analysing the references that are made to civil society actors in the
analysed policy documents, references to consultations with civil society, and the
empowerment of civil society actors through the attribution of active roles in policy actions.
Details in final LARG report, pp. 55-70.
Standing
For General Gender Equality, the analysis shows that women’s NGOs seem to be very
important in almost all countries, without significant differences as to old or new3 EU member
states or membership candidacy. The standing of NGOs is not marked as relevant in Cyprus,
Denmark, France and Spain; Cyprus being the only new member country among them.
Women’s platforms in political parties have less importance, since they have some standing
in only one-third of the countries. There seems to be equal presence (or absence) of
women’s platforms in both old and new member states. Trade unions are important
stakeholders in many countries. However, their absence is characteristic for mostly new
members such as the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, and Lithuania – former state
socialist countries with low trust in and relatively weak trade unions. Among older members,
women’s platforms in political parties are not present in Netherlands and Portugal.
For Non-employment, the following stakeholders in Non-employment policy are
distinguished: women’s NGOs, intersectional NGOs, transnational advocacy groups,
women’s platforms in political parties and trade unions. The results show that, across all
countries women’s NGOs had a standing in policy debates on Non-employment. The main
issue in which they were involved was the gender pay gap, but their involvement also
occurred in issues of reconciliation of work and family. Intersectional civil society groups
(groups that are organised along two axes of inequality) are also present in quite a number of
countries, for instance in the sub-issue on equal treatment and equal pay (migrants’ NGOs,
disabled people) and on the issue of care work (global care chains). In most countries, trade
unions are very important actors in the field of Non-employment. One caveat to this: while
trade unions are part of civil society in many countries, in more neo-corporatist countries they
are almost part of the polity. In the analysis presented here, however, no distinction among
countries has been made along these lines. The presence and importance of transnational
advocacy groups is particularly strong in countries that were late-comers to the EU – mostly,
countries of Eastern and Central Europe. This might be due to the fact that transnational
organisations in the issue of labour can sometimes substitute weak trade unions. References
to women’s platforms within political parties are not so common, and described only for five
countries.
For Intimate Citizenship, the most noticeable and common feature of standing among civil
society stakeholders in debates on Intimate Citizenship is the pre-eminence of women’s
3 ‘Old’ and ’new’ member countries are categorised according to membership or accession date to EU.
’New’ member states are those states, which accessed to the EU in the fifth enlargement in 2004 and later; while ‘old’ member states are all those countries which were already members of EU before the year 2004.
44
NGOs. With the exception of only a few countries, women’s NGOs have an established
standing in all countries, regardless whether they are old or new EU members or prospective
candidates. Intersectional NGOs, on the contrary, are more characteristic to old members of
European Union like Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands and
Portugal. Only in the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Hungary and Romania do intersectional
NGOs have a standing as civil society policy stakeholders. Transnational advocacy groups
are generally absent in Intimate Citizenship topic, but have a bit more standing in Western
Europe – Austria, Belgium, France and Netherlands – and Romania. The same holds true for
women’s platforms of political parties: only 5 countries out of 29 have this listed. These are
geographically diverse countries, including both old and new Europe. Trade unions are
important stakeholders in France, Ireland, United Kingdom, Spain, EU and Croatia.
For Gender-based Violence, the data show that women’s NGOs had prominent standing in
policy debates on Gender-based Violence across Europe. This involvement was particularly
strong in domestic violence, trafficking, prostitution and FGM and forced marriage sub-
issues. The participation of women’s NGO’s appears to be less in sexual harassment and
sexual assault issues, with notable exceptions such as for example Italy. Women’s NGOs
involved in Gender-based Violence are often organisations that, beyond involvement in the
policy process, are also providing services for victims such as shelters, crises centres or help
lines. Intersectional civil society groups are particularly present in the sub-issues of trafficking
and FGM, as well as in policy debates on sexual harassment. They are almost entirely
absent in CEE countries and other latecomers to the EU. In contrast, the presence and
importance of transnational advocacy groups is particularly strong in latecomers to the EU –
most countries of East and Central Europe, as well as Greece and Portugal. This presence
sometimes occurs in the form of wider transnational coalitions, but often it may take the form
of bilateral co-operation between movements in two countries. The importance of trade
unions is especially notable for the sexual harassment sub-issue, though this is not true for
Central and Eastern Europe, where trade unions are far less important and rarely take up
gender equality issues.
Concluding, women’s NGOs have quite important standing across all four issues, with very
few exceptions (mostly in the field of Non-employment). Meanwhile, countries such as
Cyprus and Greece come across as having generally less standing for NGOs across all
issues. NGOs representing the interest of intersectional groups were looked at in Non-
employment, Intimate Citizenship and Gender-based Violence and not in General Gender
Equality. They have little standing across debates, which is especially surprising in Intimate
Citizenship debates. Their presence in Non-employment and Gender-based Violence is
typical predominantly for old member states. The issue of Intimate Citizenship shows some
variation in the few cases where it is relevant (in only 12 countries): here, we see
intersectional groups, primarily LGBT organisations, in the Czech Republic, Hungary and
Romania. Transnational advocacy groups typically have important standing in member states
that joined in different later waves, candidate countries, and only few older member states.
These include Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain. They seem to be more
present in Gender-based Violence than in Non-employment and Intimate Citizenship. The
standing of women’s platforms in political parties is not very widespread. Most frequently,
they are present in General Gender Equality (in 11 countries), and in Gender-based Violence
(10 countries). They have standing in very few cases in Non-employment and Intimate
Citizenship. The standing of trade unions, as expected, is most prominent and widespread in
45
Non-employment and in General Gender Equality. They also have standing in a few
countries in Gender-based Violence, mostly in connection to sexual harassment.
Voice
The Voice analysis is based on the references that are made to civil society actors in the
analysed policy documents; references to consultations with civil society; and the
empowerment of civil society actors through the attribution of active roles in policy actions.
The Graph below shows the degree of referencing across texts for each issue.
Graph 6. Percentages of texts that have a reference to consultation with women’s NGOs
Comparing references to processes of policy development that involve consultations with
civil society across types of texts and across issues, there are clear differences. The highest
number of references to consultations is found in civil society texts, except for Non-
employment. Policy plans as a type of text have a relatively high number of references
compared to laws and parliamentary debates. Law texts have the lowest number of
references to consultations, except for General Gender Equality policies. This might be
because of the choice of texts on gender equality machinery. Across issues, the references
to involving civil society in consultation processes are lowest in Non-employment, then
Intimate Citizenship and Gender-based Violence. These differences are also visible if looking
at text types.
Overall, as the Graph shows, references to consultation with women’s NGOs are always
highest in civil society texts. Policy plans have fewer references of this kind than do laws or
parliamentary debate texts. Overall, texts in the issue of Non-employment have the lowest
number, followed by Intimate Citizenship texts. Law texts have the lowest number of
references to consultation with women’s NGOs, except for General Gender Equality policies
(see also above).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
law
policy plan
parl debate
civil society
46
1.3.2 STRIQ4
The European Union is committed to eliminating discrimination based on “sex, racial or
ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation” with a process that has
broadened the range of structural inequalities addressed in recent years, based especially on
the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997). The acronym STRIQ is based on the term STRuctural
IneQualities. This activity addresses not only the individual inequalities, but also the
implications of their intersection. STRIQ addressed the way that equality policies addressed
not only gender inequality, but also the intersection of gender and other inequalities. The
starting point for this activity is the idea that different inequalities are not different
independent problems, but rather one family of problems. STRIQ studies how inequalities
are produced and reproduced in societies, and what policy makers can do about it. To
achieve this, STRIQ analyses gender equality policies on their attention to other inequalities
than gender.
In line with the overall QUING objectives, the following research questions are addressed:
How are inequalities and their intersections conceptualised in terms of their structure
and mechanisms?
To what extent does context matter in the (re) production of inequalities across
Europe?
What attention must be paid to other structural equalities in the making and
implementing of European gender equality policies?
The first two questions are conceptual. The third is addressed both at the conceptual level
and at the level of policymaking, and can be answered through reflections on good practices
of dealing with intersectionality.
The research activity produced eight reports, starting with conceptual and methodological
reports, leading to reports on the intersection of gender and other inequalities in practice and
in policy for each of the 29 countries studied as well as the EU itself, and to a final report.
Conceptual work is at the heart of this activity, with the report by Walby, Armstrong and Strid
(2009a), drawing on an earlier review of the literature (Walby 2007c), finding a key place in
the final STRIQ report (Verloo, Walby, Armstrong and Strid 2009). Walby, Armstrong and
Strid (2009a) offer a new conceptual framework that tackles the crucial issues connected to
the incorporation of attention for multiple inequalities in gender equality policies, related to
five major theoretical dilemmas. Dealing with these dilemmas is the major contribution of
QUING to the state of the art, so extracts from the work of Walby, Armstrong and Strid
(2009a) on these five issues are presented below.
First, how to conceptualise the intersecting entities, in a form summary enough to enable
analysis, such as strands, categories or groups, while noting the complexities of internal
divisions and ontological depth of each. For this, it is important to conceptualise categories or
strands as a set of relations of inequality, and not to focus only on the category or on the
disadvantaged people belonging to that category. The challenge then is how bring the
agency of the disadvantaged into focus without leaving the actions of the powerful in
obscurity. A further question is how to balance the way that categories are neither fully stable
nor infinitely fluid. For the sake of analysis one can temporarily stabilise the categories while
4 This section is a synthesis from the final STRIQ report (Verloo, Walby, Armstrong and Strid 2009).
47
keeping awareness for their historical dynamics. Moreover, the focus should not be solely on
structural intersectionality (on the system of intersecting inequalities in the lives of people)
but also on political intersectionality. There are many actually existing intersections in social
structure, but only some of these become the focus of political and policy attention. The
relationship between ‘structural intersection’ to ‘political intersection’ (Crenshaw 1991) and
the reasons for the selection of some intersectional strands and not others as political
relevant is significant to the analysis of intersectionality in equality policies.
A second dilemma is how to identify multiple intersecting entities without reducing each to a
similar ontology; and how to neither leave class out of focus nor treat it as of overwhelming
significance. The EU Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999 and the consequent Directives to
implement it name six grounds for legal action on illegal discrimination, not only the previous
gender, ethnicity and disability, but additionally age, religion/belief and sexual orientation
(European Commission 2007). There are further possible relevant intersections. The EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights 2000 Article 21 lists seven additional grounds of social origin,
genetic features, language, political or other opinion, membership of a national minority,
property and birth. While these are not currently activated by EU Directives, they have been
appended to the Treaty of Lisbon and some EU member states already include some
additional grounds. A most important and unduly neglected inequality is that of class,
although class has some important ontological dissimilarity with the other six. The
intersection of gender and class is important yet relatively neglected in current as compared
with earlier debates, although related concepts such as social exclusion are frequently found.
There are further divides that emerge as important in policy discussions that are not best
conceptualised as sets of social relations linked to structural inequalities. These include
differences in parental and partner status. The understanding of these issues is aided by the
distinctions introduce by the debates on intersectionality even though these are not structural
inequalities.
A third issue is how to simultaneously identify the intersecting entities and recognise that
their intersection changes them, and how to capture the way that the relations between the
entities are neither fully separate nor visible nor fully reducible to each other. This has often
been understood as mutual constitution, but might also be considered to be mutual shaping
or adaptation. The choice is not between additive and mutually constituted. The relations
between the different categories or strands may be competitive or co-operative, hierarchical
or equal, asymmetrical or hegemonic. The extent of the separation or integration of the
strands (and projects) is empirically variable. These are best thought of as variations in the
extent to which strands (and projects) mutually shape each other, rather than as mutually
constitute each other. These forms of competition and co-operation produce different types
of relations between multiple inequalities. The concept of mutual constitution is insufficiently
ambitious to grasp the varying and uneven contribution of each category or strand to the
outcome, while the concept of mutual shaping more readily enables the naming of each
category or strand while simultaneously recognising that it is affected by engagement with
the others.
Fourth, how to capture detailed specificities of small groups at points of intersection without
losing sight of the larger systems of social relations. There is a need to go beyond the
tendency to analyse the issue of intersectionality as one of the problems of minority groups.
It is important to go beyond the focus on small groups at specific points at intersection, since
such a conception tends to limit the analysis to the descriptive and the static at the expense
48
of process and change; instead an understanding of these as systems of social relations
engages the dynamic and historical constitution of these structured social relations. Because
of this distinctive ontology, multiple inequalities need to be separately addressed, in addition
to their points of intersection. In addition, the relationship between entities is not always best
represented as between groups, but may sometimes be better described as between
projects.
A fifth dilemma is how to conceptualise and theorise the asymmetry between the intersecting
entities, so as to avoid both the hegemony of one strand and of fragmentation into multiple
equally important units. This can be addressed by analysing the actual inequalities of power
between them so as to understand their implications.
In addition to the conceptual work, there were more empirical investigations of the policy
practices in relation to intersectionality. A set of 30 country specific reports address the issue
of the intersection of gender and other inequalities in the development gender equality
policies in the four topics in each of the countries studied by QUING. These included both the
development of policies and also the range of the meanings or frames concerning gender
equality in gender+ equality policies. Based on this analysis, an assessment was made of the
implications of different versions of intersectionality for the meaning and practice of gender+
equality. Careful attention was given to identifying changes and the relevance of different
forms of intersectionality. Based on their country-specific reports, and on the STRIQ
conceptual framework, all researchers made a concise description of what they considered
to be a good practice in the country they studied, that then was the major input for the further
reflection on good practices.
Intersectionality was addressed in each of the four QUING topics: General Gender+ Equality
laws and institutions, Non-employment, Gender-based Violence and Intimate Citizenship.
Careful attention was given to the institutional shifts occurring in the equality architecture
across Europe. These institutional shifts are occurring in various ways across the whole of
the equality architecture in European countries: in laws, in consultative bodies, governmental
policy-making units and in the units that oversee the implementation of the laws. The
research question “what attention must be paid to other structural equalities in the making
and implementing of European gender equality policies?” therefore is answered specifically
for the institutional setting of gender+ equality policies. These findings first presented in
reports to the Commission are being published in a number of articles and in a special issue
of a journal and an edited book (Alonso 2009; Lauwers and Martens 2009; Lombardo and
Bustelo 2009; Lombardo and Agustin, 2009; Strid, Armstrong and Walby, under review;
Armstrong and Strid, 2009b; Walby and Verloo, under review). In the area of Non-
employment, there has been concern as to the differentiation between women as to which
groups were targeted for assistance to engage in employment (Armstrong, Strid and Walby,
2009). In the area of Gender-based Violence, there were significant differences between
countries in the way that intersectionalised groups were addressed, with some positive
reflections on the role of NGOs in the UK in ensuring their visibility during policy development
(Strid, Armstrong and Walby under review). In the area of policies concerning Intimate
Citizenship, differentiation between groups was found that favoured some and not others
(Carbin, Harjunen and Kvist 2009). Researchers from each of the countries in the QUING
project were invited to identify good practices in relation to the intersection of gender with
other inequalities in policy development in their countries. These were collected together by
Verloo and can be found in the final STRIQ report (Verloo, Walby, Armstrong and Walby
49
2009). Summarising their contributions, good practices on intersectionality in gender equality
policies are found to only be ‘good’ if they are embedded in good gender equality policy, that
is:
If they are transformative, recognising the structural character of gender inequality
across many domains in their proposed actions and measures.
If they are rooted and shaped in constructive dialogue with civil society organisations
working towards the abolishment of gender inequality.
Attention to inclusive processes and the structural character of gender inequality is needed to
do justice to the distinctive ontology of gender inequality and to counterbalance processes of
dilution that can occur during the development and implementation of gender equality
policies. They are key to keeping gender equality policies focused and effective, radical and
inclusive.
Examined in more detail, these good practices have the following interlinked characteristics:
Attention to the structural dimension of all relevant inequalities ensuring attention for
the specific ontology of each inequality.
A focus on privilege and power, not only on barriers and disadvantages is a clear sign
that a practice engages with the structural dimension of any inequality. Focusing
mainly on barriers or on disadvantages keeps the analysis on the individual level,
leading to policies that tinker with the capacity of individual people to overcome
barriers or disadvantages without eliminating those barriers or disadvantages. It can
also easily lead to policies that focus on a few small groups at one intersection
between two inequalities. It is crucial that policies intervene in the social and political
construction of privilege, not only the social and political construction of disadvantage.
Covering not only several inequalities, which builds upon the previous characteristics
to expand on the way inequalities affect each other. Which inequalities matter and
how they are interrelated has to be seen as a matter that is to be investigated and
analysed for each policy context. The main inequalities that are listed in European
Union policies are important in this process, but they are not the only ones. Class is a
particularly important intersecting axis of inequality that is often neglected in
European Union-led equality policies, because it either is seen as belonging to other
policy domains or as being irrelevant.
Being aware of intersecting inequalities is closely connected to this. As inequalities
are never fully separate, but always to some extent interwoven and interrelated, the
nature of the relations between inequalities needs to be identified and addressed.
Explicitness can be important, since naming each inequality and naming the nature of
their relations with each other can make policy-making processes more transparent
and open to constructive criticism. The separate naming of gender can be
advantageous to gender+ equality projects. However, one must still not
underestimate the significance of building joint projects, which in some circumstances
do not always name each strand.
Involvement of civil society, especially movements for equality can counterbalance
dilution tendencies in similar ways as they do for good gender equality policies.
Inclusiveness and visibility, the combination of the two previous criteria, can help
create access for citizens to understand the development of policies and contribute.
50
Impact on practice, not only on rhetoric means that good practices are characterised
by the ability of policies to deliver. The presence of a budget or concrete policy
actions that clearly outline responsibilities and means of action are important.
Based on these criteria, we can now answer the question: Are there any contemporary ‘good
practices’ of gender equality policy engagement with multiple intersecting inequalities in
Europe?
The most direct answer is that there are not many ‘good practices’. In fact, attention to
intersecting inequalities and gender is still rare in policy documents on gender equality.
QUING researchers identified only a few examples of good practice. This means that there
are still more questions than answers. There is also ongoing concern about ‘bad’ practices
such as stigmatisation, lack of attention to the specific situation or discrimination of
intersectional groups, or the fading away of gender when the attention turns from gender
equality to broader defined goals such as diversity. The most important patterns that were
visible in the representation of ‘good practices’ by QUING researchers are: the rare
articulation of complex analyses of intersecting inequalities, a visible influence of the
European Union and of CEDAW processes, and a positive contribution of civil society.
In general, the problem is not that countries do not comply with the European Union
Directives, as this is the case only for a few countries. Often these Directives have led to
newly created possibilities to address discrimination based on race/ethnicity, age, sexual
orientation, disability or multiple discrimination. Intersectionality however, is not a common
policy concept, neither directly as a label nor more indirectly as a way of understanding the
relationship between inequalities. Some examples can be found in Hungary, Poland and
Spain. In Hungary, a complex understanding of intersectionality in which all grounds may
intersect with all other grounds, and all of these intersections are seen to shape what
inequality means, only occurs once in the documents analysed, in a policy document of
relatively low impact and written under close international influence: the National Strategy
and Priorities for the European Year of Equal Opportunities. In Spain, the Basque IV Positive
Action Plan for Equality between men and women 2006 – without actually using the label
intersectionality or a more consistent theorisation about the forms of intersections – pays a
great deal of attention to the diversity of women, and to the situations of multiple
discriminations. In Poland, the 2005 National Action Plan for Women, sees intersectionality
as one of the aspects of gender equality, and states that race, ethnicity, religion, disability,
age and sexual orientation should not be obstacles in reaching equality between women and
men.
Some patterns are visible in the type of texts that are seen to contain ‘good practices’. Firstly,
some of the ‘good practices’ that were identified are connected to the European Year of
Equal Opportunities (found in Hungary, also in Czech Republic and Italy). A second pattern
is that there are quite a few ‘good practices’ texts that originate in civil society. Some of the
‘good practices’ were found in Shadow reports to CEDAW or in governmental dialogue with
CEDAW. This is the case for Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands and Slovakia. The German
(2003) and Dutch (2006) cases criticise their government for not offering specific support for
intersectional groups of women, not taking measures to prevent cultural relativism, or, in the
Dutch case, for reinforcing stereotyping instead of acting against the discrimination and the
stereotyping that migrant (particularly Muslim) women are confronted with in the Netherlands.
In Latvia (2004) and Slovakia, the Shadow reports delineate specific intersections relevant in
51
their country. More generally, many ‘good practices’ were identified in NGO texts (Hungary;
Ireland; Latvia; Germany; Luxembourg; Netherlands; Slovenia; Slovakia and the United
Kingdom).
In some countries, the researchers could only find ‘good practices’ at the sub-national level,
as in the example from the Basque Country mentioned earlier. In Belgium too, the only ‘good
practice’ was identified in Flanders, where the Flemish Policy Plan Equal Opportunities is
peppered with intersectionality theory and practice, not seeing gender and the other
inequalities as separated or fragmented but as mutually constitutive to each other. In France,
a ‘good practice’ at the local level is a project that elaborates propositions for the government
and the EU to facilitate the professional inclusion of vulnerable (low educated or migrant)
women victims of violence.
Other patterns that emerge in the description of ‘good practices’ are that there seem to be
more good practices found that are on the issue of Gender-based Violence than on any other
issue. Also, it seems that a lack of structural understanding of gender coincides with a lack of
structural understanding of other inequalities. The phenomenon that gender fades away
when the concept of diversity of pluralism of differences between people is used has also
been described. Typically, some other inequalities than gender are found in connection to
specific issues (class and Non-employment; sexual orientation and Intimate Citizenship).
There are also differences in the political salience of different inequalities that intersect with
gender. While age and disability are never described as being controversial, sexual
orientation and ethnicity sometimes are. For sexual orientation this is mainly described for
new member states. The politically contested ethnicities are connected to migration, Islam
and Roma minorities.
For Denmark, no ‘good practice’ has been identified, because the analysis showed all
governmental policy to be stigmatising. The entrance of race/ethnicity on the political and
policy agenda in Denmark is understood within a discursive shift from tolerance towards
hostility. When ethnicity/race is articulated in gender equality policies, ‘the other’ is
constructed as the problem of gender equality. Immigrant women and men, for example, are
blamed for not living up to the Danish gender equality standards. This means that many of
the Danish policies are in themselves discriminatory. While the phenomenon of stigmatising
is also found in other countries (Roggeband and Verloo 2007, Verloo 2008), Denmark is the
only one where no good practice has been identified.
The ‘good practices’ that were identified were often a first step towards good gender+
equality policies. They were frequently pilot projects and hence their lasting impact was
uncertain. The attention to multiple inequalities was typically found more often in the
diagnosis of problems, than in the proposed policies. Luxembourg for instance, mainly
presents ‘intersectional’ statistics, showing the different situation of different social groups,
but without any further analysis or action proposed. Furthermore, the identified practices
predominantly pay concern attention for intersectional groups as especially vulnerable
categories. While this attention is needed, the risk of stigmatisation is not always addressed,
as the German, Dutch and Danish cases indicated. When there is growing awareness of the
tension between specific attention or services for some intersectional groups and their
problems on the one hand and the risk of stigmatisation on the other, there is, however, hope
for the future, as is the case in the examples described for Finland, UK, Ireland, the
Netherlands, Spain and Turkey. Other elements of hope are that class is not always
forgotten, and most of all that there are examples of consultation with civil society
52
organisations representing gender as well as with organisations representing other
inequalities, even if these mostly are not intersectional organisations. At the level of the
institutional arrangements, there is also occasional attention to the phenomenon of the fading
away of gender, for instance by explicitly arranging that the body responsible for gender
deals with ‘multiple discrimination’ cases (Austria).
In addition to the reports produced and sent to the Commission, there will be an edited
collection that draws on QUING analysis (Krizsán et al, forthcoming Palgrave), and a special
journal issue (Walby and Verloo, currently under review) devoted to intersecting inequalities.
Reflections on the dilemmas of addressing intersectionality in feminist politics as well as in
gender equality policy, have informed further publications by QUING team members; for
example, Walby’s (2011) book, The Future of Feminism, draws on these analyses.
1.3.3 WHY5
The acronym WHY refers to this activity’s ambition to contribute to the explanatory analysis
of the nature, quality of and variation in gender+ equality policies in Europe. The most
important objectives in this activity were to:
Develop an institutional approach to practices of citizenship
Conceptualise and mapping the interfaces between civil society and policy making
Explain deficiencies, deviations and inconsistencies in EU and member states’
gender+ equality policies
Conceptualise participatory forms of gender and diversity mainstreaming by
accentuating voice and civil society interfaces
This activity developed alternative theoretical models, following a review of the relevant
literature and of gender equality policies in the EU (Walby 1999, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007b).
The manuals on the WHY methodology ensured that data was collected that would allow the
testing of a range of theoretical questions derived from the QUING agenda.
One manual guided the ‘Country Context’ studies, ensuring that comparable data was
collected on the structure of gendered political opportunities, including both civil society and
the state, in each EU member state (Walby, Armstrong and Strid 2007). These 30 reports
represent major WHY output in their own right, as well as being used by QUING as data for
further analysis. They are publicly available on-line so that these data may be used as
empirical contributions to further analyses of gender relations in the EU. Further methodology
manuals advised on methods for the analysis of the institutions (Walby 2007d) and for
comparative analysis (Walby 2007e).
A further set of reports within the WHY activity (D41) contained analyses that sought to
explain the varied nature and quality of gender equality policies. These reports drew on data
and concepts generated in LARG and STRIQ as well as in WHY. These 35 papers have
been the basis of significant numbers of journal articles and contributions to books. Several
themes are addressed in these papers, including the explanation in variations in the nature
and quality of gender+ equality policies, the development of the concept of discursive
institutionalism, the implications of different kinds of engagement between civil society and
the state, and the nature and significance of the process of Europeanisation.
The WHY reports all contribute significantly to the objectives of QUING, each in their own
specific way. The following account draws on these reports, sometime with extracts from
5 This section is a synthesis from the final WHY report (Verloo & Walby 2010).
53
them in order to summarise their work most effectively. The D12 Gender equality policies in
the EU (Walby 2007b) reviewed the literature on gender equality policies, both the theoretical
literature and the empirical literature on gender equality policies in the EU and its member
states. This Review concluded that the differences in the content and quality of gender
equality policies are varied and complex, especially in the way gender equality concerns are
present within the policy and in the institutional resources associated with gender equality
policies (the law, the gender machinery and the extent to which civil society is effectively
engaged during the process of policy development and implementation). The overview
identifies the following key variations that require explanation: the extent to which policies in
areas that are potentially relevant to gender equality explicitly refer to gender equality or not;
the extent to which these policies address the intersection of gender with other inequalities
(discussed more fully in the report on intersectionality); the extent to which civil society has
both the opportunity and the resources to engage in the development and implementation of
gender equality policies; differences between the gender+ equality policies in individual
countries and those at the level of the EU. The Review found that the sources of differences
in the content and quality of gender+ equality policies were of two kinds: symbolic (presence,
vision and related conceptions of progress) and institutional (understood as either part of the
policy or part of the explanation of variations in policies). The major explanations for the
differences in content and quality were linked to the content and nature of the civil
society/state interface, political opportunities and coalitions or opponents, and to the wider
environment (most importantly gender regimes) including the wider international
environment. The literature review contributed to Objective 5 (assessing the content and
quality of gender+ equality policies in the EU’s multicultural context), Objective 7 (explaining
deficiencies, deviations and inconsistencies in EU and member states’ gender+ equality
policies), Objective 2 (conceptualising and mapping the interfaces between civil society and
policy making), Objective 3 (conceptualising participatory forms of gender and diversity
mainstreaming by accentuating voice and civil society interfaces) and Objective 6 (assessing
the standing and voice of civil society in gender+ equality policies), as well as the wider
concerns of Objective 8 (developing an institutional approach to the practices of citizenship)
and Objective 9 (developing a typology of gender regimes in Europe).
Three manuals were produced to provide a common methodology for researchers to follow in
each country (Walby 2007d; Walby 2007e; Walby, Armstrong and Strid 2007). These bring
together elements from political science, sociology and gender studies, so as to identify all
the most important factors needed to explain the nature, quality and variety of gender+
equality policies. These manuals provided both a common basis for the data gathering, while
allowing for alternative theoretical explanations to be used in the analysis of the material
gathered.
The papers written for D41 constitute the major substantive contribution of the WHY activity.
Many of them contribute to theoretical or thematic ambitions of the QUING project, and are
discussed under these headings. Here the focus is on those papers that have a strong
explanatory character. As stated in the literature review for WHY (Walby 2007b), the best
explanation of policy and political projects is one that is multi-layered, drawing on economic,
political and civil societal processes, and most of the papers have worked took this approach.
One set of papers centres on the extent to which inequalities other than gender are
incorporated within gender equality policies, in particular, in their institutionalisation. They
explain why the incorporation of other inequalities than gender is often rather weak, and why
54
in other cases ways of addressing multiple inequalities are found. Factors found to be
relevant included pressure from civil society or from international actors, path dependency
and historical legacies of national equality policies, and the type of framing of policy issues.
Krizsán, Popa and Zentai (2009) compare the different patterns of institutionalisation of
multiple inequalities in ten new Central and Eastern EU member states. They show that,
while in just about 10 years CEECs moved from socialist women’s policy to largely reinforced
notions of women’s difference and acknowledging complex transformative equality policy
strategies, engagement of equality institutional structures with intersectionality has not come
a long way in these countries. The few isolated examples resulted from activities of NGOs
and are linked to international influence.
Comparing Spain, Italy and Portugal, three Southern European countries that share many
characteristics, Lombardo and Bustelo (2009) show that despite apparent similarities, such
as an approach to inequalities that is characterised by a unitary approach shifting towards
one of multiple inequalities, these three countries are developing in different ways, reflecting
a constantly changing and path dependent spectrum of empirical possibilities: Portugal
shows stability and a gradual inclusion of other inequalities, Italy is hindered by a lack of
democracy and co-ordination in dealing with multiple inequalities, while Spain – driven by a
leftist government that has been very active – gives a hegemonic position to gender while at
the same time offering strong policies on sexuality equality and a lagging attention to
race/ethnicity. This comparative paper shows the importance of national contexts in shaping
policies that are also deeply influenced by EU policy.
Focusing on Spain, Bustelo and Forest (2009) characterise the country as still having a
unitary approach to the treatment of multiple inequalities in policymaking, one that consists of
separate institutions and gives primary attention and priority to gender. They analyse this
specific character as resulting from path dependent features of the politics of
antidiscrimination. Recent developments have however resulted in a more inclusive
understanding of gender equality, pointing to the significance of other inequality dimensions
such as age and ethnicity. The multi-level polity of Spain also generates potentially
innovative contributions from the regional to the national level.
Focusing on Portugal, Alonso (2009) uses its gradual development from a unitary to a
multiple approach that mentions additions and interactions, in order to analyse the specific
Portuguese institutional arrangement as a third way of dealing with intersectionality. Neither
separated nor integrated, this third model is based on establishing strong co-operation
between existing separate bodies. The emerging presence of a net of equality bodies could
lead to rainbow triangles and strengthening alliances.
Comparing three Nordic countries, Kvist, Carbin and Harjunen (2009) analyse the different
debates and consequences of tax reform for domestic services. They conclude that the
different ways that this issue has been framed in the three countries produced variations in
the intensity and character of the debates. In Denmark, class and ethnicity are central in the
debate while gender is almost absent. In Finland, the issue is not seen as about inequalities,
but about job creation. The stronger and longer debate and contestation in Sweden is linked
to a framing in terms of gender equality (how it was seen to impact on women’s labour
market participation and on equal sharing of domestic work between men and women) and
less in terms of job creation and integration. A comparison of such debates in two very
different welfare states (Sweden and Spain) by Kvist and Peterson (2009) reveals similarities
in terms of framing centred around gender equality and women’s labour market participation,
55
and as such of a more liberal model of inclusion, but there are crucial differences that are
connected to differences in welfare state regimes: in the context of welfare state
retrenchment in Sweden, the debate was highly polarised between right and left parties, but
none of them focused on the rights of domestic care workers; in the context of an existing
private domestic care sector in Spain, precariousness of work conditions was more firmly on
the agenda.
In a further comparison of three Nordic countries, Carbin, Harjunen and Kvist (2009) analyse
differences in intersectional reproductive rights: fertility treatment policies for lesbian
mothers. They show not only how these policies are very different in these three similar
countries but also how these countries construct exclusions for different citizens. While
Sweden’s policy is based on coupledom and excludes all single (lesbian) mothers, in Finland
the co-mother is not recognised and in Denmark the existence of a known biological father
excludes co/motherhood. The countries are similar in their absence of attention for
heteronormativity and for fatherhood by homosexual men. The absences and exclusions are
negatively impacting on the quality of these policies for gender+ equality policy.
Comparing the Netherlands and Belgium, Lauwers and Martens (2009) and Verloo, Lauwers,
Meier and Martens (under review) focus on the political practice of dealing with multiple,
intersecting inequalities. Belgium and the Netherlands have contrasting institutional setups
for equality bodies: while Belgium has an integrated legislation and separated bodies, the
Netherlands has an integrated body and separate legislation. In current practice, there are
discussions about an intersectional approach in both countries, but Belgium has not yet
applied an intersectional approach while the Netherlands have (even if this is an exception to
the rule). They conclude that this indicates that not only the institutional setup is important for
intersectional practice, but also agency, the degree to which people working in these
institutions are willing and able to adapt. Such agency in turn can lead to institutional
changes as well, as was shown in the Netherlands were the internal organisation of the
integrated Equality Body was adapted to fit better with multiple strand complaints. Agency is
possibly facilitated more by an integrated body than by an integrated legislation.
Another set of papers point to the phenomenon that civil society voices and actions are
important in explaining the presence or success of inclusion of other inequalities in gender+
equality policies. Under the broader label of civil society there are also actors that lobby or
act against gender+ equality policy (Pilinkaite-Sotorivic 2009).
Van der Wal and Verloo (2009), comparing the degree to which official Vatican positions are
found in gender+ equality policy texts in Catholic countries, attempt to show the impact of
institutional linkages between the Catholic Church and the state, but conclude that cultural
factors seem to explain the variance better than institutional factors. They also interpret this,
however, as the result of weak data on institutional variables.
Röder (2009), in a comparison of antidiscrimination legislation in Germany and the Czech
Republic, attributes the slowness of passing this Bill in both countries (inter alia) to the
presence of both pro and anti-groups in civil society.
Another set of papers use the framework of Europeanisation to explain deficiencies,
deviations and inconsistencies in EU and member states’ gender+ equality policies. An
important question in this is whether there are ‘classic’ differences among East-West or
North-South countries. As there is limited research on the Europeanisation of the new
member states after their accession to the EU, the QUING papers present crucial new
material. Another important feature of the papers is a focus on policy issues where the EU
56
has limited competence (Gender-based Violence and Intimate Citizenship). These issues at
best have soft policy measures installed around them, and show more clearly the
constructivist aspects of Europeanisation, contributing to theories on norm construction. All
papers that address the influence of the European Union stress the interplay of EU and
domestic factors. Lombardo and Forest (2009) have elaborated more theoretically on
Europeanisation theory moving away from rigid convergence – divergence models to
approaches that stress institutional, discursive and interactional factors, thereby contributing
to a more pluralistic and discursive approach to Europeanisation.
Concerning the existence of patterns across groups of countries, comparing countries across
common divisions gives crucial information. Röder (2009) finds strong similarities between
Germany and Czech Republic in both the process and the outcome of their antidiscrimination
legislation. These similarities defy any easy East-West divide. She identifies the role of the
ECJ, but also the positive actions of the Green parties in both countries as crucial for the
passing of this legislation. Lauwers’ (2009) assessment of leave regulations in all European
Union member states, reworked in a paper by Ciccia and Verloo (2011), similarly defies
East-West divisions.
Kuhar (2011) analyses Europeanisation in an issue where national competences are still the
primary ones: same-sex partnership regulations. While top down Europeanisation therefore
cannot be expected, he shows that there is a form of Europeanisation where transfer of
practices takes place between countries, strengthened by links and parallels made in the
framing to anti-discrimination legislation. This horizontal transfer takes place through the use
of role model countries and the positioning of countries vis-à-vis these role models.
In a comparison between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Ocenasova (2009) focuses on
differences in the discursive adoption of EU’s gender equality norms. These differences and
the overall fragility of gender+ equality policies in these countries are caused by differences
in the national context. Next to classic differences such as those between the dominant
political parties – where, as often, the Right wing parties care less about the development of
gender equality policies than the social democratic or progressive ones – one important
difference concerns attitudes towards the European Union – positive in Slovakia, sceptical in
Czech Republic.
Pilinkaite-Sotorivić (2009) focuses on whether new member state Lithuania has adopted the
discursive norms of the EU on gender equality and antidiscrimination by zooming in on
issues of Intimate Citizenship where the competence of the EU is low or absent. Is there a
common set of EU norms that also works through soft law or discursive norm setting? She
shows that, while Lithuania has transposed the EU Directives on gender equality and
antidiscrimination, the EU had no indirect influence outside of this. While there is a formal
transposition of EU Directives and institutional mechanisms, no transformation into social or
political practices has taken place. On the contrary, family policy is very strongly articulated
in terms of a unique national culture as based on wedlock and heteronormativity, and
diversity of family forms and women’s reproductive rights are seen as threats to the
Lithuanian nation and statehood.
Krizsán and Popa’s (2009) analysis of the framing of domestic violence policies – another
policy issue on which the EU has limited competence – in five Central and Eastern European
countries uses process tracing to identify three mechanisms of influence: EU conditionality,
financial incentives of social learning for change (Daphne), and discursive mechanisms used
by internal actors to frame the role of the EU.
57
Focusing on an area with strong EU competences, Jarty (2009) analyses the impact of the
EU on the (de)construction of categories of ´non-employed´ citizens in France, which is a
country notorious for its ´transposition’ neglect. Jarty shows a more nuanced picture, where
some influence of EU framing of gender equality can be found, through a focus on several
levels and actors in France.
For Greece, Pantelidou Maloutas (2009) argues that it has a dual political culture that
embraces European values on gender equality mainly as positive modernising values that
can and should bring economic development by itself and through compliance with European
Directives, while at the same time maintaining its introverted, conservative, traditional and
xenophobic elements. In this dual culture, the European Union and its demands for gender
equality are often presented as ‘an unavoidable natural phenomenon’ that are taken on
board in a narrow sense, not connected to changes in actual social structures and gender
perceptions in Greek society, limiting the impact of the European Union on transformative
change in gender relations. A similar tension between European culture (framed as linked to
gender equality goals and seen as secular) and national culture (identified as linked to
traditional gender order, and seen as Christian) is found to exist in Poland. Dabrowska
(2009) shows that this tension predominantly occurs when issues are connected to the
private sphere (as is the case for Gender-based Violence, same sex partnerships and
reproductive rights), asking whether we should distinguish between ´public´ and ´private´
Europeanisation.
Alonso and Forest (2009) use the case of Spain to analyse processes of norm diffusion in
gender equality policies at the regional level, showing that Europeanisation processes can
also be found at the regional level as they influence shifts towards mainstreaming
instruments and from implementation oriented measures to hard antidiscrimination
provisions. In focusing on the regional level, they unveil peer learning processes as well as
institutional isomorphism (between national and regional levels). They also show how gender
equality policies are shaped by political contention around self-governance, nationalist
discourses or the importance of EU/funding for the regional level.
The WHY activity made major contributions methodology and theory, as well as on the
substantive analysis of the development of and variations in the quality of gender+ equality
policies.
1.3.4 FRAGEN
With the activity FRAGEN, a start has been made with the collecting and making accessible
of core feminist texts in Europe leading to the public FRAGEN database that has found its
home with QUING-partner Aletta in Amsterdam (http://www.fragen.nu/aletta/fragen). The
acronym FRAGEN is derived from FRAmes on GENder, but it also means “questions/to
question’ in German. In choosing this name for an activity that intended to make a qualitative
selection of feminist movement texts in Europe, we highlight that such texts question existing
gender relations in different contexts. The main objective here was to conceptualise and map
civil society texts on gender+ equality.
While gender equality as an object of policy making has originated in the feminist movements
of the second part of the 20th Century, this connection has not yet been the object of serious
systematic study, (although there are good case studies for instance in the context of the
RNGS network see http://libarts.wsu.edu/polisci/rngs/). The objective of the activity FRAGEN
is to open up the material that would be necessary for such an analysis. FRAGEN compiled
58
an analytical database of European texts from the women’s movement, and has made this
database publicly available for researchers and others, providing a first analytical description
of this material using a simplified set of codes in parallel to LARG.
Notwithstanding the claim for the existence of a ‘global feminism’, there is ample
documentation on the variety of feminist frames across different times and places. As these
feminist frames have been articulated in Europe over the last decades, they can be seen as
sets of civil society repertoires on gender equality with a huge potential to inform current
debates on gender equality policies. While some varieties in feminism originate in differences
in context, others are due to differences in political perspective. Debates on the intersections
of class, sexual orientation and race/ethnicity have additionally shaped the framing of gender
inequality as a social, cultural and political problem. Increasingly religion (in its new
oppositional form of Christianity versus Islam) is increasingly relevant and has come to
substitute the main topic in debates that were previously about race/ethnicity.
The documentation of the roots of gender equality policies across various European
countries is important for two reasons. The first is that such documentation can be of help in
further research to understand and explain the variety of gender equality policies in the
European Union in terms of the activities and perspectives of the respective feminist
movements (the mobilising structures). The second is that the documentation of the set of
repertoires on gender equality of the feminist movement can enlarge/enrich the current and
future debates on gender equality policies in Europe.
The database developed in FRAGEN thus balances two goals. One is to create a database
of the original texts on gender+ equality frames that originate in feminist movements in
Europe. The other is to organise and facilitate the open access to this database for
researchers. The methodology for this activity assures that both goals are met, and that the
selected texts are among the most relevant ones in their context. Although the database is
intended to survive the end of the project, and steps have been taken to encourage the
further growth of the database, a careful selection of texts is extremely important.
The activity started by finding subcontractors in each country, following the suggestions of all
LARG country researchers and the knowledge of the field provided by Aletta, the activity
leader for FRAGEN. The chosen subcontractors are mostly feminist documentation centres
or gender studies experts. Annex 1 contains a list of the FRAGEN subcontractors.
The texts were selected by asking local experts (feminist activists, researchers on feminist
movements, documentalists), and by using specific selection criteria:
• The texts should preferably originate in the country of submission (a few exceptions
were made for important texts that had been ‘imported’ and translated).
• The texts should be from the late 1960s onwards.
• They should preferably have functioned as a feminist manifesto, or have come to be
regarded as one later on.
• They must have had some historical relevance in the country of origin e.g. impacting
the success of feminist movements or gender relations in that country.
• The texts should reflect the diversity of ideas that prevailed in each country at the
time, including the most radical ones.
These selection criteria come foremost from a need to cover as many political positions on
the feminist problematic as possible, and, just as importantly, from a need to include as many
intersections with other inequalities as are present in the given context.
59
For each country the first step in the selection process was to identify at least three to five
prominent national experts on the feminist movement in their country who are knowledgeable
of various strands of feminism. These experts can be academics, but also feminists, feminist
collectives, platforms or assemblies that are representative of the feminist movement in their
country.
Most subcontractors chose experts from both the women’s movement and from academia.
The experts were asked to nominate five to ten important ‘feminist texts’ that originated in
their country and to argue for their nomination using the above criteria. Out of this so-called
‘long list’ of proposed texts, the experts ultimately created the ‘short list’ that was chosen for
the FRAGEN database. This short list could contain a maximum of ten texts per country. The
long list also appears on the FRAGEN website, to increase transparency and to solicit
proposals of other texts that would need to be included. For each context (country) the
selection of texts includes a justification of the selection, in the form of a document listing the
experts’ input per country, providing an anonymised overview of suggested texts per expert,
as well as an argumentation why these texts should be included in the database and how the
texts fit the selection criteria.
The time frame for the selected texts is adjusted to local circumstances. In general, the
database starts from what is commonly called the feminism’s Second Wave of the late
sixties.
The EU has many languages, and most texts that have been influential in framing gender
inequality as a problem in its various contexts have been written in one of these languages.
In order to preserve their original content, the texts selected for the database are entered in
their original language. They are scanned and made available in electronic form. In order to
make the texts accessible for researchers who do not read the respective languages, a
substantive set of codes is added to the texts, providing more information about their time
and place, authors, reception of the text and content. To make it easier to compare and
contrast the selected texts a coding system has been used, based on the QUING
methodology. This English-language coding system facilitates the access for the database
users. So alongside the bibliographic description and the digital version of the text there is an
analytical description available for every text. The coding system contains several questions
regarding: the historical relevance of the text; the topic(s) of the text, according to Beijing's 12
critical areas of concern; the use of ‘gender’ in the text; its stated causes of gender
inequalities; the intersection of gender with other inequalities; whether the text contains a call
for action, the content of this call and who is addressed by this call; and the overall feminism
framing, classified following Judith Lorber’s typology (Lorber 1998). FRAGEN’s coding
manual simplified, but runs parallel to the methodology of LARG, so as to enable further
study relating texts from civil society to policy texts. A very time consuming task has been to
arrange copyrights. Actively providing protected works via a database on a public computer
network requires the consent of the author(s). This means that all the texts for FRAGEN are
subject to copyright protection. The team of subcontractors was trained not only in the use of
the coding manual, but also in the details of arranging copyrights and scanning documents
professionally. Thanks to the efforts of the partners, for almost all texts a so-called CC
(Creative Commons) license was obtained. The texts are scanned using OCR technology,
meaning that they are fully searchable.
FRAGEN produced eight reports (mainly manuals outlining the work procedures and
conference reports) and a public database that is guaranteed to remain online for at least
60
three years beyond the project. The database currently consists of almost 300 carefully
selected feminist texts for each country of the European Union, plus Turkey and Croatia.
After consultation with WINE, the European network of feminist documentation centres,
Aletta in Amsterdam has offered to keep hosting the database. The selection process has
been documented, and all texts proposed by experts have been included in a long list that is
accessible on the website. The database was launched in Budapest at the Second ECPR
Conference on Gender and Politics in January 2011. See http://www.fragen.nu
The FRAGEN database can be seen as the first step towards a full text European Feminist
Collection that will enable and encourage comparative research into the history of feminist
thinking in Europe. Experience so far shows that it is urgent to continue the collection of this
material in the next years as some of it was originally made public through channels that no
longer exist, and is thus in danger of disappearing altogether.
At the end of the QUING project, many FRAGEN subcontractors have organised
presentations of the database at the national level. There have been spring meetings in
Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Bucharest, Dresden and Vienna. It is hoped that there will be
a way to expand the database in the future, and a small taskforce has been formed that will
engage in efforts to achieve this.
1.3.5 OPERA
OPERA is plural for opus, the Latin word for work, and as acronym in the QUING project this
is used to refer to the actual work of ‘doing gender+ equality’ that is needed to change
policymaking towards the achievement of gender+ equality. For the future of gender+
equality, this activity was and is seen as crucial, given the lack of channels for transfer of
gender+ equality knowledge between academia, movements and policy practitioners.
OPERA was set up to improve this transfer through its focus on gender+ training. The
questions it has set out to address are all rooted in an ambition to define and develop more
inclusive standards for gender+ training thereby positively impacting on the quality of
gender+ equality policies. OPERA addresses the following questions:
What training on gender equality is necessary in public and private bodies in the EU
and its member states?
How can trainers best be trained, and by whom?
What should be the standards and contexts of gender training courses?
What bodies should be responsible for maintaining and updating gender equality
training programmes and standards?
In this activity, the QUING research team benefitted from its collaboration with the QUING
consultant partner (Yellow Window Consultancy) ensuring the necessary reality checks. See
Annex 1 for contractors involved, Annex 2 for reports, and Section 2 for the list of online
reports. OPERA produced 12 reports, including reports on gender training in all countries,
and a manual for gender trainers, as well as a monitoring and evaluation protocol for the
training of trainers.
The main activities in OPERA have been to organise collective reflexivity through workshops
and expert meetings, to conduct pilot trainings and to collect the generated knowledge in
manuals and reports.
61
The selection of pilot trainings and their potential as ‘good’ practices on Gender+ Training
(G+T) were based upon the criteria these Gender+ Trainings needed to be promoted in the
framework of a public policy strategy of G+T provision, linked to the implementation of
gender mainstreaming, targeting policy makers (politicians, public administrators, civil
servants), and posses General Gender+ contents. The language could be any language
mastered by the OPERA team (English, Dutch, German and Spanish). Ex-ante and post
questionnaires were used to monitor and evaluate. The main pilots have been in Spain
(Agora, Cantabria and Andalusia), Luxembourg and Germany, and there was also one set of
pilots held for the EU Science in Society National Contact Points.
The most extensive ‘pilot’ could be held because of synergies with another project, as Yellow
Window was awarded a substantial contract with the European Commission under FP7 to
initially perform 30 (later 33) trainings in different member states in the field of Gender+
Research, and to develop a Gender Toolkit to be possibly reproduced and mainstreamed.
This contract provided an opportunity for synergies with QUING. The toolkit + training
packages were designed to provide the research community with practical tools to integrate
gender in FP7 research. Trainings were carried out in a 1-day session format, divided into an
introductory morning session and a thematic, experience-based afternoon session in the
form of two parallel sessions addressing specific research areas. Insights from the OPERA
process resulted in privileging a multiplier format (advocacy skills, dealing with resistance)
over a research community format (participatory, work on actual documents). As such, these
trainings have served both as an empirical testing process of the theories on gender training
developed in OPERA and as a source of inputs from the field work in an ‘action research’
model. OPERA team members have also reflected at different stages on the implementation
of curriculum and quality criteria during these trainings, at times as observers. The Toolkit+
training format developed under the contract with the EC has been highly praised by
commissioners for its quality and its adaptability to a wide range of institutional contexts, and
was given specific attention among the Women & Science Helsinki group members. This in
turn has led to a further invitation to conduct a training workshop by the Spanish Helsinki
Group. So, in a sense, this particular pilot has multiplied itself already.
Another very crucial pilot was held in 2010 by the OPERA partner Humboldt University Berlin
which organised two “labs” on intersectionality in training, civic education and consultancy
work. Labs are a specific workshop format in which new ideas are developed by and
discussed with trainers, researchers and experts engaged in anti-discrimination work. Invited
experts provided presentations about pending issues in anti-discrimination training, such as:
- What conceptualisations of inequalities and intersectionality are applied in which
kinds of training?
- Which theoretical foundations are referred to when and why?
- Which competencies are relevant for “good” training and for whom?
The labs also addressed questions about the impact of training activities and resistances,
which were linked to broader dimensions of intersectionality.
The “labs” were successful with regard to their audience (50 participants each), as wells as
their content and participatory and exploratory format. The activity proved to be a fruitful add-
on training module for training of trainers in which trainers can broaden their networks and
can share and discuss core training questions with peers. In their shape and content and the
attention paid to the issue of intersectionality, these trainings integrated several of the key
62
elements developed through OPERA activities, and provided additional insights for the
monitoring of innovations in gender training activities.
The train the trainers’ activities were held as on-line forums in 2010, moderated by different
OPERA team members, on three different themes. Forum 1 was on how to include
intersectionality and gender/feminist theory in gender+ training, Forum 2 on how to use real
participatory and experiential methodology in gender+ training and Forum 3 on how to deal
with resistances to gender+ training.
All OPERA activities culminated in the 2011 OPERA final conference in Madrid. For this
conference an interactive format with moderators instructed carefully beforehand was chosen
to allow for maximum exchange of experiences and knowledge, and for participatory learning
among the various types of participants. Additionally, there was a theoretical contribution on
the concept of reflexivity by QUING Advisory Board member Carol Bacchi (2011) from the
University of Adelaide. The very large number of participants, and their diversity in terms of
backgrounds and locations, was a clear sign of the necessity of such possibilities for mutual
learning, as was the participants’’ variety. The conference was attended by 126 participants
from a wide range of countries – Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
Romania, Spain, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA. The audience consisted
of the different main stakeholders identified earlier: 50 gender+ trainers, 37 academics and
39 commissioners or representatives of equality institutions. The academics who attended all
have an interest in gender training and/or knowledge transfer, and they participated in their
capacity as practitioners rather than as researchers. The conference can be considered a
genuine landmark event for bringing together gender+ trainers from across Europe for the
first time, and for building steps towards an emerging Community of Practices in gender+
training.
What did OPERA achieve? The key objective of OPERA was to transfer knowledge about
gender+ equality policies linked the QUING results, and this has been achieved in two main
ways. First, OPERA has been focused on promoting quality in gender+ equality policies, in
line with the overall aim of QUING, and on establishing the need for quality in gender+
training as a fundamental component for gender mainstreaming strategies. Second, OPERA
has worked to introduce and integrate intersectionality into gender trainings, developing and
promoting the concept of gender+ training at the European level. A further achievement of
the OPERA component has been the promotion of bringing together a critical mass on
gender+ training in Europe. Before OPERA, it was clear that gender training was an under-
explored area and any advances made in terms of quality were made through practical
struggles by individual gender trainers and organisations. This critical mass of gender+
trainers promoted a reflection not only on practical questions but also on generating concepts
and theories of gender+ training. Moreover, this was conducted under the banner of
developing quality and curriculum standards, moving beyond a study of gender training in
Europe and engaging with concrete standards in a concrete manner. At the same time, this
process was carried out in collaboration and consultation with gender trainers and
practitioners. The two achievements combined define inclusive standards as not only the
capacity of a training to tackle complex situations of inequality and/or discrimination, which
entails rooting the training into gender theory and empirical studies in order to support it with
a complex understanding of the structural power relations at stake, but also as the attention
paid to intersecting inequalities.
63
Continuing with the achievements of OPERA, one of the most substantive has been the
establishment and development of a Community of Practices in Gender+ Training experts.
This has been consolidated through a number of key OPERA activities: the OPERA
database; synergies with TARGET (a parallel project linking the OPERA team with a US
team); the transfer from a ‘train the trainers’ activity to an online forum format; the OPERA
final conference; and the Madrid OPERA Declaration. In addition, one of the main strengths
and innovations of OPERA has been its focus beyond academia, while another strength is its
engagement of gender trainers and experts, commissioners and policy-makers. This is one
of the key ways in which OPERA allowed the QUING project to move beyond an academic
research project into policy-making and implementation arenas. Engagement with gender
training commissioners particularly represented an original step as previous work on gender
training had focused almost exclusively on the trainers themselves. This lead to asking
fundamental questions about how gender+ training is formulated in the policy-making
process and, in turn, to one of the most important findings of the OPERA component: that
gender+ training must be integrated into a gender mainstreaming strategy in order to be
effective. Also, it reframes the planning of gender+ training away from being a purely
technical issue and places it more broadly in policy-making debates and processes.
OPERA has also contributed to theoretical knowledge. This contribution resulted from
ongoing reflexivity within the OPERA team and from its many interactions with the field on
the potential and need for minimum quality standards. OPERA’s main conclusion here was
that there needs to be a shift from a focus on defining curriculum standards to setting
minimum quality criteria (also including curriculums); and from the promotion of best
practices to the identification of “practices with potential”. Minimum quality criteria fit better
with a highly contextualised activity where policy sectors, audiences and training formats
matter, preventing the rough definition of ready-made and easily transferable, universal
standards. OPERA’s decision to advocate reflection on the objectives and meaning of
gender+ training rather than setting universal standards provides gender+ trainers and
commissioners with an open framework to be adapted to their own contexts.
The minimum quality criteria that have been established are:
Context: Gender+ training methodology and content should be adapted to the context the
session is set in, to its audience and to the way in which participants may resist the training.
Commitment: Effectivity depends on a top-down strategy supported by the top.
Content: Gender+ training should include: Gender+ theory (constructivist understanding of
gender, intersection with other inequalities); introduction to international and European and
national legal frameworks; data, facts and figures, with a good selection of case studies
adapted to the audience’s field of work; a balance between the training content and the level
of knowledge of the participants; a balance between political debates and technical
arguments, including a strategy for addressing resistances; complementing theoretical
content with practical approaches.
Transparency: Transparency of the commissioners and trainers about their goals and
expectations, as well as in the communication and dissemination of information on gender+
training and policies.
Quality of trainers: Besides manifest training and adult pedagogy skills, gender+ trainers
must have: gender+ competence (knowledge of gender+ theory up to date with current
academic debates, research questions and acquaintance with gender analysis instruments);
64
method competence; field competence, and personal competence to clearly communicate
the goals and contents of gender+ training while raising interest and questions.
Methodology: The methodology should be context specific. Participatory and experiential
methodologies offer greater overall potential, as well as the potential to deal effectively with
resistances.
Resources and format: Time (a minimum of two days to allow for a learning process to take
place; child care provision might need to be made); Venue: good accessibility and equipment
that enables the use of a variety of training methodologies; Incentives, such as a certificate of
participation or training within working hours; Target: careful planning of group composition,
size, professional field and hierarchies; Breaks, allowing for social interaction.
Evaluation: Monitoring and evaluation procedures are an integral part of the gender+
training activity.
Among OPERA’s most important visible achievements are its construction of a database of
gender+ trainers in Europe, and its contribution to a growing Community of Practice on
gender training. Its final conference in Madrid 2011 resulted in the Madrid Declaration
outlining the basic criteria of quality and content to be advocated in Gender+ training
activities in Europe in order to fully assume the role of gender trainer practitioners
(commissioners, trainers and researchers) in the improvement of Gender+ Equality policies.
It is expected that the Database will be fully operational by 1st December 2011. In addition to
the management and development of the Database, informal discussions with EIGE have
raised the possibility of opportunities for continuing the work of OPERA beyond the QUING
project. Potential activities include a gender+ trainers’ forum (either online or face to face)
and a conference or seminar in 2012 for gender+ trainers. As such, it is hoped that the
transfer of the Database will not only achieve the desired objectives, but will also contribute
to a sustainable impact for the QUING project.
The Madrid Declaration results from further discussions on minimum quality criteria during
the final OPERA conference, producing another type of basic criteria to be widely accepted
among a Community of Practitioners in the making. The Madrid Declaration has been signed
by XX gender+ trainers, gender+ training commissioners and gender+ training experts
already who express a commitment to further development and improvement of gender+
training as an emerging professional field.
Here is the text of the Declaration (http://www.quing.eu):
65
Madrid Declaration on Advancing Gender+ Training in Theory and Practice
QUING/OPERA, May 2011
Important note: This Declaration is meant to engage all gender+ trainers, gender+ training
commissioners and gender+ training experts who express a commitment to further
development and improvement of gender+ training as an emerging professional field.
‘Gender+’ refers to the intersection of gender and other inequalities. In this Declaration, many
concepts are inherently contested. We have put those in italics, signalling our intention to use
them in as inclusive a way as possible and to have intensive productive dialogue at a later
stage in order to avoid lack of clarity or exclusion due to these concepts.
Preamble
As gender+ trainers, gender+ training commissioners and gender+ training experts we
understand ourselves as part of a broader movement for change towards more gender equal
democratic societies. We are committed to delivering, commissioning and further developing
the highest quality training. With the use of the concept of gender+, we signal that we work
with gender as intersected with other structural inequalities. Gender+ training should work
towards engaging men, women and people of any gender or sex. In order to provide the
highest quality training, we acknowledge and commit to the following:
Concerning the positioning of Gender+ training:
• Gender+ training should ideally be carried out as part of a broader explicit gender
mainstreaming strategy
• Gender+ training ultimately is a means towards making policies work better for people
through improving the
quality of policy making and service provision
• Gender+ training is linked to the broader community of gender+ scholars, researchers and
students and learns from and contributes to this community
Concerning the content and methods of Gender+ training:
• The content of gender+ training should include the structural character of inequalities, the
power mechanisms reproducing these inequalities and the privileges and power enjoyed by
some groups, so that gender+ biases and gender+ blindness are understood as a result of
the inequalities that are to be overcome
• Intersectionality should be integrated into gender+ trainings
• Gender+ trainings should work towards challenging gender and other stereotypes
• Transformative learning methodologies such as participatory and experiential methods
should be used whenever possible in order to maximise the learning experience for
participants
• Resistances to gender+ training should be embraced and dealt with as part of a necessary
process of organisational/institutional, societal and personal change
• Gender+ training is based on feminist and gender theories translated to practitioners.
Trainers should actively search for ways to communicate up to date feminist and gender
theories in the training
66
• Gender+ training should combine knowledge transfer with competence and capacity
building while also confronting attitudes that could hinder the application of knowledge and
competences
• The best gender+ trainings take into account the specific context of the gender inequalities
with which trainees engage in the course of their day-to-day work.
Concerning the further development of high quality Gender+ training: sharing, reflecting and
professionalising
• Innovations in theory and methodology should be developed, shared and applied in order to
remain on the cutting edge of expertise in both training and gender+
• Experiences should be shared by engaging in (sub)national, European and transnational
networks and Communities of Practice based on transparency, inclusiveness, an appetite for
‘practices with potential’, and recognition of others’ work
• Reflexivity enhancing practices should be an integral part of any gender+ training and
mainstreaming proposal and activity, using methods such questioning, peer review and
intervision
• Gender+ trainers, commissioners, gender+ training experts and representatives of equality
institutions should work together in an open dialogue to develop professional quality
standards on theory, methodology, format and ethics, including sufficient time for training and
sensitivity to context
• Gender+ trainers, commissioners and gender+ training experts should be realistic in their
expectations and in the design and implementation of gender+ training, specifying the level
of training and the time and resources allocated to the training
The Database of gender trainers has found a good permanent home with EIGE, the
European Institute for Gender equality in Vilnius. The final report of OPERA also includes a
more prospective dimension, which aims at ensuring the sustainability of OPERA’s output
through different channels.
67
1.4 Thematic issues
The dynamics of gender equality policies vary significantly by the policy domain in which they
are rooted. This phenomenon has been noted in other projects as well. The RNGS project
(http://libarts.wsu.edu/polisci/rngs/) conceptualises this as a high degree of ‘sectoralisation’.
As Dorothy McBride and Amy Mazur (2010) state in their recent book, ‘political dynamics
vary by sector not according to country or region’ (p.248), because different features of each
policy sector influence which actors are powerful, and which have more structured
established settings that are closed to feminist actors. Htun and Weldon (2010) propose a
conceptual framework with two dimensions: whether issues are predominantly about the
status of women or also strongly about class; and whether issues are non-doctrinal or
doctrinal, that is contradicting the doctrine of a dominant religion or culture that competes
with a state over the power to impose its views (such as Intimate Citizenship issues and the
Vatican).
In the context of the QUING project, we have clearly shown that the voice and standing of
civil society in gender equality policies is highly issue specific (Krizsán et al. 2010, p.70).
Comparing references in policy documents to processes of policy development that involve
consultations with civil society across types of texts and across issues, QUING found clear
differences. Across issues, references to involving civil society and similarly those to
involving women’s movements in consultation processes are lowest in Non-employment
(care work, reconciliation, tax benefit policies and equal pay), then Intimate Citizenship
(divorce and marriage, same-sex discrimination and partnerships and reproductive rights)
and Gender-based Violence. They are highest in General Gender+ Equality policies (overall
gender equality plans and policies on machineries).
The main reason to address the content, quality and dynamics of gender+ equality policies
by thematic issues is a theoretical one: we can expect the political dynamics, and hence the
content, quality and potential success or failure to be domain specific. Following Walby’s
(2009) landmark contribution to social theory, we can distinguish two types of sets of
systems that are understood as each being each other’s environment: institutional systems
(domains), and relational systems (inequality regimes).
Walby (2009) distinguishes four institutional domains – economy, polity, civil society, and
violence – and refines these so as to better include gender and other non-class inequalities.
Walby distinguishes between several regimes of inequality, including those of gender, class
and race/ethnicity; though the theory is robust enough to include further regimes of
inequality. The multiplicity of concurrent systems means that changes occur unevenly: when
an economic system modernises that does not automatically mean that the polity modernises
simultaneously, though a change in one system will affect neighbouring systems, which will
in turn react and co-evolve. The most significant and largest change takes place when a
tipping point is reached in the development of a system Walby draws on complexity theory to
refine her concept of system, so changes in systems (either a domain or an inequality
regime) are conceptualised as mutual adaptation rather than as one way impacts.
There are thus two reasons to expect issue specificity: one is that issues are connected to
different domains, or different sets of domains, and the other is that they can be part of
several inequality regimes. In both cases, this means that different actors have different roles
and power positions, which causes issue specificity. Issue specificity can hence be
understood by mapping the positioning of an issue across domains and inequality regimes
and by delving into the consequences of this positioning for the various roles and potential of
68
various actors. Htun and Weldon’s two dimensions can then be taken to a higher theoretical
level and be read as: 1) issues that impact polities with or without organised religion playing
a role, and 2) issues that are or are not positioned as central in both gender and class
inequality regimes.
This section addresses one by one the four issues that have been studied in the QUING
project: gender equality machineries and General Gender Equality policies; Non-
employment; Intimate Citizenship and Gender-based Violence. The Non-employment field
focuses on the legitimisation of Non-employment, as an exception from the routine
expectation of employment as the norm. Intimate citizenship is understood to be a set of
policies that regulate intimate partnerships, claims about the body and its reproductive
capacities, traditional and non-traditional relationships and sexuality. The Gender-based
Violence field encompasses policies addressing any form of violence rooted in structural
gender-based inequalities that results or is likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological
harm or suffering in public or private life of women, men or children based on their gender.
1.4.1 General gender equality policies
The main focus of these studies of General Gender+ Equality policies and machineries has
been on the development of legislation concerning gender inequality, and in particular, the
inter-relationship with the policies and machineries to address other intersecting inequalities.
The implications for policies of the transposition of EU directives as well as the significance
of other international processes (for example, CEDAW) were considered. We studied the
creation as well as restructuring of gender equality machineries (or more general equality
bodies where no specific gender focus was present), analysing debates on the creation of
new institutions, the reform of existing institutions, and the integration of governmental
machineries dealing with gender with those concerning other inequalities. In the period under
analysis, one of the most important changes here has been the shift from a focus on gender
equality to a more complex equality architecture that addresses a wider set of inequalities.
The theoretical discussions about the concept of intersectionality have been useful in
understanding these developments, and the study of this level of gender+ equality policies
has enabled the team to contribute both to theory and to policy recommendations. There are
several reports and actual or planned journal articles on this issue (Walby, Armstrong and
Strid 2009b; Lombardo and Agustin 2009; Alonso 2009; Verloo, Lauwers, Martens and Meier
under review; Lombardo and Bustelo 2009), as well as a planned special issue of a journal
(Walby and Verloo under review).
One set papers ask questions about the nature and consequences of institutional
arrangement shifts in the equality architecture in the European Union. The papers consider
whether all EU member states are moving to single equality bodies that incorporate
inequalities in addition to gender or not. Walby, Armstrong and Strid (2009b) developed the
concept of equality architecture to address this issue very productively. The equality
architecture is conceptualised as consisting of several elements: not only the commissions
responsible for over-seeing the implementation of the law, but also the governmental policy-
making units focused on new policy developments and institutionalised consultation
mechanisms that engage with various constituencies, and the law as well as institutions to
implement the law. If only certain parts of the equality architecture, mostly the statutory
complaint bodies, are considered, a shift to single equality bodies can indeed often be
observed. However, sometimes, there were earlier shared institutions (e.g. the employment
69
tribunals in Britain); and sometimes there still are separate units (Instituto de la Mujer in
Spain). Reducing the complexity of the reality of equality institutions leads to overlooking too
many actual developments, complexities and opportunities, and creates problems in
conceptualising the interface between actors at the governmental level and at the civil
society level as they co-operate and struggle in the joint ‘project for equality’. For the UK,
Walby, Armstrong and Strid (2009b) find some changes in the equality architecture, for
example, the merger of the Equality Commissions into the Equality and Human Rights
Commission, but that there are also some institutional continuities. They show that previous
Commissions did not completely ignore multiple inequalities and that class has been
powerfully included in the equality architecture in several ways, for example in the
employment tribunals that implement the law. For CEE countries, Krizsán and Zentai
(forthcoming)analyse the impact of the EU accession process, coupled with the emerging EU
equality agenda, on the equality institutional changes in CEE over the last decade.
Notwithstanding this common regional transition, the authors find varying patterns of
institutionalising equality and engagement with intersectionality. These differences are
explained by different institutional and social movement legacies from the late communist
and post-communist period and by variations in policy development processes, and the
different roles played in these by NGOs, international actors and state institutions.
Two papers analyse the European Union level, focusing on the way intersectionality is
positioned within the institutions. Concerning policy developments on institutionalising
intersectionality, Lombardo and Verloo (2009) conclude that though the European Union so
far is moving from a unitary to a multiple approach, it does so mainly by juxtaposing
inequalities rather than by treating them as somehow related to each other. Moreover, the
overall level of protection of various inequalities is not equal, hindering the quality of gender+
equality policies. The authors stress that the current absence of institutional encouragement
for co-operation across bureaucratic units, agencies or movement organisations that are
linked to specific inequalities forms a hindrance to the quality of gender+ equality policies.
Lombardo and Rolandsen Agustin (2009) more specifically ask whether EU-level gender
equality policies have become more inclusive of other inequalities that intersect with gender.
They answer that EU policy documents show a tendency to use intersectional dimensions in
an implicit way, mainly using a separate or inarticulate approach to the relation between
categories linked to inequalities, resulting in a weak framing of intersectionality; no bias or
stigmatising, but no attention for structural levels or privilege either. While this
inarticulateness could be a starting point for further elaboration, it could also neutralise and
diffuse policy content even to the extent that the gender dimension is blurred. More recent
texts give greater visibility to the problem of intersecting inequalities, although their strongest
attention is focused on the intersection of age and gender, mostly linked to an economic
development agenda which could hinder a broader understanding of gender equality.
The team also mapped the range of inequalities that are addressed by gender equality
policies. This is visible in Table 1 below. As the table shows, the range of inequalities
addressed in the 29 studied countries is wider than the six inequalities that are at the heart of
European Union regulations. While this table was based on information about inequalities in
one way or another linked to gender equality policies, and therefore cannot be complete, the
overview it provides shows that the variety across Europe is large, and that class, political
position, marital or family status, and health are the most common extensions. Class is
referred to as birth/descent/background/origin/status/condition (different words that most
70
probably reflect translation from various languages); as education; as financial status,
economic position, property (status) or wealth; in work contract characteristics (part-time,
temporary and other types of employment contract) and in a variety of factors linked to union
membership and activities to improve the position of workers (union membership or activities,
membership of an organisation representing employees’ interests). There is also one
reference to membership of an employers’ organisation. Politics is also mentioned as
conviction/opinion/preference/beliefs, but also as belonging, and at times it is elaborated as
conviction or opinion. Marital/family status is either linked to partnership, to parenthood as
paternity or maternity (or pregnancy status), or to family status/situation/responsibilities.
Health is not only about current, but also about future health, with a single special mentioning
of persons infected with HIV. And finally some countries have made an open ending to their
list, adding ‘any other criteria’ or ‘any other status’, or ‘persons belonging to a disfavoured
category (with examples given).
71
Table 1 Overview of links to inequality in laws and regulations in the EU
Links to inequality beyond EU-6
Country class politics marital/family status
health Other
Austria family status, marital status
Belgium birth/descent, property, social descent
political preferences civil status current or future health condition
Bulgaria education, property status
political belonging marital status personal or public status, any other grounds
Croatia marital, family status
Cyprus
Czech Republic
social origin, property, political or other conviction
marital status, maternity and paternity
or other status
Denmark social origin, social background
p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n
Estonia property, origin or social status
political or other opinion
EU marital status
Finland marital status health
France union activities political conviction marital status, family situation
health origin?
Germany political opinion Parentage
Greece
Hungary social origin, financial status, part-time, temporary and other types of employment contract, the membership of an organisation representing employee interests, education
political or other opinion family status, motherhood (pregnancy) or fatherhood
state of health
or any other criteria
Ireland marital status, family status
Italy social condition political opinion marital status, pregnancy status, motherhood,
Latvia social origin, social status, wealth, economic position
political beliefs marital status, family situation
Lithuania social status
Luxembourg
Malta membership in a trade union or employers' association
political opinions pregnancy or potential pregnancy, marital status, family responsibilities
Netherlands political conviction civil/marital status (E,S),
Poland participation in unions
Portugal marital status
Romania social origin persons infected with HIV
persons belonging to a disfavoured category (e.g. refugees, asylum seekers, pensioners, abandoned children, convicted persons who have served their sentences etc.
Slovakia social origin, property political opinion, marital and family status
Slovenia marital status
Spain marital status
Sweden
Turkey political opinion marital status or maternity
UK marriage Trans/gender identity
This overview is not exhaustive, as it is based on data gathered for the QUING series of Intersectionality reports: see http://www.quing.eu, compiled by Lisa Wewerka and Mieke Verloo.
72
1.4.2 Non-employment
The focus in the Non-employment policy field, as conceptualised by QUING, is on the
legitimisation of Non-employment as an exception from the routine expectation of
‘employment as the norm’. It is about defining who is not employed, who does not need to be
employed, and for what reasons. As such, it is about categorising citizens (citizens who study
or are old, provide care to other people, or who do not have a legal status) and investigating
the links between the rights and duties associated with these categories. There is
considerable variation in which groups of women are regarded as legitimately non-employed
both within countries and between countries. Non-employment is a good concept through
which to take a fresh look at how policy fields, actions, and discourses embedded in different
types of European gender regimes regulate labour market entry and exit paths for men and
women, the short-term and long-term rewards of paid jobs, and the distribution of social
welfare provision benefits. This approach allows us the scope to examine both the newly
shaped and the older structural inequalities that face men and women in general, men and
women in ethnic and religious groups, or men and women who differ in their material status,
sexual orientation, migrant or citizen status, and/or their abilities in the labour market and the
workplace. A good example is Armstrong, Walby and Strid (2009b) who analyse employment
policy in Britain. They clearly show that employment policy in Britain does draw distinctions
between the various groups of women who remain off the labour market. Overall, their
analysis shows that there is a lack of coherence in the conceptualisation of gender equality in
employment policy. Elements of a transformation agenda are present to some degree (e.g.
increased childcare, promoting women’s participation in employment) but co-exist with an
acceptance of women’s difference (in their role as primary carers, and in their over-
representation in part-time jobs). This seems patterned, with certain visions for certain
groups: the sole targeted group of women is located at intersection of gender/class and
ethnicity, with combating poverty taking priority and equality as intersected by gender and
ethnicity dropping from view. The drive to recognise particular groups facing particular
barriers goes hand in hand with paying insufficient attention to barriers facing all women and
seeing overall patterns of non /underemployment as non-problematic. For some groups of
women, there seems to be increasing coercion into employment (lone parents), or
employment is at least encouraged amongst these groups is (minority ethnic women). But
employment here appears to be more about alleviating (child) poverty and limiting costs in
terms of benefit payment. For other groups of women, choice is promoted (couple families)
or, at the very least, there is an implicit ‘acceptance’ of Non-employment (e.g. amongst full
time carers). Using a framework of ‘choice’ overlooks the constraints on these women’s
employment and the ways their ‘choices’ are socially structured by the current conditions of
gender inequality. The situation is one of double (or triple) standards; paid work is seen as a
good thing for some groups of women (lone mothers claiming benefits, women from minority
ethnic groups), while ‘choice’ is accepted or even promoted for other groups of women, and
some other groups of women seem to be simply neglected. On the one hand, the
government is increasingly coercive in terms of forcing some groups onto the labour market;
while on the other hand promoting choice for others – choice in how to balance or reconcile
family and work. In this way, Non-employment becomes legitimate amongst some women –
and somewhat hidden from view – while Non-employment is deemed unacceptable for
others.
73
Many policy topics in this field are connected to some aspect of work-life balance, through
connections to sub-issues such as reconciliation, care work, tax and benefits, the availability
of various childcare benefits, and parental leaves (including paternity and maternity leaves),
but also to the equal treatment of women in the labour market.
On this issue, a large comparative analysis was performed on the variety of leave regulations
in the studied countries as well as in the European Union itself. This paper engages in a
contribution that contributes to combining theory and empirical results towards a typology of
care and work regimes in Europe. In this analysis, Ciccia and Verloo (2011), building on an
earlier internal QUING paper by Lauwers, conclude that in spite of claims over the demise of
the male breadwinner ideal (Crompton, 1999; Lewis et al., 2008) more than one third of
European countries (Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary,
Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom) still present policies based on a
traditional division of gender roles, while none of the analysed countries configures a
universal caregiver model. Leave policies in this group of countries are characterised by long
leaves, a low level of benefits, strong gender gaps in entitlements and the lack of incentives
for fathers to share leave more equally.
The second most common model is represented by the universal breadwinner model (eight
countries) which testifies of the growing emphasis on women's employment. In these
countries, leave entitlements are typically short and essentially aimed at securing women's
equal rights to participate in the labour market. The European Union leave policy belongs to
this model.
The full universal caregiver model does not yet exist empirically. None of the considered
countries has a membership score on this ideal-type. Even the Nordic countries, normally
regarded as the paragons of gender equality grant only a relatively short period of parental
leave (around 1 year). Even though gender equality is an important policy goal in these
countries, it still has to come to terms with another important element of their welfare states,
their strong commitment to full employment (Huo et al. 2008). The imperative that individuals
should not be detached from the labour market for too long, accounts for the brevity of the
period parents are granted to be full-time carers. However we should also consider that in
Nordic countries it is normally possible, by taking leave on a part-time basis, to spread
parental leave over a longer period of time at a lower (but still high) level of benefits. In some
countries (e.g. Finland), an additional period of childrearing leave is also available to parents
until the child’s third birthday. The benefit level however, is considerably lower in these cases
and consists of a flat-rate payment. All in all, these countries offer parents strong incentives
to return to work within a year from childbirth, a period which is normally considered to have
no negative effect on employment perspectives and wages (Albrecht et al., 1999).
The index made on the basis of Ciccia and Verloo’s analysis in figure 2 looks into the
distribution of rights within the family and the extent to which this is either balanced or
unbalanced. To do this, the index of concentration of leave entitlements measures the extent
to which mothers and fathers enjoy equal rights to parental leave time and benefits. This
index is equal to 0 if only the mother is entitled to leave (maximum concentration of rights)
and it is 1 when parents enjoy equal rights (equidistribution). For instance, a value of 0.50
indicates that the mother enjoys 50% more leave time and money than the father. Values
that are greater than 1 indicate that fathers have more individual rights than mothers
(Portugal and Sweden). Theoretically, this index would be equal to 2 if the father would be
the sole parent entitled to parental leave.
74
Figure 2: Index of concentration of FTE leave
Formula: 1 – (Full Time Equivalent [FTE] Mother’s leave – FTE Father’s leave) / (FTE mother’s leave + FTE father’s leave)
Two further papers perform a comparative discursive analysis of debates on care work, both
including Sweden in their comparison. Kvist and Peterson (2009) compare Sweden to Spain,
while Kvist, Carbin and Harjunen (2009) compare Sweden with Finland and Denmark. While
it is unsurprising that there are differences in the framing of the debates on domestic services
between Sweden and Spain, the differences between the three Nordic countries are less
expected. In Spain, there was not much explicit controversy over this issue; the general
argument was that domestic services make balancing family and work-life feasible, since
women are increasingly participating in the formal labour-market. Since the general idea,
promoted by both the Socialists and the Conservatives, was that women's labour-market
participation increases gender equality, it can be argued that the dominant vision was that
domestic service contributes to gender equality, both in terms of helping women reconcile
work and family life and by providing job opportunities in the specific sector of domestic work.
Critical voices from the Left Party questioned this view, emphasising that the precarious
working conditions affect migrant women in particular. In contrast, in Sweden, the issue of
paid domestic work has been a highly controversial subject, but all political actors argued in
favour of gender equality. Right-wing parties argued that domestic service increases
women's equality since it provides opportunities for women to participate in the labour market
on an equal footing with men. The left-wing parties argued that making domestic service
more accessible increases gender inequality due to the predominance of precarious
feminised and racialised work in the domestic service sector.
The comparative Nordic paper analyses debates on the three countries’ very similar tax
reforms that provide private households tax credit on domestic work. All three countries were
in a major recession and unemployment figures were high. The reforms were similar but the
articulation of the social problem the reform was supposed to solve differed between the
countries. In Finland, it was solely argued as a reform that would create work opportunities.
Gender, class or race was never articulated as a part of the social problem that the reform
was aiming to solve. In Denmark, proponents of the reform articulated it as a question of
reconciling work and family without mentioning gender and as a way of protecting work
1,11
1,06 1,05
1,00
0,66
0,60 0,59
0,530,50
0,47
0,39
0,250,24
0,220,20
0,13
0,09 0,09 0,08 0,070,05 0,05 0,04
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,000,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
1,20
SE PT NO IC LU FI DE BE NL IT LT SL ES FR DK LV RO PO HU UK GR BU ML AT CY CZ ET EU IE SK CH
75
opportunities for immigrants and the low educated. The opponents argued from a class
perspective, arguing that high-income earners were not in need of tax credits. In Denmark,
class and ethnicity are thus articulated, but not gender. The authors conclude that it is not
only the reform in itself that creates the debate, it is how the meaning of the reform is
negotiated that is decisive on how the reform will be interpreted and articulated within the
different countries. The representations of the problem are always positioned within its
specific context and in relations to society and hegemonic understandings of which matters
are most important: job creation, integration or gender equality.
In other countries, policies on reconciliation or reproductive rights are also very ambiguous in
terms of their underlying norms and reasoning: they mix goals on economy, demography and
gender equality. A paper by Jarty (2009) shows this for France. From 2000 onwards, an
increasing number of measures aimed at facilitating the working status of women on the
labour market have been adopted there. Jarty, however, shows that the lack of political will to
adopt effective measures (for instance, to combat the gender pay gap) combined with the
absence of transformative policies that challenge the gendered division of labour negatively
affected women’s employment experiences. The weight of the ‘(full-time) employment for
women’ frame identified in this analysis of French equality policies shows that their only aim
is to integrate women in the paid economy, without challenging norms in other spheres. In a
parallel manner, the persistence of the French family policy, continuously preoccupied with
demographic matters, stands in strong contrast with a transformative vision of equality
between women and men.
In a similar vein, Verloo (2010) shows how policies on reconciliation of work and family are
linked to policy goals of addressing the demographic deficit. She shows how policies on
reconciliation or reproductive rights include a differentiation between categories of women
that are deemed worthy of reproducing, and that are privileged in the policies that are put
forward, and categories of women that are already seen as having too many children, and
who are therefore excluded from benefits or policy rhetoric. In the Bulgarian, Estonian or
Romanian case it is clear that women having the correct nationality are seen as worthy to
have children. Similarly, highly educated women in Germany and Romania are benefiting
more from the policies presented than women who are less educated. Moreover, the policies
presented also distinguish categories of women that are not so worthy to have children.
Among those are Roma women in Romania, low educated women in Germany, women with
the wrong nationality in Bulgaria, Estonia and Romania.
Lastly, a paper by Kispéter (2009) traces the history and framings of family policy debates in
post-state socialist Hungary. She found that 1990s policy debates bear the influence of the
maternalist framing expressed in state socialist family policies as well as that of the
conservative, nationalist arguments formulated in opposition to pre-1989 policies. Parallel to
the EU accession process the frame of women’s employment and the norm of gender
equality have gradually started to appear in the policy documents, however, there are
characteristic differences between the Hungarian and the EU’s policy frames. These
differences prove that the Hungarian policy debates continue to be influenced by both the
‘old’ maternalist framings as well as by the ‘new’ EU-initiated framings. Analysing a recently
formed coalition of women’s organisations (rightwing/Catholic organisations, feminist
organisations and self-help groups of mothers) that mobilised against the proposed changes
in family policies, she shows that the maternalist discourse of state socialist family policies
enables women to mobilise as ‘mothers’, and that gender-distinctive frames are more likely
76
to enable women to stage recognition/redistributive struggles as ‘women’ than frames
formulated on the vision of men and women’s similarity.
1.4.3 Intimate citizenship
Intimate Citizenship is understood here as a set of policies that regulate intimate
partnerships, claims about the body, traditional and non-traditional relationships, and
sexuality. These policies take shape around issues such as sexuality, reproductive
capacities, (new) living arrangements, (new) families, care for the partner/s, ways of raising
children, and questions about identities and representation of identities. The consequences
of these policies are that certain groups within a political community, although they have
formal citizenship status, can be subjected to inequality and exclusion due to the unjust
distribution of not only economic but also legal, symbolic, social, and cultural rights. Intimate
Citizenship is important because of its implications for equality within private relationships
and for sexuality through the structuring of gender itself. Intimate Citizenship is thus a central
component of gender (in)equality, one linked to other policy domains such as Non-
employment and Gender-based Violence. Typical for this issue is the relative weakness of
EU competence on matters of sexuality, partnership and reproductive rights, and the
prominence of national competences, except where these issues are relevant to the
economy.
While top-down Europeanisation therefore cannot be expected in the issue of same-sex
partnership regulations, Kuhar (2011) shows that this issue does show evidence of a form of
Europeanisation where transfer of practices takes place between countries, strengthened by
links made in the framing of the issue along existing lines of anti-discrimination legislation.
This horizontal transfer takes place through the use of role model countries (such as the
Netherlands) and the countries’ positioning vis-à-vis these role models (Kuhar 2011).
Moreover, he also shows how the Europeanisation frame has been used in the new member
states’ past debates, and how its impact was higher before the accession than afterwards. In
the context of same-sex partnership policies, the core of the Europeanisation frame involves
the usage of exemplary EU states (especially in parliamentary debates), but also in
references to the EU as a site of progressive politics against which national legislation should
be measured. Same-sex partnership policies of model states such as the Netherlands are
used to represent the organisation of same-sex partnership issues a certain country should
(or should not) follow. According to Kuhar, the horizontal transfer (social learning) of this
policy issue therefore occurs through role-model countries, self-perceptions of how
progressive one’s country is, and through expectations for improvement of a country’s
position during the accession process.
In an analysis of reproductive rights comparing three Nordic countries, Carbin, Harjunen and
Kvist (2009) analyse differences in a particularly intersectional reproductive rights issue:
fertility treatment policies for lesbian mothers. Policy discourses concerning parenthood have
recently shifted in Denmark, Sweden and Finland. New policies that allow fertility treatment
for lesbians mark a discursive change that recognises lesbians as mothers and parents.
However, only some families and some subjects, under specific circumstances, are
recognised. In the process, the authors not only show how these policies are very different in
these three similar countries but also how they construct exclusions for different citizens.
While Sweden’s case is based on coupledom and excludes all single (lesbian) mothers, in
Finland the co-mother is not recognised, and in Denmark the existence of a known biological
77
father excludes co/motherhood. The policy discourses on fertility treatments in Denmark,
Finland and Sweden can be interpreted as attempts to weed out the “non-normative
parents”. The lesbian co-mother is particularly in danger of being constructed as an
“unthinkable parent”. The countries are similar in their absence of attention to
heteronormativity and to fatherhood by homosexual men. The absences and exclusions
generated by the policies negatively impact on the quality of these policies for progress to be
made in gender+ equality. Despite the great emphasis put on the role of the father, policy
discourses do not yet see two fathers as a legitimate set of parents. On the contrary, in
debates concerning fertility treatment the issue of surrogacy has been mostly absent or
categorically forbidden by legislation as it is in Finland and Sweden. It would appear that
legislative solutions concerning parental rights of people that do not conform to the norm of
the heterosexual nuclear family are often somewhat ad-hoc in nature. Since there is no
overall policy approach to rainbow families, gaps and loopholes appear in the legislation,
leaving some children unprotected by the family laws and some parents without official
recognition of their parenthood, thus limiting their access to family policies.
A last comparative paper investigates to what extent the framing of a number of Intimate
Citizenship issues (reproductive rights, abortion, same-sex marriage and divorce) by the
Catholic Church resonates with the framing of these issues in Catholic countries that are
European Union members or candidates, and whether the presence or absence of
resonance is linked to the degree of religiosity of the population, the support for Catholic
religious values, or to the institutional strength of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church
as an institution articulates strong positions on issues considered to be about personal and
family morality, actively opposing liberalisation of abortion or even contraception, assisted
reproduction for non-married couples, and the extension of marriage rights to homosexual
people (López Trujillo and Romer 2006). In this paper, Van der Wal and Verloo (2009) show
a remarkable resonance especially in the most Catholic countries (Malta, Ireland and
Poland), between the positions taken on Intimate Citizenship issues in governmental texts
and the positions taken by the Vatican or national archbishops active in gender equality
debates. This resonance seem to be linked more to cultural factors such as the religiosity of
population than to institutional factors such as the strength of Catholic parties or the official
state-church relationship. However, it is noted that the data on institutional factors are
problematic, for instance due to the absence of data on crucial other institutions (schools,
hospitals, professional organisations) linked to the Roman-Catholic Church.
1.4.4 Gender-based violence
Gender-based Violence is understood in QUING to include any form of violence in the family
or in the household that is based on gender, including violence against children, any form of
Gender-based Violence against women, men, or children perpetuated by private persons in
the community, such as rape, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment, any form of violence
based on gender in employment situations, and Gender-based Violence perpetuated by
different state actors, in prisons, by police, or in conflict situations. Again, as with Intimate
Citizenship, this issue is largely seen as outside of EU competence (except for sexual
harassment in the workplace), and several papers show that this impacts what is found at
national level.
In a comparative analysis, Krizsán and Popa (2010) assess the formulation and adoption of
domestic violence policies in five countries: two first-round accession countries (Hungary and
78
Poland), two second-round accession countries (Bulgaria and Romania), and one candidate
country (Croatia). In spite of the lack of formal European regulations or accession
requirements in this field, the domestic violence laws of three of these countries (Bulgaria,
Hungary and Romania) do show a clear process of Europeanisation. This at times happened
through inclusion in the accession criteria, but more often through social learning
mechanisms and through strategic discursive action by women’s movements actors and their
allies, who capitalised on the idea of a shared and desired Europeanness as an advocacy
tool in their efforts to pass a specific law on domestic violence. The same authors also
analysed the translation of international human rights norms pertaining to domestic violence
to the national levels of five countries of Central and Eastern Europe. In this second analysis,
Krizsán and Popa (2010) argue that the translation process in these countries dominantly
frames domestic violence in individual rights terms, in which gender equality is stretched to
be more inclusive and to meet strategic interests that make it easier to be endorsed by
mainstream policy stakeholders. The potential for gender equality resonance may then be
guaranteed through the implicit gendering of implementation processes and the
empowerment of gender equality actors in both policy making and implementation
processes. The adopted framing is successful in that it led to the adoption of gender equality-
resonant laws and policies in four out of the five countries. Meanwhile the absence of support
and ownership by gender equality actors also brings the risk of co-optation by frames that
contest the major tenets of gender equality.
Some WHY papers address the issue of Gender-based Violence within a broader analysis.
Pilinkaite-Sotorivić (2009) describes the role of the Catholic Church in Lithuania as an
important force strengthening conservative voices against gender+ equality, especially in the
areas where the EU’s remit is limited or absent (mostly areas seen as belonging to the
private sphere, such as family policy, reproductive rights and to some extent also Gender-
based Violence). In Lithuania, policy makers have largely ignored the voices of women
NGOs that argued in favour of gender equality in the private sphere, and against the rhetoric
of the traditional family model. In such cases the active opposition of the Catholic Church can
be very influential. Dabrowska (2009) describes a similar pattern for Poland, depicting a
tension between European culture (framed as linked to gender equality goals and seen as
secular) and national culture (identified as linked to traditional gender order, that is seen as
Christian). She shows that this tension predominantly occurs when issues are connected to
the private sphere (as is the case for Gender-based Violence, same-sex partnerships and
reproductive rights), ultimately asking whether we should distinguish between ´public´ and
´private´ Europeanisation. In the case of the mainstream discourse on sexual violence the
Europeanisation approach carries a specific weight, since for some countries the EU appears
as a normative group similar to the international community or “modern countries” in general.
Maloutas (2009) shows that, in Greek political culture the problems of sexual violence are
mostly viewed as human rights issues, and that they are perceived as related to the
harmonisation and thus modernisation of the Greek legal system and/or Greek social norms
and values. Hence, modernisation is obviously seen as a positive process and
Europeanisation as an inevitable way forward in the present situation. It is interesting to note
that when dealing with trafficking, the Greek political culture, as attested by the analysis in
QUING, seems to see active actors as almost exclusively institutional actors, as state actors
to be precise. Therefore, the problem of trafficking is seen as generating from the inefficiency
of the Greek state or the Greek government to apply laws, or harmonise its legislation to that
79
of the EU, or of the international community or the EU itself, which has an ineffective policy
regarding criminal activities. The need for the harmonisation of Greek law with European and
international directives is indeed very commonly stressed and is most evident in texts on
trafficking.
Two papers analyse Gender-based Violence with a specific focus on intersectionality.
Urbanek (2009) finds that, for Germany, there might be an increasing awareness of
intersectional dimensions especially with regards to Gender-based Violence, e.g. in the
debates on forced marriage. The debates on forced marriage define mostly young women
(and some men) with migrant background (ethnicity/migration) as the intersectional target
group. Some texts also bring religious dimensions (Muslim communities) and class (social
problems) into play. She concludes that this could almost allude to intersectionality
mainstreaming, where it not for the rather weak list of policy actions. Strid, Armstrong and
Walby (under review) analyse the visibility of multiple inequalities and intersectionality in
Gender-based Violence policy debates in Britain and argue that the previous research finding
of the silencing of groups positioned at the point of intersection of two or more inequalities
and invisibility of multiple inequalities in policy needs to be re-thought. This paper shows that
groups at the intersection of gender, ethnicity and religion do now have voice in UK the policy
process, with the consequence that multiple inequalities are made visible. Previous research
showing silencing and invisibility has been based on a too narrow understanding of the
concept of intersectionality and has not sufficiently taken into account the implications of the
politico-discursive process of degendering.
1.5 Contributions to theoretical discussions
QUING’s theoretical objectives centre on the conceptualisation of the relationships between
different inequalities; the interface between civil society voices and texts and policymaking as
well as participatory forms of gender and diversity mainstreaming (objectives 1-4). The
overall setting for these objectives is the need to assess the quality of gender+ equality
policies, in the specific context of the European Union and its current and future member
states. This chapter takes up those objectives through their links with theoretical discussions
and describes QUING’s contribution to these theoretical discussions. Additionally, as the
work in QUING has led to a series of papers on Europeanisation that directly contributed to
current theoretical debates on patterns of similarities and differences between European
Union member states, or between the European Union and its member states, a section is
devoted to these contributions. A last specific theoretical contribution, developed in the
context of the OPERA activity is on gender knowledge transfer.
1.5.1 Intersectionalityi
As the most developed policies against inequality, gender equality policies are a good
starting point for thinking about the relationships of gender to other inequalities, and about
the ways in which policies could address inequalities more comprehensively. What is first
and foremost needed is a conceptual framework that enables a substantial complex analysis
of how policies actually address gender as linked and interwoven with other inequalities. In
order to be able to do this, more theoretical knowledge is needed. Such a conceptual
80
framework can then be the basis for evaluating how gender+ is dealt with in policies on
gender or inequality.
As to how the relationship of gender to other inequalities is conceptualised, five main
theoretical dilemmas in particular have been identified in particular over the course of the
QUING project (Walby, Armstrong and Strid 2009a). Building on work by a large set of
authors, among whom Crenshaw (1991, 1997), McCall (2005) and Hancock (2007) receive
most attention, they conclude that both the ontology of, and the relationship between,
different ‘strands’, categories or axes of inequality need to be taken into account. They argue
that focusing on relationships prevents the powerful from fading from view, while taking on
board the full ontological depth can show variety in presence or absence of different strands,
categories or axes of inequality in various political projects or policies. The tendency to
obscure class should be countered, and the question of which inequality is the most
important should be an empirical not a normative matter.
While Walby, Armstrong and Strid agree with Hancock (2007) that the question of the
relationship between different inequalities has a significant empirical component, they seek
to go beyond Hancock’s conceptualisation of the relationship between inequalities using a
typology of unitary, multiple or intersectional. According to Hancock, the unitary approach
examines only one category, presumed to be primary and stable. The multiple approach
addresses more than one category and each categories matters equally; the categories are
presumed to be stable and to have stable relationships with each other. The intersectional
approach also addresses more than one category, only here the categories matter equally,
the relationship between the categories is open, and the categories are dynamic not stable.
Hancock presumes that a category is either dominant (unitary) or equal to other categories
(multiple, intersectional); this omits any notion of asymmetry. While Walby, Armstrong and
Strid (2009a) agree that different categories related to inequalities should be only temporarily
stabilised for analysis, while still keeping in mind their fluid and dynamic character, the
authors disagree with Hancock on the symmetry of relations and on the degree of
determination of the interwoven inequalities.
Rather than making an a priori assumption that all strands are equally important, Walby,
Armstrong and Strid (2009a) treat these issues as one for investigation. In particular they
consider the possibility of asymmetrical relations between strands. This additional
consideration is important for empirical analysis, as it can show the relative importance of
one or another category in the practice of policymaking. Moreover, they argue that the notion
that the relation between inequality strands is always mutually constitutive is too limiting. The
relationship between different inequalities is better understood as one of mutually shaping of
the inequalities involved, so as to recognise both their effects on each other as well as their
analytic distinctiveness.
As the conceptual framework on intersectionality has been developed during and as a result
of the overall QUING analysis, the above conceptualisation at this moment can best be seen
in its empirical translation in the paper by Walby, Armstrong and Strid (2009b) on
intersectionality and the equality architecture in Britain. This work is hoped to be published
alongside that of Lombardo and Rolandsen (2009); Krizsán (2009); Verloo, Lauwers,
Martens and Meier (under review); Lombardo and Bustelo (2009), and Alonso (2009)), in a
special issue of a major journal (currently under review).
In addition to these contributions to theory, highlighted in the final STRIQ report, a further 17
papers also focused on intersectionality, integrating theory and the empirical data analysis.
81
Here another specific contribution of the QUING project becomes visible: an institutional
approach to intersectionality that expands the knowledge on political intersectionality. A
number of these papers ask specific questions about the nature and consequences of shifts
in the institutional arrangement of the equality architecture in Europe. They do not directly
engage with the content of policies, but take an institutional approach instead. Two papers
study the level of the European Union, and the content and equality of its gender+ equality
policies. Both papers focus on the way intersectionality is positioned within these policies.
Lombardo and Verloo focus on institutionalisation processes and outcomes, while Lombardo
and Rolandsen Agustin analyse how gender intersections are framed. Concerning policy
developments on institutionalising intersectionality, Lombardo and Verloo (2009) address the
question of the balance of opportunities and constraints in these developments. They
conclude that so far, the European Union is moving from a unitary to a multiple approach, but
does so mainly by juxtaposing inequalities rather than by treating them as somehow related
to each other. Moreover, the overall level of protection of various inequalities is not equal,
hindering the quality of gender+ equality policies. They stress the current absence of
institutional encouragement for co-operation across bureaucratic units, agencies or
movement organisations that are linked to specific inequalities as a hindrance to the quality
of gender+ equality policies.
Lombardo and Rolandsen Agustin (2009) ask more specifically how the quality of gender
equality polices at EU level is affected by its framing of intersectionality: have these policies
become more inclusive of other inequalities that intersect with gender? The authors answer
that EU policy documents show a tendency to use intersectional dimensions in implicitly,
mainly using a separate or inarticulate approach to the relation between categories linked to
inequalities. This results in a weak framing of intersectionality: no bias or stigmatisation, but
no attention to structural levels or privilege either. This inarticulateness could be a starting
point for further elaboration, but it could also neutralise and diffuse policy content to the
extent even that the gender dimension is blurred. More recent texts are giving more visibility
to the problem of intersecting inequalities, although their strongest attention is for the
intersection of age and gender, mostly linked to an economic development agenda that could
hinder a broader understanding of gender equality.
For the UK, Walby, Armstrong and Strid (2009b) show that the changes in the official equality
architecture – the merger of the Equality Commissions into the Equality and Human Rights
Commission – show stability as well as change in how inequalities are conceptualised, and
that the implications of these changes challenge theory in two ways. Firstly, because
previous Commissions did not completely ignore multiple inequalities in the past and
especially class was powerfully represented at many points. Secondly, because the empirical
analysis shows a wider range of models in how multiple inequalities are addressed.
Armstrong, Walby and Strid (2009) directly address the question whether recognition of
differences between women such as class and ethnicity improves policy quality in the field of
Non-employment, defining quality as the extent to which a policy promotes positive
transformation of gender relations in paid work and care. For the UK, the authors show that
the overall gender equality policy suffers from some inconsistencies (such as a mix of a
transformation agenda with an acceptance of women´s difference), and that there is uneven
attention for differences within the category of women resulting in double or triple standards
seeing paid work as good for certain categories of women while ´choosing not to work´ is
accepted for other women. This differentiation runs the risk of stigmatising the groups that
82
are made visible as needing to engage in paid work. Moreover, closer examination in terms
of the quality of the policies reveals that the policy is stronger on accepting the primary role
of women as carers than on the transformation of gender relations, which also negatively
impacts policy quality. Such gender bias, but mostly biases along other inequality axes, has
also been detected by other papers. Dedić (2009) shows how attention to a specific ethnic
minority – Roma – in gender equality policies has led to a feminisation of the Roma
community in the European context. The exclusive focus on Roma women in dealing with the
exclusion and stigmatisation of these communities hinders structural and transformative
policies. Verloo (2010) analyses how the goals of demographic balance and gender equality
are often interwoven and reflects on the implications of this for gender+ equality. She
concludes that some of the gender+ equality policies on reconciliation or on reproductive
rights differentiate between women that are deemed worthy of reproducing (these women
are privileged in the policies) and women that are seen as already having too many children
who are therefore excluded from policy rhetoric, or, worse, from benefits. Among the last
category are Roma women (Romania), low educated women (Germany), and women with
the ‘wrong’ nationality (Bulgaria, Estonia and Romania). This analysis shows an
intersectional bias that is detrimental to the quality of gender+ equality policies. For Italy, del
Giorgio and Lombardo (2009) characterise the institutionalisation of intersectionality as
basically having failed and at best being accidentally successful, but they also point out that
Italy suffers discriminatory biases in the form of institutional racism and homophobia that
negatively affect the quality of gender equality policies.
Currently, several papers are being re-written as part of a book contract in Palgrave’s
Gender and Politics Series: Institutionalizing intersectionality. Comparative European
analyses, edited by QUING-member Andrea Krizsán, joined by Hege Skjeie & Judith
Squires. In this book, Alonso, Bustelo, Forest and Lombardo (forthcoming) explore the
institutionalisation of policies tackling inequalities in Italy, Portugal and Spain through the
analysis of established legislation and equality bodies on gender, race and sexuality. They
find that although the three countries are shifting towards a multiple inequalities approach,
there is no clear evidence of institutionalised intersectionality in this region. Krizsán and
Zentai (forthcoming), in their chapter, analyse the Central and Eastern European countries
(CEEC) from the mid 1990s via European Union (EU) accession through the early 2000s
onwards, considering the impact of the EU accession process, coupled with the emerging EU
equality agenda, on the institutional changes of the last decade in CEE equality bodies.
Notwithstanding this common regional transition, the authors find variation in patterns of
institutionalising equality and their different engagement with intersectionality, explaining
them using the countries’ different institutional and social movement legacies from the late
communist and post-communist period as well as the existing variation in processes of policy
development, and the role played in this by NGOs, international actors and state institutions.
The journal special issue that is under review (Walby and Verloo under review) aims to
contribute to reflections on the engagement of the equality architecture with intersectionality.
Its papers investigate whether all of Europe is moving to single equality bodies or not. When
only looking at certain parts of the equality architecture, mostly the statutory complaint
bodies, such a shift can indeed be observed. Sometimes, there were earlier shared
institutions (the employment tribunals in Britain), sometimes there still are separate units
(Instituto de la Mujer in Spain). Reducing the complexity of the reality of equality institutions
leads to overlooking too many actual developments, complexities and opportunities, and
83
creates problems in conceptualising the interface between actors at the governmental level
and at civil society levels in co-operating and struggling in the joint ‘project for equality’.
Walby (2011) has drawn on the QUING debates on intersectionality to inform her book on
the Future of Feminism, discussing the implications of coalitions and alliances and of the
visibility or otherwise of feminist politics. This book is also draws on QUING debates on the
nature of the state-civil society interface, which is discussed in the next section.
1.5.2 State-civil society interfaces
In the context of the QUING project, civil society is a broad concept, including NGOs, social-
movement type organisations, trade unions, and some other non-state organisations. Civil
society is understood here as those parts of society that are distinct from formal political
institutions and organisations as well as from the formal market sector. This is in line with
work that sees civil society as the "third sector” next to politics and the economy (but
recognizing that the boundaries between civil society and formal politics, and between civil
society and the market can be blurred or unclear as is the case with government funded or
profit making citizen advocacy groups). Examples can be found among all formal or informal
organisations that engage in socio-political activities centered on specific or more general
interests, such as professional associations, religious groups, labour unions and citizen
advocacy organisations, but also sports and leisure time associations. In the context of the
QUING project, especially those organisations that attract or target specific politically
relevant groups, or that articulate specific interests of specific groups of citizens are relevant.
In the field of equality policies, civil society organisations that share a goal of ‘equality’ have a
distinct position of course from civil society organisations that actively engage in promoting
various forms of inequality.
Whether the civil society–state interface permits and deploys civil society engagement with
policy development and implementation is seen as crucial, and some characteristics of this
interface are shaped in part by both the EU and UN as influential actors.
There are four major conceptual conclusions that can be drawn from the papers that focus
on the interface between civil society and the state. The first concerns alliances between
women and between women’s organisations, as well as the determinants of the strengths of
such organisations. Here the findings are that alliances and strength are constructed by, and
impact on, political structures and opportunities. The second concerns the empowerment of
civil society in general and feminist civil society in particular and here the findings show how
this empowerment is conditioned by the actions and policy frames at the national and
supranational levels. The third one is the specific role of civil society organisations that act
politically against gender equality policies or strategies, and the importance of including them
in an analysis of the content and quality of gender+ equality policies. The last conclusion is
that in the field of employment the class logic is so strong that there is a need to broaden the
perspective to policymaking and include class-based institutions and other institutions for
consultation with civil society. Distribution of resources is a key mechanism in all of the
processes.
There are additional lessons to be found in the papers that analyse the institutional shifts
linked to giving more attention to multiple inequalities, such that all consultation mechanisms
are a crucial element of the equality architecture. Additionally, the ‘separate but connected’
model that exists in Portugal is found to be the most innovative practice in Europe at this
point in time (Alonso under review).
84
Six papers address the issue of alliances, both as constructed by political structures and
opportunities, and as impacting on movement strategies and chances for success. For the
case of Turkey, Acar and Altunok (2009) very clearly show how there has been a growing co-
operation of women’s groups across identity barriers such as ethnicity and religion, and how
this has been facilitated by the development of a shared language rooted in references to
universal rights and international standards. Internationally oriented platforms have led the
way, they say, towards successful examples of coalition platforms. While the ‘identity politics
trap’ still presents a serious danger for alliances and the ongoing competition for resources
works against co-operation, the authors’ analysis shows how a stronger and more
experienced movement, combined with the role of active and persistent individuals, brings
hope for a (coalition) politics of equality. Frank (2009), in her comparison of Turkey and
Croatia, confirms this analysis, showing how there is greater reference to international
obligations and Europeanisation by both state and civil society in Turkey than in Croatia. Her
analysis further finds that in both countries civil society texts express more gendered and
transformational aspects of gender equality than governmental texts. Kispéter’s (2009)
analysis is very important in that she shows how civil society coalition politics in Hungary
impacts on the framing and therefore also the quality of gender equality demands. While the
umbrella alliance between two more feminist and one more conservative women’s
association in Hungary increased the voice that women’s organisations had in the debates,
the alliance also led to framing that strategically used old ‘maternalist’, ‘difference’ frames
originating in state socialism. Lombardo and Verloo (2009) explore the potential reasons for
differences in the willingness of civil society organisations to engage in alliances and they
suggest that institutional arrangements at times trigger territorial reflexes that hinder co-
operation, as is the case when there is mainly bilateral consultation with different
organisations. Del Giorgio and Lombardo (2009) analyse interactions between political actors
that were crucial in the failed institutionalisation of intersectionality in Italy. They show the
importance of the interplay between governments and civil society, specifically the ability of
civil society organisations to make use of the windows of opportunity that at times arise in the
volatile Italian political context. The authors see the potential for alliances between state and
movements as (negatively) constructed not only by weak equality agencies and a lack of
institutionalised consultation channels, but also by specific characteristics of women’s
movements such as a sceptical attitude towards the state and a vision of gender equality as
‘difference’. Alonso’s (2009) analysis of the newly-emerging third model of institutionalising
intersectionality in Portugal presents a new, potentially promising interface between civil
society and policymaking based on co-operation between separate organisations
representing different inequalities.
These six papers lead us to the conclusion that separate organising of civil society is not a
problem in itself for alliances across different strands, and that co-operation can result from
the balance between negative factors (such as lack of resources or consultational
arrangements) and positive incentives (such as a shared language based on international
discourse).
Four papers more specifically address the issue of the strength or empowerment of civil
society in general and feminist civil society in particular. Focusing on the interface between
civil society and policymaking, Ocenasova (2009) shows that the effect of women’s
organisations in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia is limited not only because of the
formality of consultation procedures, but also because funding is limited in practice to links
85
through the European Structural Funds. This hinders the use of the expertise of women’s
organisations in policymaking. In her analysis of the implications of the interwoven goals of
demographic balance and gender equality, Verloo (2010) shows that feminist voices on the
issue of demographic balance are rather weak, and that this partly explains why there is not
really a strong debate about this issue.
Jaigma (2009) shows how Estonia’s civil society was strongly empowered by pressure for
greater democracy during the process of joining the European Union. As a result, interfaces
for state-civil society consultation such as web portals and officials were developed whose
task it is to include NGOs in decision making. There are however, still core issues that
impede the co-operation between state and civil society in Estonia. The state still lacks
willingness to consult civil society, and in the cases where they do consult they often suffer a
lack of resources (money, time, human capital. There is a lack of knowledge, and a general
mistrust between the state and civil society.
All this means that the slow and weak development of state-civil society interfaces hinders
women’s organisations that have been pushing for the improvement of gender equality
policies. Tertinegg’s analysis (2009) focuses on the ways that civil society actors invoke
reference to international actors in their texts in order to improve their claims and chances for
success. For Austria and Germany, she shows that civil society actors do display consistent
patterns regarding reference to international actors. There is issue specificity, but not all
references to EU do run parallel to the EU’s fields of competence. More importantly, civil
society voices in both countries rarely use international actors to articulate demands for
inclusion and representation in policy making. In this sense, an opportunity for empowerment
of civil society seems to be missed. Acar and Altunok‘s (2009) paper on Turkey shows that in
some countries references to international actors and frames are used in an empowering
way.
In these papers, the strength of civil society organisations is shown to be partly conditioned
by their access to resources and the available consultational interfaces as well as their
possibilities for alliances. Women’s movements are partly also stronger in presence and in
articulation of some policy fields than in others, impacting the potential strength of their
influence and power. These papers lead to the conclusion that empowerment can be
strengthened using international policy frames, but they also provide evidence that this does
not always happen.
Two papers take up the challenge to more specifically focus on the Church as an active actor
in policymaking that can help explain the specific character that gender+ equality policies
have in certain countries. The Church is an interesting actor in relation to gender equality
policies because many churches have a very patriarchal history and ideology. In fact, they
can often be defined as actors that act politically against gender equality policies or
strategies. In these two papers, by Kakepaki (2009) and by Van der Wal and Verloo (2009),
the Church is seen as both a part of a polity (in line with Walby 2009) to the extent that a
particular Church is intertwined with state power or has quasi state powers. The Church is
also part of civil society to the extent that it is an actor that organises religious meetings and
activities, actively disseminating values. Van der Wal and Verloo set out to ask whether the
extent to which we find frames resonating with Vatican frames (‘Catholic’ frames) in 16
European countries where the Roman Catholicism is the strongest religion is connected to
the country’s level of religiosity, its support for Catholic religious values or the institutional
strength of the Catholic Church in the country. The authors’s findings are in line with some
86
literature that views cultural factors as better explaining the presence of ‘Catholic’ frames in
gender+ equality policy than institutional ones. Within the institutional factors considered, the
official state-church relationship can better explain the presence of Catholic views in policy,
even if this relationship is very weak, than factors such as the presence of Catholic parties in
government. All in all, this shows that more research is needed to fully understand the
relationship between Catholicism and the quality of gender equality policies, as all the frames
that are labelled ‘Catholic’ in this paper run against gender equality.
Within a broader analysis, Pilinkaite-Sotorivić (2009) describes the role of the Catholic
Church in Lithuania as an important force strengthening conservative voices against gender+
equality, especially in the areas where the EU’s remit is limited or absent (mostly areas seen
as belonging to the private sphere, such as family policy, reproductive rights and to some
extent also Gender-based Violence). In Lithuania, policy makers have largely ignored the
voices of women NGOs that argued in favour of gender equality in the private sphere, and
against the rhetoric of the traditional family model.
These papers show the negative influence of the Catholic Church on gender equality
policies, especially in the field of Intimate Citizenship.
A final conclusion on conceptual issues can be found in the analysis of the new equality
architecture in the UK, where Walby, Armstrong and Strid (2009b) demonstrate how
important it is to take a broader perspective to policymaking that includes class based
institutions and also other institutions for consultation with civil society. Because the
overarching system for dealing with equalities in the context of employment is contained
within a system that has a strong class logic, this inequality is well represented and the
absence of a specific representation of relevant gender, ethnic or disability interests within
that system hinders positive outcomes for gender+ equality. It also becomes clear from their
analysis that civil society is not always divided by ‘strand’, but in practice also includes
organisations that embrace several, all or specific intersectional inequalities.
1.5.3 Quality in gender+ equality policies
At many times during the QUING project, we discussed dilemmas around defining the quality
of gender+ equality policies. There are four specific outcomes from these discussions. First
of all there are many WHY papers that address this question. Secondly, there is a specific
set of papers that revolves around issues of quality in connection to institutions, notable the
equality architecture. Thirdly, the STRIQ activity has attempted to identify good practices in
intersectionality for all countries studied and for the EU itself, and lastly, there is one paper
specifically addressing the issue of the quality of gender+ equality policies.
The WHY papers that engage in assessing the content and quality of gender equality policies
in the EU’s multicultural context address a variety of dimensions. In line with QUING’s
ambition to focus on the way in which gender equality policies pay attention to, and deal with,
other inequalities than gender, a number of papers assess the gender equality policies along
the lines of the presence, absence or specific nature of dealing with other inequalities, and
how these impacts the potential for transformation of gender+ equality policies. They assess
the quality through a lens that acknowledges the need to incorporate attention for other
inequalities that intersect with gender while avoiding intersectional bias such as
stigmatisation or exclusion of intersectional categories. Dedić (2009) shows how attention for
a specific ethnic minority – Roma – in gender equality policies has led to a feminisation of the
Roma community in the European context. The exclusive focus on Roma women in dealing
87
with the exclusion and stigmatisation of these communities hinders structural and
transformative policies. Verloo (2010) analyses how the goals of demographic balance and
gender equality are often interwoven and reflects on the implications of this for gender+
equality. She concludes that some of the gender+ equality policies on reconciliation or on
reproductive rights differentiate between women that are deemed worthy of reproducing and
that are privileged in the policies, and women that are seen as already having rather too
many children, and who are therefore excluded from policy rhetoric, or worse, from benefits.
Among the last category are Roma women (Romania), low educated women (Germany), and
women with the wrong nationality (Bulgaria, Estonia and Romania). This analysis shows an
intersectional bias that is detrimental to the quality of gender+ equality policies. On another
note, Pilinkaite-Sotorivić (2009) shows that the quality of Lithuanian gender+ equality policies
on Intimate Citizenship is hindered by the strong defence of a national culture that is seen by
dominant conservative forces as essentially heterosexual and thus threatened by more
inclusive EU norms. Armstrong, Walby and Strid (2009b) directly address the question
whether recognition of differences between women such as class and ethnicity improves
policy quality in the field of Non-employment, defining quality as the extent to which a policy
promotes transformation of gender relations in paid work and care. For the UK, they show
that the overall gender equality policy suffers from some inconsistencies (such as mixing a
transformation agenda with an acceptance of women’s difference), and that there is uneven
attention for differences within the category of women resulting in double or triple standards
seeing paid work as good for certain categories of women while ´choosing not to work´ is
accepted for other women. This differentiation runs the risk of stigmatising the groups that
are made visible as needing to engage in paid work. Moreover, on closer examination in
terms of policy quality, the policy is stronger on accepting the primary role of women as
carers than on transforming gender relations, which also impacts the quality negatively.
Three WHY papers recognise that the active engagement of civil society organisations that
work towards gender equality in policy making largely positively impacts the degree of
transformativity and inclusion of these policies. For the UK, Walby, Armstrong and Strid
(2009b) argue that the pressure of a diverse range of active civil society organisations at
least partly explains why the focus of the newly merged EHRC has not been narrowed too
much on only discrimination in employment. For Germany, Urbanek (2009) finds that texts
originating in civil society play an important role in addressing the situation of women at
intersections. Similarly, Krizsán, Popa and Zentai (2009) attribute the few examples of
intersectional institutionalisation in ten CEECs to NGO voices and to activities supported by
international influence. Krizsán and Popa show the crucial impact of strategic discursive
action by women´s movement actors in bringing about policies on domestic violence in five
CEEC’s. Also at the level of the European Union, civil society texts are stronger than policy
texts when it comes to intersectionality, in the sense that they are more explicit and
elaborate, as Lombardo and Rolandsen Agustin (2009) show.
The intersectionality papers also contribute further reflections on the quality of the equality
architecture’s engagement with intersectionality. Here, not only Walby, Armstrong and Strid
(2009b), but also Lombardo and Bustelo (2010), stress that when it comes to the overall
quality not only do the format and the specific configuration of equality institutions (as well as
their institutionalised relationship, also stressed by Krizsán, Popa and Zentai (2009) matter,
but also the vision of equality that they incorporate. This is in line with earlier work on
intersectionality in Europe that saw the institutional changes in dealing with multiple
88
inequalities accompanying a reduction in the ‘vision’ of equality (Verloo 2006; Kantola and
Nousiainen 2009). Walby, Armstrong and Strid (2009b) show that a more complex analysis
of the equality architecture makes it possible to see both the positive and negative elements
that need to be jointly assessed in order to understand the overall impact of equality
institutions. Their quality criteria are comprehensive, including the model of the relations
between multiple inequalities; the range of people and inequalities encompassed; the range
of included policies; the scope and ambition of the vision of equality; and the scale and depth
of the available resources. Lombardo and Verloo (2009) stress the current absence of
institutional encouragement for co-operation across bureaucratic units, agencies or
movement organisations that are linked to specific inequalities as a hindrance to the quality
of gender+ equality policies. For Italy, del Giorgio and Lombardo (2009) characterise the
institutionalisation of intersectionality as basically having failed and at best being accidental,
and also point out that there are discriminatory biases in the form of institutional racism and
homophobia, which negatively affects the quality of Italian gender equality policies. Alonso
(2009) as well as Lombardo and Bustelo (2009) show that the European laboratory of
equality institutions has come up with new ‘solutions’. Here it is striking that the institutional
format of the equality architecture in Portugal resonates nicely with one of Crenshaw’s
recommendations on how to understand identity politics by taking into account political
intersectionality: “the organized identity groups in which we find ourselves are in fact
coalitions or at least coalitions waiting to be formed” (Crenshaw 1997: 540).
The STRIQ activity exercise on looking for good practices in intersectionality basically states
that good practices on intersectionality in gender equality policies can only be ‘good’ if they
are embedded in good gender equality policy, that is: if they are transformative, recognising
the structural character of gender inequality across many domains in their proposed actions
and measures, and if they are shaped and rooted in constructive struggle and dialogue with
civil society organisations working towards the abolishment of gender inequality. Inclusive
processes and attention to the structural character of gender inequality are needed to do
justice to the distinctive ontology of gender inequality and to counterbalance processes of
depoliticising and bending that occur in the practical development and implementation of
gender equality policies. These criteria are fundamental to keep gender equality policies
focused and effective, radical and inclusive. Subsequently, these good practices contain
several interlinked elements: Attention to the structural dimension of all relevant inequalities
is needed to assure that the specific ontology of each inequality can be accounted for.
Moreover, a focus on privilege and power, not only on barriers and disadvantages is a more
concrete indicator of the structural dimension of any inequality. It is crucial that policies
intervene in the social and political construction of privilege, not only the social and political
construction of disadvantage. Covering not only several inequalities, is a criterion that builds
upon the previous ones to make the questions which inequalities matter and how they are
interrelated essential for the investigation and analysis of each policy context. Class is an
especially important axis of inequality. Having awareness of intersecting inequalities, of the
nature of the relations between inequalities, is closely connected to this. Explicitness is
important, because naming other inequalities and naming the nature of their relation makes
policies more transparent so that criticism is possible. This also includes being explicit about
gender. The involvement of civil society, especially movements for equality can
counterbalance tendencies of depoliticising and bending. Inclusivity and visibility are the
result of the two previous criteria, potentially creating access for citizens to be involved and
89
to understand policies which policies to pursue and support. And finally, impact practice, not
only rhetoric means that good practices are characterised by the ability of policies to deliver,
becoming visible in the presence of a budget or in policy actions that clearly outline
responsibilities and means of action.
A significant outcome of all QUING discussions is a paper by Andrea Krizsán and Emanuela
Lombardo, entitled “‘Successful’ gender+ equality policies in Europe? A discursive approach
to the quality of policies”, which was presented at the “Equal is not enough” conference in
Antwerp in December 2010. In this paper, Krizsán and Lombardo (2010) propose a two-
dimensional model for understanding quality in this context. The first dimension is
procedural, capturing quality by understanding policy processes through empowerment
criteria at different stages of the policy process and through their transformativity in relation
to the policies’ previous states. This dimension takes on board many of the issues brought to
the fore in the WHY papers and in the STRIQ ‘good practice exercise’. The second
dimension is more substantive, content driven, and can be captured along the factors of
genderedness, intersectionality, and the policies’ structural or individual focus. Rather than
attempting to pin down ‘one size fit all’ criteria, Krizsán and Lombardo use policy debates
revolving around these dimensions to illustrate that these criteria depend on the different
discursive, institutional, and structural factors defining the specific policy context.
1.5.4 Europeanisationii
A very substantial explanation for the variety and similarities of gender+ equality policies in
European countries has to do with the (character of a) country’s membership to the
European Union. These explanations can be found in questions of inclusion (whether or not
they are a member state) and timing (when they acceded to the European Union). As a
consequence of the increased diversity of the EU after the Eastern enlargement, analyses of
the relations between EU member states have blossomed, providing more sophisticated and
realistic frameworks for understanding the interactions between the EU and its member
states. The main contribution of the QUING project here is to a different and more
comprehensive understanding of Europeanisation. When viewed from the perspective of the
European Union, Europeanisation often means the degree to which member states comply
with the EU’s formal and hard Directives. From such a perspective, convergence is the
normative goal, and often also the rule, whereas divergence is the exception. Yet, in the
enlarged EU, the overall patterns found are patterns of diversity, except in more narrowly
defined areas of longstanding European Union efforts. The tension between the necessity for
convergence with EU norms and the realities of politics in EU member states have made
Europeanisation a very dynamic field of research, analysing a broad range of dynamics from
(non-)compliance with European Directives, to political contention of European norms and
explaining the ongoing divergence between member states.
As gender equality has been on the political and policy agenda of the EU and its
predecessors since the 1970s, gender equality policies are a good field to study
Europeanisation across a wide range of topics, even more so because the literature on
gender and Europeanisation is so scarce. Moreover, gender equality policies comprise both
hard and soft measures, and the QUING project enables a focus on the variety and patterns
across all the EU’s countries, not just its new member states.
QUING contributes to theoretical debates in this area of study through a focus on discursive
institutionalism, giving an account of the web of interactions between various policy actors,
90
and challenging the idea of Europeanisation as a convergence with the EU norm. Several
QUING WHY papers are currently being re-written as part of a book contract with Palgrave in
its Gender and Politics Series: The Europeanization of gender equality policies. A discursive-
sociological approach, edited by QUING members Emanuela Lombardo and Maxime Forest,
which additionally contains extra chapters by invited non-QUING researchers. Emphasising
questions such as ‘what meaning is given to EU norms?’ and ‘how do domestic political
actors that resist or support EU ideas actually use EU policies?’, a major conclusion of this
collection is that all contributions show diverging rather than converging ‘impacts of Europe’.
This diversification is also shown to stem from the impact of the European Union, resulting
from an adaptation process for instance as part of centre-periphery institutional and political
dynamics (as shown by Alonso and Forest forthcoming). The differentiation patterns found
here are not only linked to hard measures, as they emerge also in fields where the EU has
little competence, such as domestic violence or same-sex partnerships, and as also soft
measures are seen to produce effects (Krizsán and Popa 2010).
The specific contributions to the literature are thus: a broadened and more sophisticated
understanding of Europeanisation, more relevance granted to bottom-up approaches and the
consideration of not only hard but also soft measures. In their understanding of
Europeanisation, Krizsán and Popa draw on Börzel and Risse’s definition of Europeanisation
as a ‘complex, interactive process of debate, translation, interpretation, and use of EU norms
by policy actors at the level of the European Commission […], by transnational actors, and by
state and non-state actors at the national level’ (Börzel and Risse, 2003, p. 74). Lombardo
and Bustelo (2009) argue that the combination and interconnection of institutional, legislative,
and discursive factors leads to a more complex concept of Europeanisation that is
contextually sensitive and gives comprehensive attention to how Europe impacts the different
political treatments of multiple inequalities in each country. Second, the relevance given to
bottom-up approaches is linked to the need to not only analyse Europeanisation from the
perspective of the European Union, but also from the perspective of the national or sub-
national level, this to better grasp processes of domestic policy change. Here both the role of
the EU vis-à-vis national institutions and the role of the EU vis-à-vis civil society are taken
into account, thus enabling the integration of attention to the strategic use of the EU by
domestic actors. Third, the attention for soft measures alongside hard measures challenges
the notion that hard measures are more or less automatically effective whereas soft
measures are mainly rhetorical and ineffective, turning this into a question best answered
empirically. Kuhar (2009) elaborates on the phenomenon of cross-loading, showing the
significance of role models.
Some empirical highlights: Lombardo and Bustelo (2009) apply a discursive institutionalist
perspective to the analysis of gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation inequalities on the
political treatment of inequality in three Southern European Countries (Spain, Portugal and
Italy), combining analyses of these countries’ equality legislation, machinery, and policy
frames. While they show evidence of a ‘domesticated Europeanisation’ that leads to
divergent results in Italy, Portugal, and Spain, they also demonstrate that this takes place
within a common horizon of antidiscrimination, which lets the EU retain a key role in creating
discourse and setting norms on equality. The work done by QUING researchers on
Europeanisation shows differences across different gender issues on national political
agendas that were already apparent in the previous MAGEEQ project, but that can now be
better understood. For instance, they have shown that though Spain has greatly progressed
91
over the last decade in its policies against domestic violence (Krizsán et al., 2007), it has not
similarly advanced in policies that aim to promote more equal gender roles between women
and men in the care for children, the elderly, and dependent relatives (Meier et al., 2007).
Krizsán and Popa (2010) examined Europeanisation mechanisms in a policy field that is not
part of formal membership criteria of the EU enlargement, but that is nevertheless seen to fall
within the scope of norms defining the collective identity of the European Union. Actions to
address domestic violence are particularly seen as part of a wider EU commitment to
securing that women’s rights are observed and that women can thrive as equals in all
member states (Kantola, 2006). The authors found that Europeanisation stretches to
domains, in this case domestic violence, that are not part of the ‘hard’ criteria for EU
accession through discursive mechanisms. Using a sociological approach to Europeanisation
that focuses on actors’ dynamics they also described three different mechanisms that
account for how Europeanisation engenders domestic change, all of which are related to
discursive processes in the European accession process. First, in the cases of the Regular
Reports and monitoring, the EC (together with voices from the country) constructed the
accession criteria differently for the different countries during the negotiations, so that
domestic violence norms appeared in different places in the reports. Second, the Daphne
mechanism can be seen as an open call for transnational discursive action to develop
substantive content behind the narrowly defined set of European norms for action against
domestic violence. Finally, the analysis of strategic discursive action has shown how civil
society actors and their allies also construct and frame European norms to include the need
for action against domestic violence. All three of these discussed discursive mechanisms
intervene as ex ante Europeanisation in the process of policy change (Schmidt and Radaelli,
2004) and contribute to defining usages (Woll and Jacquot, 2010) of Europe in the context of
domestic violence policy.
Kuhar studies the content and use of a Europeanisation frame, conceived as a set of ideas,
meanings, norms, and frames (Kuhar forthcoming) in policy documents on same-sex
partnerships across Europe. This is an area where, although no binding EU measures exist,
there are still progressive policy changes in member states, as well as inconsistencies in
their usage of Europeanisation in the presence of soft measures. Kuhar’s discursive analysis
shows that the European integration process has played a major role in the new EU member
states through cross-loading, a concept he introduces to describe horizontal policy transfer,
or processes of learning from other European states, which, according to Howell (2004), do
not necessarily involve the EU as an autonomous actor. Kuhar discusses this in terms of a
Europeanisation frame, by which he refers to the strategic usage, by national advocates or
opponents of same-sex partnership rights, of states that are used as role models in same-
sex partnership policies such as the Netherlands (or, the other way around, negative role-
models) and of references to the EU as a site of progressive politics (or, alternatively, of
politics threatening national values) according to which national legislation should be
measured (Kuhar forthcoming). While Europeanisation here is not understood as
convergence, the EU definitively has a role in creating a learning arena for old and new
member states by offering a common horizon in which states can learn from the example of
other members, and by being used by domestic actors as a symbol of progress or of
negative values (depending on the different positioning on particular national same-sex
partnership policies). Importantly, his analysis also detects the strategic use of the
Europeanisation frame in ‘homo-negative’ countries.
92
While the QUING work contributes to Europeanisation theory, it also has led to the detection
of further theoretical dilemmas that need to be addressed by further research. Obviously,
there is a need to further conceptualise Europeanisation in its relation to divergence and
convergence. Similarly, the concepts of hard versus soft measures might be too simplistic
and in need of elaboration. Here, it might be necessary to also conceptualise whether hard
and soft measures are or can be linked, and how that impacts on the meaning that soft
measures can acquire. Another dilemma is that found patterns sometimes seem to be
related to the specific context (country, specific domestic actors), but also to specific issues.
It remains a question for further study when and why context or issue is the main basis for
differentiation patterns.
1.5.5 Gender training and knowledge transfer
The issue of resistances has received a large amount of attention in OPERA activities. Here,
it will be framed in a broader perspective in order to address the different faces of this multi-
layered phenomenon. We will firstly address the issue of transferring gender+ knowledge (in
particular, gender theory) outside academia. Then, we will pay attention to the political
economy of knowledge circulation among gender training practitioners, including potential
resistances towards sharing information and the diffusion of ‘best practices’. Finally, we will
frame the resistances of trainees and potential commissioners as a diverse phenomenon that
is both individual and institutional.
There are a number of challenges in transferring gender+ knowledge outside academia. One
is the use of jargon, and the need to de-jargonise while tapping into the level of the
knowledge underneath the academic jargon. Transferring knowledge might be better
achieved when trainers– at least partly – adopt or reference to the language used in a
concrete field such as ‘research project management’.
A second challenge concerns the status of practical knowledge and the need to translate this
knowledge in theory and methodology. This can be done through participatory learning for
trainers and through peer reviewing, so as to produce knowledge on the process of gender
training, as illustrated by Jeanette Van de Sanden in her book on Transferring Knowledge
about Sex and Gender. Here the problem can be a culture clash between the classic
autonomy of the academic teacher, as opposed to the more participatory kind of learning in
supervision or peer evaluation that produces better knowledge as an ongoing process.
Academics involved in these processes have to learn to use these forms to build up their
own capacities instead of seeing it as interference. Aside from peer reviewing, extensive
interviews with experienced trainers can tap into the knowledge that accumulates while
practicing (especially as people do not always “know exactly what they know”), unearthing
knowledge which can then be translated to the level of academic expertise. All such
initiatives could feed into a growing literature on training methodology, and contribute to a
consistent theoretical body. As trainers are professionals with a background of significant
autonomy which they are eager to preserve, it is important to collectively develop guidelines
and standards so that they can be better appropriated and multiplied.
A third challenge concerns the political economy of knowledge circulation among gender
training practitioners. The crucial point here is that gender+ training is not only a highly
significant activity that needs to be part of gender+ equality policies, but it also constitutes a
market of skills and competences. Discussions held during TARGET-OPERA expert
meetings in Berlin, Nijmegen, Boston and Madrid have led to an emphasis upon the
93
marketisation of gender+ training activities across Europe. Marketisation not only tends to
shape what gender training looks like; it also makes the tools and methodological
approaches developed by trainers a competitive matter, as trainers need to sell their
competences on a developing market. This market, however, does not have any certification
/accreditation institutions nor commonly accepted quality criteria at this point in time. It is
shaped around a number of sub-markets/arenas linked to concrete gender issues or
mechanisms (mainstreaming, Gender-based Violence, gender and justice, development,
participation, etc.) and specific institutional and organisational arenas.
The absence of rules and accreditation procedures (which may be informal, for instance
through socialisation within a Community of Practice) introduces strong concerns about the
willingness of trainers to share knowledge, tools, and experience. OPERA launched just such
a Community of Practice through three on-line forums and later through the final conference,
attempting to take into account the competitive issues of trust, fair use and honesty about
sources and credits. The online forums’ functionality, in their terms of conditions thus
emphasised on the importance of a fair exchange. As also emerged from previous
discussions, trainers appreciate when the tools they have developed are used and improved
by others, but they at the same time need to promote their skills and expertise in a
competitive context. National contexts where training activities already constitute a rather
stabilised market (such as in Germany) are more competitive than others. Yet, knowledge
doesn’t grow unless it is shared. The challenge of marketisation is to provide basic
guarantees of fairness and privacy while making sharing easier and keeping in mind that all
practitioners need support networks. The on-line forums and the working sessions held
during the final conference thus also aimed at making sharing easier by abolishing
hierarchies between trainers, by facilitating self-reflexivity and providing new theoretical
support. The final conference has proven the eagerness of gender trainers to share their
practices and experiences in a safe environment where the full participation of every member
of the community is encouraged.
A last challenge concerns dealing with resistances to gender training. This is a multi-level
challenge. Potential resistances to/in gender+ training activities have been given increased
relevance and attention over the OPERA time span, as it soon appeared that dealing with
different forms of resistances located at different levels (organisational, institutional,
collective or individual) was one of the main challenges faced by practitioners, and one on
which they most need experience-sharing. Sharing experiences showed that resistances to
gender+ training are both a common and diverse phenomenon. They may take a number of
forms, such as denial of the relevance of the gender+ equality policies, refusal to accept
responsibility for dealing with gender+ equality policies or simply through non-
implementation. Moreover, these different forms of resistances are located at different levels,
from individual to institutional, and do not only involve commissioners and trainees, but also
trainers themselves, as they too may prove reluctant to question their own attitudes, methods
or knowledge. While knowledge transfer may always be confronted with resistances,
resistances to gender training are of a specific nature, due to the links that participants
unavoidably make with the personal domain (whenever issues of gender privilege or division
of labour are discussed), which leads participants to assume that gender training to be
intrusive. Participants often articulate a view that gender issues are useless since women
and men are equally situated in employment and social life, or they adopt a culturalisation
frame where gender inequality only concerns other cultures (and is alien to their own
94
domestic context/citizens), or there is an implicit or even explicit discourse based on the idea
that introducing a gender perspective just means making issues more complicated. As
resistance to gender+ training comes from the fact that trainers are expected to question
existing beliefs, paradigms and social position, OPERA discussions thus highlighted that
space and time were needed to overcome resistances. Questions abound as to how to best
understand and overcome resistances, many of them dealing with power issues: does only
the trainer have knowledge. Or is knowledge in all of us? Where/how does training itself
generate? Can commissioners provide better conditions for building networks and alliances
as foundations for change? Are trainers exempt from resistances?
This last question is especially worthy of attention, as resistances do not occur only among
commissioners and participants; trainers themselves also experience resistances to gender+
on both the cognitive and the emotional level. There are cognitive and emotional barriers in
what trainers experience concerning racism, heteronormativity or xenophobia. It is therefore
important to identify and distinguish different categories of resistance and how they
shape/limit the training’s impact, as well as the range of responses that is possible and
productive in dealing with resistances. In dealing with resistances, trainers can so far mostly
draw upon only their own, cumulative experience. This relative isolation has been illustrated
by the trainers’ eagerness to share about these experiences with peers, as for instance at
the final conference, where sessions on resistances scored highly in participants’ evaluation
of the event.
Finally, dealing with resistances also entails reflecting on the transformative potential of
gender+ training. In other terms, it appeared that gender+ training, as far as it aims to
produce social and organisational change, has to fully engage with trainees’ anchored
values, beliefs and stereotypes and therefore can hardly avoid a certain level of
confrontation. Yet, when they occur, resistances to gender+ training, should be embraced
and dealt with as part of a necessary process of organisational, institutional, societal and
personal change.
1.6 Policy recommendations
The future of gender equality policy and research
The QUING project has produced a large and diverse set of outputs and initiatives (reports,
conference papers, journal articles, books, datasets) that have had, and will continue to
have, an impact in and beyond Europe. As well as this clearly visible research output, the
project has reached in additional ways that are less measureable. These include the
establishment of working relationships and networks (within academia, and between
academics, civil society actors and state actors); and the knowledge that will be carried
forward by the researchers involved into new projects. This means that the QUING project
will have a significant potential impact in the much longer term. The QUING network is
committed to further active dissemination of its work, at national and international level, and
among all stakeholders of gender equality policies, including researchers.
The QUING leadership will also follow closely what happens with the OPERA and FRAGEN
databases and other output.
The QUING project was conducted during a specific period during which gender equality
policies were expanded and deepened in many member states. The post financial crisis era
95
with large cutbacks in terms of public spending and a turn to the right politically across many
EU member states means that the progress that was made in relation to gender+ equality
policies is being, or is in danger of being, undermined. This provides the potential for
important research to compare the next time period in EU policies with those policies
produced during the QUING period.
Recommendations
Based on the QUING research in LARG, WHY and STRIQ, the following recommendations
for policy making can be made:
It is still quite rare and therefore extremely important that gender equality policies are paying
attention to the structural character of gender inequality; that they are rooted in and shaped
by constructive dialogue with civil society organisations working towards the abolition of
gender inequality, and that they pay attention to all relevant other inequalities, and address
intersectionality in a way that helps achieve gender equality.
More specifically, it is necessary that gender+ equality policies:
Intervene in the social and political construction of privilege.
Pay attention to the structural dimension of all inequalities linked to gender.
Eliminate fragments of anti-gender equality activities that are currently part of gender
equality policies.
Engage in constructive dialogue with civil society organisations working towards
gender equality.
Enable dialogues across movements working towards equality based on other axes
of inequality.
Pay attention to interlinkages between different gender equality policy areas.
Take as a default option to work on visibility and explicitness, and only make
exceptions to this as a deliberate and monitored strategy.
Have human and financial resources available to them, and not be limited to being
texts on paper.
These general recommendations might seem overly obvious, but they are based in solid
research showing that violating them impacts negatively on the quality of gender+ equality
policies. It is therefore worth including them in any effort to re-design or improve gender+
equality policies in Europe, be it at national or at EU level.
More specifically the following recommendations are made:
There is a need to provide support for the equality architecture in member states so
that it monitors and enforces existing laws in member states, conducts research, as
well as consults with those civil society organisations that are working towards gender
equality. In the context of the creation of single equalities commissions for gender
and all other inequality grounds, we recommend that some devices (e.g. divisions,
committees, consultation platforms) are retained so as to ensure that the specificities
and interests of each equality strand are represented, in order that expertise is not
lost. Including such inequality specific devices, for gender and for other inequalities
as well, leads to more productive and constructive dialogue across inequalities and
hence to better policies for all. This would prevent the loss of gender specific
expertise and the dilution of resources devoted to gender inequality which appears to
have been the case in some of the ways in which the merger of equality institutions
96
as been conducted. The inclusion of separate devices as well as the single bodies
would implement the European Commission policy of both specific actions and
gender mainstreaming, and would avoid the dangers of mainstreaming only.
Long term impact and effectiveness of gender+ equality policy requires concrete and
sustained resources (which enable e.g. monitoring and enforcement of laws, as well
as securing the funding of NGOs working towards gender equality). The importance
of adequate resources cannot be overestimated.
There is a need for a Directive to ensure gender equality in paid parental leave to
improve gender+ inequalities in caring. Monitoring and intervention is needed by the
Commission to ensure that the principle of gender equality is articulated throughout
policies on employment and care-work and are not differentially applied to women
situated differently because of class, ethnicity and partner status. This is necessary to
avoid the outcome of targeted interventions promoting gender equality in employment
only for some social groups and not others. This demands a nuanced approach to
intersectionality, so as to ensure that paying attention to differences is not at the
expense of the gender equality project.
There is a need for a Directive on policies on violence against women. Given the
impact of the EU (albeit diverse in different contexts), and following from the soft
measures put in place by the EU (e.g. Daphne programme), hard policy measures on
VAW (i.e. an EU Directive) are required in order to secure minimum standards in
member states in terms of, for example, services to combat violence against women
(e.g. measurement of Gender-based Violence; appropriate number of shelters;
effective domestic laws). This is particularly urgent given the impact of Gender-based
Violence on individuals and economies, and in light of current threats to existing
measures in the contemporary context of severe cuts in public spending taking place
across Europe.
There is a need to improve the measurement of Gender-based Violence by official
national and European Union statistics. It is important to make sure that the statistics
and data cover the whole range of Gender-based Violence and are not confined to
domestic violence. It would be productive to consider the use of health services as an
additional source of data, for example, through the use of routine enquiry or
obligatory recording of Gender-based Violence. The further engagement of both
research and advocacy groups and organisations working towards gender+ equality
in the study of Gender-based Violence aids the development of the knowledge base
that is needed for policy development.
There is a need to pay careful attention to the inter-relationship between different
policy areas in the pursuit of gender equality. For example, changes in economic
policy have implications for the vulnerability and resilience and women to Gender-
based Violence. Each policy area should examine its implications for other aspects of
gender inequality.
Monitoring of gender inequality at the point of its intersection with other inequalities is
needed in order to more fully address the gender citizenship in a multicultural Europe.
Data is not always available to enable this monitoring across all protected equality
grounds. The provision of this data to enable evaluation of policy developments
should be considered an integral issue in policy development.
97
Based on the QUING research in LARG, WHY and STRIQ, the following recommendations
for research can be made:
Inequalities in institutional arrangements for caring, such as leave regulations, child
care and elderly care institutions and regulations as well as arrangements that
regulate migration for domestic services should receive more attention in research
programmes and projects. The differential access of different social groups to
institutionalised forms of care is an example of where the analysis of intersectionality
can help wider research aims.
Gender-based violence requires further resources for research, including comparative
research. This requires the effective mobilisation of quantitative and qualitative
methodologies and agreement on international standards for its measurement. The
EU-wide surveys that are currently under development need to be provided with
resources so as to enable replication over time and the full analysis of their findings.
The creation of indicators has been under development in recent years, and requires
further resources so as to ensure that the measures are robust and gain consensus
among researchers and policy makers.
The inter-relationship between Gender-based Violence and other aspects of gender
inequality needs further research; in particular, the implications of the current
changes in economic conditions and welfare provision for the level of Gender-based
Violence. The range and effectiveness of policy interventions into Gender-based
Violence is in need of further research since, while it initially appears as if Gender-
based Violence is on the margins of the EU legal remit, many examples were found
of policies that drew on EU Treaties and Directives.
Intimate citizenship issues should be included in research on gender equality policy
studies as they harbour many inequalities in the current Europe. Inequalities in
partnership and reproductive technologies are negatively impacting gender equality
for some categories of women that are positioned at crucial intersections of gender
and sexuality, gender and class, or gender and race/ethnicity.
There is a need for research that analyses the interconnections between gender
equality policies across domains and across issues. It is important that the fields of
General Gender+ Equality policies, employment, violence and Intimate Citizenship do
not develop separately, since they each have significant implications for the others.
An example would be research to measure the cost of Gender-based Violence to the
EU economy and society, drawing on previous research at a national level, gender
budgeting techniques and research on Gender-based Violence.
Processes of contestation on gender equality are a promising research area. This
might include comparisons in order to ascertain the conditions under which effective
alliances and coalitions are made to support gender equality policies.
The study of Europeanisation can be improved by integrating discursive analysis
alongside the analysis of institutions and laws.
Intersectionality needs to be studied at the institutional level. Many of the existing
studies of intersectionality have been conducted at the micro level. It is important to
extend this analysis to institutions, especially those that are important for policy
development.
98
The heritage of feminist movements in Europe can be studied as contextual feminist
master frames that impact on policy innovations, and can help explain differences
and similarities in engagement and outcome across Europe.
The gendering of the causes and consequences of the financial crisis and its ensuing
waves of economic recession needs research. There is an urgent need to follow what
happens to the range of gender equality policies since the hard times of the financial
crisis and the move to the Right in some parts of Europe. This includes research into
issues such as the reduction in resources and the narrowing of the remit of the
equality commissions, as well as the increase in policies working against gender+
equality that are being reported in some member states.
Based on the overall QUING research and its activities in OPERA, the following
recommendations for gender training can be made:
There is a substantial need for gender training and for integrating intersectionality in
gender+ training.
There is a substantial need for networking and for the joint development – by gender+
trainers, gender+ experts and gender+ trainer commissioners – of the quality of
gender+ training.
The Madrid Declaration, developed in the OPERA context, is an excellent starting
point for developing and discussing the quality of gender+ training.
Based on the overall QUING research and its activities in FRAGEN, the following
suggestions can be made for feminist movements and for conservation and dissemination of
feminist heritage:
The rich feminist heritage in Europe from the period starting in the seventies in the
West, and in the nineties in most of East and Central Europe is in danger of
disappearing. There is a need to bring this knowledge together and open it for new
generations as well as for policy makers.
The FRAGEN database should be enlarged by digitising, coding and acquiring
copyrights for all texts selected to be on its long list.
Overall, QUING has developed sophisticated analyses of the variations in the nature and
quality of gender equality policies in a multicultural Europe. There is much more to be done
in order to achieve fundamental EU values, to which these recommendations contribute.
99
1.7 References
Acar, Feride and Gülbanu Altunok, 2009: Paths, borders and bridges: impact of ethnicity and
religion on women’s movement in Turkey, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/acar_altunok.pdf.
Albrecht, J. W., Edin, P. A., Sundström, M. & Vroman, S. B., 1999: ‘Career interruptions and
subsequent earnings: a re-examination using Swedish data’, Journal of Human Resources
34(2).
Alonso, Alba, 2009: Institutionalizing intersectionality in Portugal: towards a multiple
approach, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/alonso.pdf.
Alba Alonso (under review): ‘Intersectionality by other means? New equality policies in
Portugal’.
Alonso, Alba and Maxime Forest, 2009: Is gender equality soluble into self-governance?
Europeanizing gender at the sub-national level in Spain, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/alonso_forest.pdf.
Alonso, Alba and Maxime Forest (forthcoming): ‘Is Gender Equality Soluble into Self-
Governance? Regionalizing and Europeanizing Gender Policies in Spain’, in Lombardo,
Emanuela and Maxime Forest (eds) (forthcoming) The Europeanization of Gender Equality
Policies: a Discursive-Sociological Approach. Palgrave MacMillan.
Alonso, Alba, María Bustelo, Maxime Forest and Emanuela Lombardo (forthcoming):
‘Institutionalising intersectionality in Southern Europe: Italy, Spain and Portugal’, in Krizsán,
Andrea, Hege Skjeie & Judith Squires (forthcoming). Institutionalizing intersectionality.
Comparative European analyses, Palgrave MacMillan.
Armstrong, Jo, Sofia Strid and Sylvia Walby, 2009: ‘The gendered division of labour: how can
we assess the quality of employment and care policy from a gender equality perspective?’,
Benefits: Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 17(3), pp. 263-275.
Armstrong, Jo, Sylvia Walby and Sofia Strid, 2009: Intersectionality and the Quality of
Gendered Employment Policy, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/armstrong_walby_strid.pdf. Revised version by same authors
under review by journal under the title of: ‘The identification of ‘target groups’: a good
strategy for the recognition of intersectionality in gendered employment policy?’
Bacchi, Carol, 2011:Gender mainstreaming and reflexivity: Asking some hard questions,
Keynote speech at the Advancing Gender+ Training in Theory and Practice Conference
Madrid, February 3, 2011, available at
www.quing.eu/files/opera/conference_programme_final.pdf, pp. 30-45.
Bustelo, María and Maxime Forest, 2009: The politics of intersectionality in Spain: shaping
intersectional approaches in a multi-level polity, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/bustelo_forest.pdf.
Bustelo, María and Mieke Verloo, 2009: ‘Grounding policy evaluation in a discursive
understanding of politics’, in: Lombardo, Emanuela, Petra Meier and Mieke Verloo (eds). The
Discursive Politics of Gender Equality Stretching, Bending and Policymaking, Routledge.
100
Börzel, T. and T. Risse, 2003: ‘Conceptualizing the Domestic Impact of Europe’, in: K.
Featherstone and C. Radaelli (eds) The Politics of Europeanisation, New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 57-80.
Carbin, Maria, Hannele Harjunen and Elin Kvist, 2009: Children and fathers first? – Fertility
treatment Policies in Denmark, Finland and Sweden, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/carbin_harjunen_kvist.pdf.
Ciccia, Rossella and Mieke Verloo, 2011: Who cares? Patterns of leave regulation in an
enlarged Europe: using fuzzy-set ideal types to assess gender equality, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/ciccia_verloo.pdf.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams, 1991: ‘Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics,
and violence against women of color’, Stanford Law Review 43(6), pp. 1241-1299.
Kimberlé Crenshaw, 1997: Intersectionality and Identity Politics: Learning from Violence
against Women of Colour, in: Wendy Kolmar & Frances Bartkowski (eds), 2005: Feminist
Theory: A Reader, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 533-541.
Crompton, R., 1999: Restructuring gender relations and employment: the decline of the male
breadwinner, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dabrowska, Magda, 2009: European vs. national in Polish gender equality debates and
policy documents, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/dabrowska.pdf
Dedić, Jasminka, 2009: Roma in European gender equality policy debates: intersectionalized
and feminized, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/dedic.pdf.
Del Giorgio, Elena and Emanuela Lombardo, 2009: Institutionalising intersectionality in Italy:
gatekeepers and political dynamics, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/delgiorgio_lombardo.pdf.
European Commission (2007) Gender Equality: Legal Acts on Equal Treatment. Accessed at
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/gender_equality/legislation/legalacts_en.html.
Ferguson, Lucy and Maxime Forest et al. (eds) 2011: Final OPERA Report, QUING Project,
Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/final_opera_report.pdf.
Ferree, Myra Marx, William Anthony Gamson, Jürgen Gerhards, and Dieter Rucht, 2002:
Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United
States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forest, Maxime and Emanuela Lombardo, 2009: Beyond the ‘worlds of compliance’: a
sociological and discursive approach to the Europeanisation of gender equality policies,
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/forest_lombardo.pdf.
Forest, Maxime and Emanuela Lombardo (forthcoming), ‘The Europeanization of Gender
Equality Policies: a Discursive-Sociological Approach’, in: Lombardo, Emanuela and Maxime
Forest (eds) (forthcoming) The Europeanization of Gender Equality Policies: a Discursive-
Sociological Approach, Palgrave MacMillan.
Frank, Ana, 2009: Rethinking the effects of Europeanization: civil society and state framing of
gender equality policies in Turkey and Croatia, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/frank.pdf.
101
Hancock, Ange-Marie, 2007: ‘When multiplication doesn’t equal quick addition: Examining
intersectionality as a research paradigm’, Perspectives on Politics 5(1), pp. 63-79.
Howell, K. E., 2004: ‘Developing Conceptualisations of Europeanization: Synthesising
Methodological Approaches’, Queen’s Papers on Europeanization 3/2004.
Huo, J.; Nelson, M.; Stephens, J. D., 2008: ‘Decommodification and activation in social
democratic policy: resolving the paradox’, Journal of European Social Policy 18(5).
Htun, Mala and Laurel Weldon, 2010: ‘When do governments promote women’s rights? A
framework for the comparative analysis of sex equality policy’, special section on
‘Comparative politics of Gender’, Perspectives on Politics 8(11), pp. 207-217.
Jaigma, Martin, 2009: On the interface between civil society and state and its implications for
the quality of gender equality policies in Estonia, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/jaigma.pdf.
Jarty, July, 2009: Women and employment: Does France go it alone?, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/jarty.pdf.
Kakepaki, Manina, 2009: Intimate citizenship policies in Greece and the impact of religion
and the Church, unpublished WHY paper.
Kantola, Johanna and Kevät Nousiainen, 2009: ‘Institutionalizing intersectionality in Europe’,
International Feminist Journal of Politics 11(4), pp. 459-477.
Kispéter, Erika, 2009: Family policy debates in post-state socialist Hungary: from
maternalism to gender equality, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/kispeter.pdf.
Andrea Krizsán (under review): A Typology of Equality Institutions for Intersectional Analysis.
Equality Architectures in Central and Eastern European Countries.
Krizsán, Andrea et al., 2007: ‘Domestic Violence: a Public Matter’, in: M. Verloo (ed.) Multiple
Meanings of Gender Equality: a Critical Frame Analysis of Gender Policies in
Europe,Budapest: CPS, pp. 141-186.
Krizsán, Andrea, Tamás Dombos, Erika Kispéter, Melinda Szabó, Jasminka Dedić, Martin
Jaigma, Roman Kuhar, Ana Frank, Birgit Sauer, Mieke Verloo, 2009: Final LARG report.
Framing gender equality in the European Union and its current and future Member States,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available
athttp://www.quing.eu/files/results/final_larg_report.pdf.
Krizsán, Andrea and Emanuela Lombardo, 2010: ‘Successful’ gender+ equality policies in
Europe? A discursive approach to the quality of policies. Paper presented at the “Equal is not
enough” conference in Antwerp, December 2010.
Krizsán, Andrea and Raluca Popa, 2010: ‘Europeanization in Making Policies against
Domestic Violence in Central and Eastern Europe’, Social Politics 17(3), pp. 379-406.
Krizsán, Andrea and Raluca Popa (forthcoming): Meanings and Uses of Europe in Making
Policies against Domestic Violence in Central and Eastern Europe, in Lombardo, Emanuela
and Maxime Forest (eds) (forthcoming) The Europeanization of Gender Equality Policies: a
Discursive-Sociological Approach. Palgrave MacMillan.
102
Krizsán, Andrea, Raluca Popa, and Viola Zentai, 2009: Intersectionality: who’s concern?
Institutionalizing equality policy in new Central and Eastern European Members States of the
EU, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/Krizsán_popa_zentai.pdf.
Krizsán, Andrea and Violetta Zentai (forthcoming): Institutionalizing Intersectionality in
Central and Eastern Europe, in: Krizsán, Andrea, Hege Skjeie & Judith Squires
(forthcoming). Institutionalizing intersectionality. Comparative European analyses, Palgrave
MacMillan.
Krizsán, Andrea, Hege Skjeie & Judith Squires (forthcoming): Institutionalizing
intersectionality. Comparative European analyses, Palgrave MacMillan.
Kuhar, Roman, 2009: In the background of non-discrimination discourse: From the rights of
same-sex partners to the rights of children. The use of the Europeanization frame in non-
heterosexual intimacy policies in Europe, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/kuhar.pdf.
Kuhar, Roman (forthcoming): Use of the Europeanization Frame in Same-Sex Partnership
Issues across Europe, in Lombardo, Emanuela and Maxime Forest (eds) (forthcoming) The
Europeanization of Gender Equality Policies: a Discursive-Sociological Approach. Palgrave
MacMillan
Kvist, Elin, Maria Carbin, and Hannele Harjunen, 2009: Domestic services or maid?
Discourses on gender equality, work and integration in Nordic policy debate, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/kvist_carbin_harjunen.pdf.
Kvist, Elin and Elin Peterson, 2009: Norms and silences in gender equality policies: an
analysis of policy debates on domestic services in Spain and Sweden, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/kvist_peterson.pdf.
Kvist, Elin and Elin Peterson, 2010: ‘What Has Gender Equality Got to Do with It? An
Analysis of Policy Debates Surrounding Domestic Services in the Welfare States of Spain
and Sweden’, Nora 18(3), pp. 185-203.
Lauwers, Sophie and Saskia Martens, 2009: Accommodating multiple discrimination.
Equality bodies in Belgium and the Netherlands analyzed from an intersectional gender
perspective, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/lauwers_martens.pdf.
Lewis, J., Campbell, M., Huerta, C., 2008: 'Patterns of paid and unpaid work in Western
Europe: gender, commodification, preferences and the implications for policy', Journal of
European Social Policy 18(1).
Lombardo, Emanuela, Petra Meier and Mieke Verloo (under review): Policymaking or the
construction, deconstruction and reconstruction of gender and intersecting inequalities,
chapter for Georgina Waylen, Laurel Weldon, Karen Celis (eds) Oxford Handbook of Gender
and Politics.
Lombardo, Emanuela and María Bustelo, 2009: The political treatment of inequalities in
Europe: a comparative analysis of Italy, Portugal and Spain, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/lombardo_bustelo.pdf.
Lombardo, Emanuela and María Bustelo (under review): The political treatment of
inequalities in Southern Europe: a comparative analysis of Italy, Portugal and Spain.
103
Lombardo, Emanuela and María Bustelo (forthcoming): ‘Comparing the Europeanization of
Multiple Inequalities in Southern Europe: a Discursive Institutionalist Analysis’, in:Lombardo,
Emanuela and Maxime Forest (eds) (forthcoming) The Europeanization of Gender Equality
Policies: a Discursive-Sociological Approach, Palgrave MacMillan.
Lombardo, Emanuela and Maxime Forest (eds) (forthcoming):The Europeanization of
Gender Equality Policies: a Discursive-Sociological Approach, Palgrave MacMillan.
Lombardo, Emanuela and Maxime Forest (forthcoming): ‘Prospects and Challenges for
Discursive-Sociological Studies of the Europeanization of Equality Policies’, in: Lombardo,
Emanuela and Maxime Forest (eds) (forthcoming) The Europeanization of Gender Equality
Policies: a Discursive-Sociological Approach, Palgrave MacMillan.
Lombardo, Emanuela and Lise Rolandsen Agustín, 2009: Framing gender intersections in
the European Union: what implications for the quality of intersectionality in policies?,
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/lombardo_rolandsen.pdf.
Lombardo, Emanuela and Lise Rolandsen Agustin, 2011: ‘Framing Gender Intersections in
the European Union: What implications for the quality of intersectionality in policies?’,Social
Politics, published online: February 4, 2011.
Lombardo, Emanuela, and Mieke Verloo, 2009: ‘Stretching gender equality to other
inequalities: Political intersectionality in European gender equality policies’, in: Lombardo,
Emanuela, Petra Meier and Mieke Verloo (eds). The Discursive Politics of Gender Equality
Stretching, Bending and Policymaking, Routledge.
Lombardo, Emanuela and Mieke Verloo, 2009: ‘Institutionalising intersectionality in the
European Union? Policy developments and contestations’, International Feminist Journal of
Politics, 11(4), pp. 478-495 (earlier version available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/lombardo_verloo.pdf.).
Lombardo, Emanuela, Petra Meier and Mieke Verloo (eds) 2009: The Discursive Politics of
Gender Equality Stretching, Bending and Policymaking, Routledge.
Lorber, Judith, 1998: Gender inequality: Feminist theories and politics Roxbury Publications,
Los Angeles.
López Trujillo, Alfonso and Karl Romer, 2006: Family and Human Procreation, Vatican City:
The Pontifical Council for the Family.
McBride, Dorothy E. and Amy G. Mazur, 2010: The politics of state feminism. Innovation in
comparative research, Philadelphia:Temple University Press.
McCall, Leslie, 2005: ‘The complexity of intersectionality’, Signs 30(3), pp. 1771-1800.
Meier, Petra et al., 2007: ‘The Pregnant Worker and Caring Mother: Framing Family Policies
across Europe’, in: M. Verloo (ed.) Multiple Meanings of Gender Equality. A Critical Frame
Analysis of Gender Policies in Europe,Budapest: CPS Books, pp. 109-40.
Očenášová, Zuzana, 2009: Europeanization of gender equality policies through the needle's
eye of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/ocenasova.pdf.
Pantelidou Maloutas, Maro, 2009: Gender policies as means of Europeanization: The case of
Greece, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/maloutas.pdf.
104
Pilinkaite-Sotirović, Vilana, 2009: Limits of Europeanization: marriage, family and
reproduction policies in Lithuania, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/pilinkaite.pdf.
Roggeband, Conny and Mieke Verloo 2007: Dutch Women are Liberated, Migrant Women
are a Problem,Social Policy and Administration, 41(3), pp. 271–288.
Röder, Ingrid, 2009: Gender+ equality policies as Europeanisation of old and new member
states? An ongoing process, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/roeder.pdf.
Schmidt, V., and C. Radaelli, 2004: ‘Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual
and Methodological Issues’, West European Politics, 27, 2: 183-210.
Sofia Strid, Jo Armstrong and Sylvia Walby (Under review): ‘Invisible intersectionality?
Visibility and voice in gender based violence policy in Britain’ (earlier version available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/strid_armstrong_walby.pdf).
Tertinegg, Karin, 2009: Going international? Civil society voices and the role of international
actors in Austrian and German gender equality policies, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/tertinegg.pdf.
Urbanek, Doris, 2009: Towards processual intersectional policy analysis, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/urbanek.pdf.
Sutton, R., 1999: The Policy Process: An Overview. Overseas Development Institute.
Van der Haar, Marleen and Mieke Verloo, 2011: The Russian Doll effect: intersectionality
and identity politics in gender equality policies in Europe Paper for the ECPR Conference
Reykjavik, August 2011.
Van der Sanden, Jeanette, 2010: Transferring knowledge about sex and gender: Dutch case
studies, Pisa: Pisa University Press.
Van der Wal, Femke and Mieke Verloo, 2009: Religion, church, intimate citizenship and
gender equality: an analysis of differences in gender equality policies in European Catholic
countries, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/vanderwal_verloo.pdf.
Verloo, Mieke, 2010: ‘Trojan horses and the implications of strategic framing: reflections on
gender equality policies, intimate citizenship and demographic change’, in: Heike Kahlert and
Waltraud Ernst (eds) Reframing Demographic Change in Europe. Perspectives on Gender
and Welfare State Transformations, Münster, Hamburg, Berlin, Wien, London: Lit., pp. 51-73.
Verloo, Mieke, 2011: Gender equality policies as interventions in a changing world. Keynote
Lecture at the 2nd Gender and Politics ECPR Conference, 13 January, Budapest,
http://www.ecprnet.eu/sg/ecpg/default.asp Accessed on May 5, 2011.
Verloo, Mieke, 2008: ‘Assessing a former pioneer of gender equality: Lessons from the
Netherlands’, in: Susanne Baer and Miriam Hoheisel (eds) Between Success and
Disappointment. Gender Equality Policies in an Enlarged Europe. Kleine Verlag: Bielefeld,
pp. 69-82.
Verloo, Mieke, 2006: ‘Multiple inequalities, intersectionality and the European
Union’,European Journal of Women’s Studies 13(3), pp.211-229.
105
Verloo, Mieke, Sophie Lauwers, Saskia Martens, and Petra Meier (under review): Applying
intersectionality. Potential and practice of different configurations of equality architecture in
Belgium and the Netherlands.
Verloo, Mieke and Sylvia Walby (under review): Introduction: the implications for theory and
practice of comparing the treatment of intersectionality in the equality architecture in Europe
to Walby, Sylvia and Mieke Verloo (editors) (under review): special issue of Social Politics on
‘Intersectionality and the equality architecture in Europe’.
Verloo, Mieke and Sylvia Walby, 2010: Final WHY Report, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute
for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/final_why_report.pdf.
Verloo, Mieke, Sylvia Walby, Jo Armstrong, and Sofia Strid, 2009: Final STRIQ Report,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/final_striq_report.pdf.
Walby, Sylvia, 1999: ‘The European Union and equal opportunities policies’, European
Societies 1(1), pp. 59-80.
Walby, Sylvia, 2003: ‘Policy developments for workplace gender equity in a global era: The
importance of the EU in the UK’, Review of Policy Research, 20(1), pp. 45-64.
Walby, Sylvia, 2004: ‘The European Union and gender equality: Emergent varieties of
gender regime’, Social Politics 11(1), pp. 4-29.
Walby, Sylvia, 2005: ‘Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice’,
Social Politics 12(3), pp. 321-343.
Walby, Sylvia, 2007a: ‘Complexity theory, systems theory and multiple intersecting social
inequalities’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 37(4), pp. 449-470.
Walby, Sylvia, 2007b: QUING: Gender Equality Policies in the EU. D12 (with appendix by
Birgit Sauer). Delivered to the European Commission 31 May 2007.
Walby, Sylvia, 2007c: QUING:Theories of Intersectionality. D13. Delivered to European
Commission 31 May 2007.
Walby, Sylvia, 2007d: QUING: Manual for the Methodology of ‘Discursive Institutionalism’.
D20. Delivered to the European Commission 31 August 2007.
Walby, Sylvia, 2007e: QUING: Comparative Study Methodology Manual for WHY. D22.
Delivered to the European Commission 31 August 2007.
Walby, Sylvia, 2009: Globalization and Inequalities: Complexity and Contested Modernities.
London: Sage.
Walby, Sylvia, 2011: The Future of Feminism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Walby, Sylvia, Jo Armstrong and Sofia Strid, 2007: QUING: Country Study Methodology
Manual for WHY. D23. Delivered to the European Commission 31 August 2007.
Walby, Sylvia, Jo Armstrong and Sofia Strid, 2009a: ‘Conceptual Framework for Gender+
Equality Policies in a Multicultural Context’, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/striq_conceptual_framework.pdf. Revised version by same
106
authors in Sociology under the title of: ‘Intersectionality: Multiple inequalities in social theory’
(in press).
Walby, Sylvia, Jo Armstrong and Sofia Strid, 2009b: Intersectionality and the Quality of the
Equality Architecture in Britain, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/walby_armstrong_strid.pdf. Revised version by same authors
under review by journal under the title of: ‘Intersectionality and the quality of the gender
equality architecture’.
Walby, Sylvia and Mieke Verloo (eds) (under review): special issue of Social Politics on
‘Intersectionality and the equality architecture in Europe’.
Woll, C. and S. Jacquot, 2010: ‘Using Europe: Strategic Action in Multi-Level Politics’,
Comparative European Politics 8(1), pp. 110-126.
107
1.8 Annexes
Annex 1: Contractors involved per activity and overview of all members of the QUING team Partner Team leader
IWM, Institute for Human Sciences – Austria Mieke Verloo & Birgit Sauer
Yellow Window – Belgium Lut Mergaert
Aletta, Institute for Women’s History – The Netherlands Tilly Vriend
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin – Germany Susanne Baer
National Center for Social Research – Greece Maria Pantelidou Maloutas
Central European University – Hungary Viola Zentai
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen – The Netherlands Mieke Verloo
Universidad Complutense de Madrid – Spain María Bustelo
Peace Institute – Slovenia Vlasta Jalušić
Umeå Universitet – Sweden Malin Rönnblom
Middle East Technical University – Turkey Feride Acar
Lancaster University – United Kingdom Sylvia Walby
Contractors involved per activity (activity leaders in bold) LARG
IWM, Institute for Human Sciences – Austria Mieke Verloo & Birgit Sauer
National Center for Social Research – Greece Maria Pantelidou Maloutas
Central European University – Hungary Viola Zentai
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen – The Netherlands Mieke Verloo
Universidad Complutense de Madrid – Spain María Bustelo
Peace Institute – Slovenia Vlasta Jalušić
Umeå Universitet – Sweden Malin Rönnblom
Middle East Technical University – Turkey Feride Acar
Lancaster University – United Kingdom Sylvia Walby
STRIQ
IWM, Institute for Human Sciences – Austria Mieke Verloo & Birgit Sauer
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin – Germany Susanne Baer
National Center for Social Research – Greece Maria Pantelidou Maloutas
Central European University – Hungary Viola Zentai
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen – The Netherlands Mieke Verloo
Universidad Complutense de Madrid – Spain María Bustelo
108
Peace Institute – Slovenia Vlasta Jalušić
Umeå Universitet – Sweden Malin Rönnblom
Middle East Technical University – Turkey Feride Acar
Lancaster University – United Kingdom Sylvia Walby
WHY
IWM, Institute for Human Sciences – Austria Mieke Verloo & Birgit Sauer
National Center for Social Research – Greece Maria Pantelidou Maloutas
Central European University – Hungary Viola Zentai
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen – The Netherlands Mieke Verloo
Universidad Complutense de Madrid – Spain María Bustelo
Peace Institute – Slovenia Vlasta Jalušić
Umeå Universitet – Sweden Malin Rönnblom
Middle East Technical University – Turkey Feride Acar
Lancaster University – United Kingdom Sylvia Walby
OPERA
IWM, Institute for Human Sciences – Austria Mieke Verloo
Yellow Window – Belgium Lut Mergaert
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin – Germany Susanne Baer
National Center for Social Research – Greece Maria Pantelidou Maloutas
Central European University – Hungary Viola Zentai
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen – The Netherlands Mieke Verloo
Universidad Complutense de Madrid – Spain María Bustelo
Peace Institute – Slovenia Vlasta Jalušić
Umeå Universitet – Sweden Malin Rönnblom
Middle East Technical University – Turkey Feride Acar
Lancaster University – United Kingdom Sylvia Walby
FRAGEN
IWM, Institute for Human Sciences – Austria Mieke Verloo
Aletta, Institute for Women’s History - The Netherlands Tilly Vriend
National Center for Social Research – Greece Maria Pantelidou Maloutas
Central European University – Hungary Viola Zentai
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen – The Netherlands Mieke Verloo
Universidad Complutense de Madrid – Spain María Bustelo
Peace Institute – Slovenia Vlasta Jalušić
Umeå Universitet – Sweden Malin Rönnblom
109
Middle East Technical University – Turkey Feride Acar
Lancaster University – United Kingdom Sylvia Walby
List of all researchers involved
Feride Acar ● Alba Alonso Álvarez ● Gülbanu Altunok ● Jo Armstrong ● Susanne Baer ●
Erika Björklund ● María Bustelo Ruesta ● Maria Carbin ● Stanislava Chrobáková Repar ●
Rossella Ciccia ● Magdalena Dabrowska ● Saniye Dedeoğlu ● Jasminka Dedić ● Ana de
Mendoza ● Sara de Jong ● Elena del Giorgio ● Tamás Dombos ● Ana Espírito Santo ● Lucy
Ferguson ● Inês Nunes Fernandes ● Ana Fernández de Vega ● Maxime Forest ● Ana Frank
● Asuman Göksel ● Elif Gözdaşoğlu Küçükalioğlu ● Zelia Gregoriou ● Hannele Harjunen ●
Majda Hrženjak● Martin Jaigma ● Vlasta Jalušić ● Julie Jarty ● Manina Kakepaki ● Janet
Keim ● Erika Kispéter ● Andrea Krizsán ● Roman Kuhar ● Marja Kuzmanić ● Elin Kvist ●
Sophie Lauwers ● Emanuela Lombardo ● Valentina Longo ● Silvia López ● Laura Maratou-
Alipranti ● Saskia Martens ● Gé Meulmeester ● Petra Meier ● Lut Mergaert ● Anna Nikolaou
● Lucy Nowottnick Chebout ● Zuzana Očenašova ● Kaja Ocvirek Krušić ● Maria Pantelidou
Maloutas ● Florence Pauly ● Amaia Pérez Orozco ● Elin Peterson ● Vilana Pilinkaite-
Sotirović ● Raquel Platero ● Raluca Maria Popa ● Ana Prata ● Aivita Putnina ● María
Reglero ● Julie Rigaudière ● Conny Roggeband ● Ingrid Röder ● Lise Rolandsen Agustín ●
Malin Rönnblom● Maria Sangiuliano ● Birgit Sauer ● Elena Stoykova-Doganova ● Sofia
Strid ● Melinda Szabó ● Karin Tertinegg ● Maria Thanopoulou ● Joanna Tsiganou ● Doris
Urbanek ● Marleen van der Haar ● Anna van der Vleuten ● Femke van der Wal ● Mieke
Verloo ● Tilly Vriend ● Renée Wagener ● Sylvia Walby ● Lisa Wewerka ● Viola Zentai
Subcontractors in FRAGEN Stichwort Archiv der Frauen und Lesbenbewegung – Austria Margit Hauser
Archives Centre for Women's History – Belgium Els Flour
RoSa Documentatiecentrum – Belgium Chris Zwaenepoel
Bulgarian Association of University Women (BAUW) – Bulgaria Krassimira Daskalova
Centre for Women’s Studies – Croatia Sandra Prlenda
Mediterranean Institute for Gender Studies (MIGS) – Cyprus Josie Christodoulou
Gender Studies Centre, O.P.S – Czech Republic Linda Sokačová
Kvinfo, the Danish Centre for Information on Jytte Larsen
Women and Gender – Denmark
Estonian Women’s Studies and Resource Centre (ENUT) – Estonia Raili Poldsaar
Association Nationale des Etudes Féministes (ANEF) – France Nicole Décuré
FFBIZ Women's Research, Education and Ursula Nienhaus
Information Centre – Germany
The Hellenic Literary and Historical Archive (E.L.I.A.) – Greece Argiro Agelopoulou
MONA Foundation for the Women of Hungary – Hungary Andrea Matolcsi
110
UCC Library, University College Cork – Ireland Carol Quinn
Italian Women’s Library – Italy Annamaria Tagliavini
Latvian Institute of Economics, las – Latvia Parsla Eglite
Vilnius University Gender Studies Centre – Lithuania Lijana Stundže
Cid-femmes Centre d'Information et de Documentation Kathrin Eckhart
des Femmes Thers Bodé – Luxembourg
Malta Confederation of Women’s Organizations– Malta Lorraine Spiterri
Aletta, Institute for Women's Studies (formerly IIAV) – The Netherlands Sara de Jong
Feminoteka Foundation – Poland Joanna Piotrowska
UMAR Feminist Documentation Centre and Joana Sales
Archive Elina Guimarães – Portugal
National School of Political Studies and Public Mihaela Miroiu
Administration – Romania
Women's Association Aspekt – Slovakia Jana Juranova
Association for promotion of equality and plurality, Vita Activa – Slovenia Mojca Dobnikar
Ca la Dona –Centre de Documentació – Spain Betlem Canizar Bel
WLIC Women's Library and Information Centre Foundation – Turkey Seyda Talu
The Women's Library, London Metropolitan University – United Kingdom Teresa Doherty
111
Annex 2: List of QUING work packages, reports, and milestones
Work package progress, months 1-54 WP1 Management & co-ordination, months 1-54
WP2 Dissemination & exploitation, months 1-54
WP3 Management of LARG activity, months 1-39
WP4 Literature search & methodology, months 2-11
WP5 Training of researchers & workshop, months 8-9
WP6 Selection of texts and conduct of country studies, months 8-19
WP7 Comparative analysis country–EU, months 18-28
WP8 Preparation of final report and recommendations, months 27-39
WP9 Management of WHY activity, months 1-45
WP10 Literature search & methodology, months 2-11
WP11 Institutional country studies, months 12-21
WP12 Analysis of explanatory factors, months 19-33
WP14Preparation of final report and recommendations, months 39-45
WP15 Management of STRIQ activity, months 1-39
WP16Literature search & methodology, months 2-31
WP17 Analysis of structural and political intersectionality, months 18-27
WP18Preparation of final report and recommendations, months 29-39
WP19 Management of FRAGEN activity, months 23-54
WP20 Construction of methodology, months 2-12
WP21 Selection & training of subcontractors, months 33-40
WP22 Selection of texts and filling of database, months 35-46
WP24 Maintaining and promoting the database, months 45-54
WP25 Management of OPERA activity, months 1-54
WP26 Conduct of literature search, months 9-14
WP27 Holding of expert meeting, months 12-15
WP28 Development of methodology and curriculum, months 15-22
WP29 Conduct of pilot training, months 15-22
WP30 Finalisation of curriculum standards, months 25-35
WP31 Training, months 36-51
WP32 Promoting and maintaining database & standards, months 36-54
112
List of reports, months 1-54 D1: Report on the launch workshop (November 2006)
D2: Description of research team with particular country expertise (February 2007)
D3: Project management structure (December 2006)
D4: Project intranet and website (December 2006)
D5: International Advisory Board (December 2006)
D6: Dissemination and exploitation plan (December 2006)
D7: Guidelines for preparing the state of the art report in LARG (December 2006)
D8: State of the art reports (March 2007)
D9: Frame and voice analysis methodology manual (April 2007)
D10: Sampling guidelines manual (April 2007)
D11: LARG country reports methodology manual (April 2007)
D12: Review of the literature on gender equality policies in the EU and its member states (May 2007)
D13: Report (theory) on intersectionality (May 2007)
D14: Research guidelines for the analysis of intersectionality elements in LARG and WHY (May 2007)
D15: LARG research guidelines (May 2007)
D16: Questionnaire to assess existing and past training experiences of national, regional and local institutions (May 2007)
D17/18: Reports on the LARG training workshop and the STRIQ methodology workshop (July 2007)
D19: Series of timelines of policy debates in selected topics (July 2007)
D20: Manual for the methodology of 'discursive institutionalism' (August 2007)
D21: Manual for the selection of texts (August 2007)
D22: Comparative study methodology manual for LARG (August 2007)
D23: Country study methodology manual for WHY (August 2007)
D24: Comparative study methodology manual for WHY (August 2007)
D25: Materials, guidelines and contents for the expert meeting (August 2007)
D26: Database on relevant gender training experts (September 2007)
D29: Report on gender training in all countries (September 2007)
D30/31: Report on the LARG and WHY interim workshop (October 2007)
D32: Report of the expert meeting to discuss gender training methodology, curricula, and experiences (October 2007)
D33: List of documents for coding (November 2007)
D34: Workshop report (December 2008)
D35: Series of reports analysing intersectionality in gender equality policies for each country and the EU (December 2008)
D36: Series of LARG comparative reports (January 2009)
113
D37: Guidelines for the selection of pilot countries (December 2007)
D38/39: Reports on the LARG training workshop and the STRIQ methodology workshop (April 2008)
D40: Series of LARG reports (May 2008)
D41: Series of WHY country context studies (June 2008)
D42: Conceptual framework for gender+ equality policies in a multicultural context (April 2009)
D43: Pilot manual for gender trainers including methodological and didactic guidelines (July 2008)
D45: Conceptual framework of inclusive equality policies, including good practices (April 2009)
D47/49: Series of WHY papers (June 2009)
D48: Proposal for a typology of gender equality frames (June 2009)
D50: Evaluation report assessing the pilot study and providing recommendations for training (June 2009)
D54/59/60/73: LARG conference, STRIQ conference report and outline of the final STRIQ report, WHY conference report and outline of the final WHY report (November 2009, revised version: April 2011)
D56: Report on curriculum workshops (November 2009)
D57: Manual for gender trainers. Guidelines towards a community of practice among gender+ trainers in Europe. A manual for training trainers through 3 online forums (December 2009)
D58: Monitoring and evaluation protocol for the training of trainers. Monitoring and evaluation protocol of the online forums (December 2009)
D61: Final LARG report (January 2010)
D62: Final STRIQ report (December 2009)
D64: Report on curriculum workshops (November 2009)
D65: Guidelines for curricula standards for gender+ training (August 2009)
D71: Final WHY report (June 2010)
D75: Report on the final OPERA workshop and outline of the final OPERA report (December 2010)
D78: Report on the training experience. Enhancing gender training capacity through a Community of Practice? (February 2011)
D81: Contract for transfer and maintaining the standards and database with selected high-quality partner (April 2011)
D82/84: National and international meetings (May 2011)
D86: OPERA conference report (April 2011)
D100: Selection and training of a group of subcontractors (January 2010)
D101: Report on FRAGEN database workshop. Training workshop report (January 2010)
D102: Manual for the selection of texts and database manual (January 2010)
D103: Quality assurance guidelines (January 2010)
D104: Database report FRAGEN (July 2010)
114
D105: Maintaining and promoting the FRAGEN database to third parties (December 2010)
D106: Contract for maintaining and promoting FRAGEN database (February 2011)
D107: FRAGEN workshop report (March 2011)
List of milestones, months 1-54 Launch workshop (October 2006)
Project management structure (December 2006)
Dissemination and exploitation plan (December 2006)
Mapping of existing gender equality policy research in each country (March 2007)
Draft report on intersectionality (March 2007)
Frame and voice analysis methodology (April 2007)
Draft of theoretical model (May 2007)
LARG research guidelines (June 2007)
Manuals for methodology of discursive institutionalism and country and comparative analysis (August 2007)
Annual report (November 2007)
Gathering of material for coding (November 2007)
Series of LARG country reports (April 2008)
Series of WHY country context studies (June 2008)
Pilot manual for gender trainers including methodological and didactic guidelines in OPERA (July 2008)
Series of reports analysing intersectionality in gender equality policies for each country and the EU (November 2008)
Annual report (November 2008)
Series of LARG comparative reports (January 2009)
STRIQ conceptual framework for gender+ equality policies in a multicultural context (April 2009)
STRIQ conceptual framework of inclusive equality policies, including good practices (April 2009)
Proposal for a typology of gender equality frames (June 2009)
Series of thematic explanatory papers in WHY (June 2009)
LARG-WHY-STRIQ conference (October 2009)
Annual report (November 2009)
OPERA manuals (December 2009)
Final STRIQ report (December 2009)
Final LARG report (January 2010)
Selection of subcontractors (January 2010)
Report on the database workshop for FRAGEN (January 2010)
115
Final WHY report (June 2010)
Report on the final OPERA workshop and outline of the final OPERA report (December 2010)
OPERA conference report (April 2011)
Final OPERA report (May 2011
Final report (May 2011)
116
2. Dissemination and use 2.1 All activities undertaken during the lifetime of the project 2.1.1 Exploitable knowledge and its use Exploitable Knowledge
Exploitable product(s) or measure(s)
Sector(s) of application
Timetable for commercial use
Patents or other IPR protection
Owner & Other Partner(s) involved
Analytical database of texts from the women’s movement
Available at http://www.fragen.nu/aletta/fragen (open access)
Aletta
Gender+ trainers database
The database is an important tool for supporting and strengthening a Community of Practice among gender+ trainers. It will be maintained and updated by the owner.
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)
2.1.2 Dissemination of knowledge a) general public Planned/ actual dates
Type1 Type of audience
2 Countries
addressed Size of audience
Partner responsible/involved
TBC Press release, Radio 3 Fahrenheit (Italian national radio)
General public Italy Italian Women’s Library/IWL, Bologna, Annamaria Tagliavini
May 2011
Press release, IWM Newsletter General public All QUING countries
1 IWM, Lisa Wewerka
Mar 2011
Radio Interview on the International Women's Day in Bulgaria, aired live on Bulgarian National Radio
General public Bulgaria 6 CEU, Elena Stoykova
8 Mar 2011
Press release: Interview, local page of Corriere della Sera
General public Italy Italian Women’s Library/IWL, Bologna, Annamaria Tagliavini
Feb 2011
FFBIZ website General public Global More than 3000
FFBIZ/Ida-Dachverband
6 Feb 2011
Interview for press release, Die Presse (daily newspaper)
General public All QUING countries
1 IWM, Mieke Verloo, Birgit Sauer
Jan 2011
Online information on FRAGEN at http://www.caladona.org/?s=Fragen
General public Catalunya, Spain, Europe
10,000 Ca la dona, Barcelona
2010 Media briefing before local elections, panel on gender equality in electoral programmes
General public 20 6 CEU,Magdalena Dabrowska
2010 Series of lectures “Babel Tower” General public 80 6 CEU,Magdalena Dabrowska
2010 Conference “It's time for woman” General public 100 6 CEU,Magdalena Dabrowska
15-16 Oct 2010
Paper, “Gender claims and democracy”, conference on Questioning Citizenship: Political Discourse, Norms and History in Comparative Perspectives, Goethe Institute, Athens
General public Greece 5 EKKE, M. Pantelidou Maloutas
Jun 2010
News: The FRAGEN project in full swing, English newsletter Aletta
General EU 637 13 Alet
26 May 2010
Lecture, Kitchen Table Seminar Aletta General public 30 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
Mar 2010
FFBIZ website General public Global More than 3000
FFBIZ/Ida-Dachverband
12 Mar 2010
Interview, “I don’t want to be a ‘real man’”, Mladina, No. 10, 50-51.
General public Slovenia More than 5000
8 PI, Roman Kuhar
Jan Press release, Orlando Association web magazine: General public Italy Italian Women’s Library/IWL,
118
2010 http://www.women.it/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=728&Itemid=83)
Bologna, Silvia Radicioni, Federica Fabbiani
Jan 2010
Press release (radio) General public Bulgaria Bulgarian Association of University Women (BAUW), Milena Kirova
Nov 2009
Press release, The Italian Women’s Library website at http://www.women.it/bibliotecadelledonne/fragen.htm
General public Italy ca 1000 per month
Italian Women’s Library/IWL, Bologna, Silvia Radicioni
Oct 2009
Paper, “Intersectionality and discrimination”, conference on Multiple Discrimination and Intersection: Experience and Opportunities, Ljubljana
General public Slovenia 50 8 PI, Roman Kuhar
10 Oct 2009
Interview, “The law will not dismantle homophobia”, Dobro jutro magazine
General public Slovenia 350,000 8 PI, Roman Kuhar
9 Oct 2009
Paper “Gender equality policies in Greece: the impact of ‘Europeanization’”, conference onReclaiming Gender: Gender equality policies in Cyprus and the EU, Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies,Nicosia
General public Greece, Cyprus
5 EKKE, M. Kakepaki
8 Oct 2009
TV Interview, “Family code, intimate citizenship and same-sex partnership/families”, TV Slovenia (national TV)
General public Slovenia 8 PI, Roman Kuhar
Sep 2009
TV interview on the situation of LGBT families raising children and how recent legal developments in several European countries have dealt with the issue, aired on Hungarian Public Television, TV2, and RTL Klub
General public Hungary 6 CEU, Tamás Dombos
Sep 2009
Radio interview on socio-legal developments concerning LGBT people, aired on Hungarian Public Radio
General public Hungary 6 CEU, Tamás Dombos
30 Sep 2009
Radio interview, “Family code, intimate citizenship and same-sex partnership/families”, Radio Aktual
General public Slovenia 320,000 8 PI, Roman Kuhar
30 Sep 2009
Roundtable discussion, focus: intimate citizenship and same-sex partnership/families, TV Slovenia (national TV)
General public Slovenia 8 PI, Roman Kuhar
Jul 2009 Interview on challenges that mixed nationality couples face with current Hungarian and European legislation on same sex couples, in Time Out Budapest
General public Hungary 6 CEU, Tamás Dombos
Jul 2009 Radio interview on newly introduced registered partnership ceremonies, aired on Hungarian Public Radio
General public Hungary 6 CEU, Tamás Dombos
Jun Information on FRAGEN project on Aletta website General public International 13 Alet
119
2009 (http://www.aletta.nu/aletta/eng/projects/fragen)
May 2009
Press release on FRAGEN project, External newsletter Aletta
General public 450 13 Alet
5 May 2009
Open lecture on EU and gender equality, organised by the Gender Equality Committee, the municipality of Umeå
General public Sweden, EU 10 UM, Elin Kvist
Apr-Jul 2009
Gender Lectures on “Political participation and gender”, Berlin
General public Germany 30 4 HU
24 Feb 2009
Presentation, “Gender Equality at the Crossroads. New and Old Politics of Privilege and Exclusion“, IWM Monthly Lecture, Vienna
General public Austria 60 1 IWM, Mieke Verloo
Oct 2008-Feb 2009
Gender Lectures series on “Value of Labour”, Berlin General public Germany 30 4 HU
12 Feb 2008
Radio interview, Domradio Köln General public Germany 1 IWM
1-7 Mar 2008
Press releases on the quality of gender+ equality policies in Austria, published by OTS-APA
General public Austria 1 IWM, Karin Tertinegg
11 Nov 2007
Radio interview, Radio Orange General public Austria 1 IWM
Jul 2007 Radio interviews on research on gender+ General public Germany 4 HU, Susanne Baer
Nov 2006
Press release General public Sweden 10 UM
b) policy-makers and civil society Planned/ actual dates
Type1 Type of audience
2 Countries
addressed Size of audience
Partner responsible/involved
Oct 2011
Archive briefing Archivists Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Germany
ca 45 FFBIZ/Ida-Dachverband
Jun 2011
Press release, IBC Magazine Library sector Italy Italian Women’s Library/IWL, Bologna, Annamaria Tagliavini
6 Jun 2011
Workshop, Bratislava UN Women meets QUING Policy-makers All QUING countries
7 RAD, Mieke Verloo; 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán; 9 UCM, Lise Rolandsen Agustín, Silvia López;
120
11 METU, Feride Acar, Gülbanu Altunok
16 May 2011
Meeting between the FRAGEN Project Romania (Neaga Diana and Valentin Nicolescu) and a number of Romanian NGOs
NGOs Romania NSPSPA (National School of Political Studies and Public Administration), Romania
4 May 2011
Workshop for Librarians Librarians Italy 8 Italian Women’s Library/IWL, Bologna, Silvia Radicioni, Annamaria Tagliavini
28-29 Apr 2011
Lectures, Ottawa, Canadian government Policy-makers EU 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
26 Apr 2011
Press release via mailing lists: Orlando, Lilith (Italian network of women libraries, documentation centres and archives), SIS Società delle storiche, Women's Network Bologna
List subscribers Italy 641 Italian Women’s Library/IWL, Bologna, Silvia Radicioni
26 Apr 2011
Press release, Newsletter of the Italian Women's Library
Library users, local institutions
Italy 2240 Italian Women’s Library/IWL, Bologna, Roberta Ricci
28 Mar 2011
Workshop for Librarians of the French region of Aquitaine
Librarians Italy 20 Italian Women’s Library/IWL, Bologna, Annamaria Tagliavini
8 Mar 2011
Press conference: brief presentation about the problems of gender-based violence in Lithuania
MPs, media representatives
Lithuania 10 6 CEU, Vilana Pilinkaite-Sotirović
Jan 2011 – present
Course for civil servants, “Gender equality policies in the EU”, taught at the Institute of Public Administration
Civil servants EU 80 6 CEU, Vilana Pilinkaite-Sotirović
Jan 2011
Presentation on the FRAGEN meeting in Budapest to the ENUT board members and employees
ENUT board and employees
Estonia 7 Estonian Women’s Studies and Resource Centre
2010 European Parliament Public Hearing, ‘Towards a new gender equality strategy: objectives and priorities’
Policy-makers EU 80 12 LANC, Sylvia Walby
Dec 2010
Newsletter of the IFRWH Members of all 33 National Committees of the Federation
33 member countries
Bulgarian Association of University Women (BAUW), Krassimira Daskalova
Nov-Dec 2010
Member of the parliamentary group on drafting the law concerning gender-based violence in Lithuania
MPs, representatives of the government and women’s NGOs
Lithuania 15 6 CEU, Vilana Pilinkaite-Sotirović
Nov Press conference on combating violence against MPs, media EU and 10 6 CEU, Vilana Pilinkaite-Sotirović
121
2010 women, brief presentation about the policies on gender-based violence in the EU and Lithuania
representatives Lithuania
28-31 Oct 2010
Keynote speech, “Cross-movement politics and fighting inequalities”, 14th ILGA-Europe's Annual Conference “Expressing our differences, challenging our prejudices, developing our alliances”, The Hague
NGO, activists, policy-makers
EU 170 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
Sep 2010
Annual conference of German archivists Archivists Germany 24 FFBIZ/VdA
Sep 2010
Workshop Frauenstadtarchiv Dresden Archivists Germany 5 FFBIZ
23-24 Sep 2010
Lecture, “The QUING Project Quality in Gender+ Equality Policies in Europe. OPERA activity: focus on gender training in Europe”, The European Network on Gender Mainstreaming. Steering Group Meeting, Rome
Experts General 60 9 UCM, María Bustelo
21 Sep 2010
Presentation at the EIGE expert group meeting Gender Mainstreaming
Policy-makers EU 24 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
Jun 2010
Lecture, “La ley de igualdad: un primer balance a tres años de su aprobación“, Jornadas de Mujeres Sindicalistas: un nuevo modelo económico y social: retos y oportunidades para la igualdad de género, Secretaría Confederal de la Mujer. CC.OO. CES, Madrid
Unionists Spain 200 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Jun 2010
Plenary speech, „Framing Domestic Violence Policies in Countries of Europe”, conference on Domestic Violence of the Hungarian Association of Women Judges
Judges, civil society
All EU countries
100 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán
4-13 Jun 2010
Lecture, “When will maternity leave be gender just?”, keynote speech at the MINE (Mothers centers International Network for Empowerment) Grundtvig workshop, Schoorl, the Netherlands.
NGO EU 45 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
May 2010
Information FRAGEN project sent (via e-mail) to the Network of the Bulgarian Women’s NGOs
NGOs Bulgaria 1000 Bulgarian Association of University Women (BAUW), Kornelia Slavova
Apr 2010
Presentation on problems and limited solutions in the field of gender-based violence in Lithuania at the meeting of women’s NGO with the President of Lithuania
Representatives of the Government and women’s NGOs
Lithuania 40 6 CEU, Vilana Pilinkaite-Sotirović
122
Mar 2010
Lecture, Policy Evaluation course: ‘Evaluación desde una perspectiva de género:la transversalidad o ‘mainstreaming’ de género’, Organiser: NGO ‘TECUM’, Barcelona
International development professionals and volunteers
General and Spain
35 9 UCM, María Bustelo
5 Mar 2010
Presentation, Roundtable on Gender Mainstreaming, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, ILGA-Europe Brussels
European NGO’s EU 12 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
Jan-Feb 2010
Lectures within MATILDA M.A. Programme, Sofia University
Students from MATILDA M.A. Programme, plus ERASMUS exchange students at Sofia University
Bulgaria 10 Bulgarian Association of University Women (BAUW), Krassimira Daskalova
Jan 2010
Senatsverwaltung Berlin Policy-makers Germany 4 FFBIZ/Berlin women Network
2009 Keynote, ‘Violence against Women’, European Presidency conference, Stockholm, Sweden
Policy-makers EU 150 12 LANC, Sylvia Walby
18 Nov 2009
Lecture, “La evaluación de políticas públicas y el papel de los gobiernos locales intermedios”, High Managers Meeting. Diputación Provincial de Barcelona
High Public Administrators
Spain 40 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Oct 2009
Briefing note, “Spanish Policy on Gender Equality”, commissioned by the European Parliament
Members of the European Parliament
Spain, EU 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
Oct 2009
Seminar, “Dependent Persons in the European Union: Who Cares about Their Family Carers?”, Sofia
NGO activists EU 50 6 CEU, Vilana Pilinkaite-Sotirović
Oct 2009
Presentation “Are Women a Second Sex?”, conference on Combating Violence against Women, Kaunas
NGO activists, social workers
EU 30 6 CEU, Vilana Pilinkaite-Sotirović
17 Sep 2009
Lecture, “Perspectives normatives, usage de la comparaison, intersection du genre avec d’autres discriminations: trois enjeux pour l’analyse des politiques d’égalité en Europe”, DIU Personnes référentes égalité Hommes-femmes, La Sorbonne Paris III
Gender equality officers
EU 15 9 UCM, Maxime Forest
16 Sep 2009
Presentation of research results to the Swedish secretariat for Gender Research, Umeå Centre for Gender Studies, UM
Civil servants Nordic countries, EU
10 10 UM, Elin Kvist
123
31 Aug 2009
Policy-maker workshop Policy-makers, experts on gender equality policies
Austria 30 1 IWM, Karin Tertinegg
Jul 2009 Lecture, ”Cooperación internacional para el desarrollo y género”, IUDC-UCM
Civil servants, NGOs
9 UCM, Raquel Platero
2 Jul 2009
Symposium, 10th Anniversary of the German Law
Journal, Berlin Higher public administration, policy-makers
Germany, Canada, US
50 4 HU
12-13 Jun 2009
Workshop, “Gender+ Training Standards and Curriculum”, Madrid
TARGET & OPERA partners, gender trainers, consultants, commissioner
EU, US 30 7 RAD, 9 UCM, 2 EADC, 4 HU
May 2009
Gender Training, “Enfoque de género en las políticas locales’”, Instituto de la Mujer Castilla- La Mancha. Workshop ‘Formación para la transversalidad de género’
Civil servants, civil society actors
25 9 UCM, Silvia López
May 2009
Council of Europe Conference, “State budgets: a key factor in real equality between women and men”, Athens
Policy-makers Council of Europe countries
100 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán
19 May 2009
NGO Workshop on Austrian gender equality policies and disability policies, Vienna
NGOs Austria 20 1 IWM, Karin Tertinegg
17 May 2009
Symposium, ”How to move forward with Art. 3 of the Basic Law?“, Berlin
Civil society, policy-makers
Germany 30 4 HU
Apr 2009
Lectures, Basic principles in gender equality, Series of Lectures for the Cuerpo superior de la Administración Pública, Instito de la Mujer, Junta de Castilla-la-Mancha
Civil servants, civil society actors
25 9 UCM, Silvia López
Mar 2009
Panel, Conference Bibliostar, National conference for librarians
Librarians Italy 50 Italian Women’s Library/IWL, Bologna, Annamaria Tagliavini
20-21 Mar 2009
Workshop, “International Gender Expertise: What in the World Does This Mean?”, Boston
TARGET & OPERA partners
EU, US 30 7 RAD; 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo, María Bustelo; 2 EADC; 4 HU
Jan 2009
Gender training, Instituto de la Mujer, Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo
Policy-makers 50 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
Jan 2009
Forum Equality, “Equality governance”, Berlin Policy-makers, public administration
Germany, Austria, Denmark
20 4 HU
124
26 Jan 2009
Lecture, “Links between different equality struggles: general anti-discrimination frameworks vs specific strategies: concepts, issues and challenges for the women’s movement“, Seminar on Filling the Gender Equality Gap in European Legislation and Tackling Multiple Discrimination, European Women’s Lobby, Brussels
Women’s NGO, policy-makers
Europe 60 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
Nov 2008
Seminar, “Understanding multiple discrimination”, Druskininkai, Lithuania
Civil servants Lithuania 30 6 CEU, Vilana Pilinkaite-Sotirović
21-22 Nov 2008
Workshop/TARGET meeting, Nijmegen TARGET & OPERA partners, gender trainers, consultants
EU, US 20 7 RAD, 9 UCM, 2 EADC, 4 HU
30 Oct 2008-30 Oct 2009
Service contract with the State of Luxembourg on gender mainstreaming in regular training of state officials (application of OPERA-gained knowledge)
Public service officers
Luxembourg All Luxembourg state civil servants were reached
2 EADC
Oct 2008
Gender training, Instituto de la Mujer, Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo
Policy-makers 100 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
July 2008
Training, Equality in private firms, 4-day training session, Universidad Pablo de Olavide. Summer School in Carmona (Sevilla)
Managers Spain 20 9 UCM, María Bustelo
June 2008
Gender training workshop Civil servants Sweden 12 10, UM, 9 UCM
June 2008
Conference, “The invisibility of lesbians in equality policies“, Workshop ‘Ni + ni –‘, Tríbadas, Xega y Consejo de la Juventud de Asturias
LGTBQ Activists Spain 65 9 UCM, Raquel Platero
Apr 2008
Expert meeting on gender+ training with Likadi trainers, Madrid
Gender trainers Spain 5 9 UCM, María Bustelo, Emanuela Lombardo, Amaia Pérez Orozco
8 Mar 2008
Conference Women’s NGOs, politicians
Lithuania 50 6 CEU, Vilana Pilinkaite-Sotirović
12-14 Feb 2008
Regional Conference on Legal Reform on Domestic Violence, Sofia
NGO representatives, advocates and government officials
Multiple 150 6 CEU
125
9-10 Nov 2007
Paper, “Análisis de los ‘marcos interpretativos’ de las políticas de conciliación, trabajo y cuidado”, Conference on Política, Empresa y Sociedad. Un camino hacia la conciliación, Municipality of Alaquás
Local politicians, civil servants, managers
Spain 20 9 UCM, Elin Peterson
28 Sep 2007
Conference, “Catch the Wind“, organised by the Association of Hungarian Women, Budapest
NGO activists Europe 35 6 CEU, Tamás Dombos
c) academics and students Planned/ actual dates
Type1 Type of audience
2 Countries
addressed Size of audience
Partner responsible/involved
planned Workshop, “Online feminism: the Romanian experience”
Academics, students
Romania NSPSPA (National School of Political Studies and Public Administration), Romania
14-19 Apr 2012
Workshop organiser(with Amy Mazur), “Thinking big. Gender equality policies in the comparative politics of gender”, ECPR Joint Sessions, Antwerp
Academics EU and global
7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
2011 Magazine article Academics Denmark, Scandinavia
ca 1000 Kninfo, Denmark, Jytte Larssen
Oct 2011
Invited paper, “Exploring gender+ norms and feminist taboos: a discursive politics approach” (QUING theory and methodology), Helsinki
Academics, PhD students
Several QUING cases
9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
Sep 2011
Panel at Women's History Network Conference 2011, London
Academics Europe 13 Alet
1-4 Sep 2011
Roundtable participant, APSA, roundtable on the RNGS capstone book
Academics EU 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
25-27 Aug 2011
Papers, roundtable chair and convenor, ECPR Reykjavik, Plenary Roundtable on Gender and Politics, 'Globalisation and Inequality. Explaining Change in Gender and Politics'
Academics EU 12 LANC, Sylvia Walby; 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo, Marleen van der Haar
Jul 2011 Paper, “Reconciling work and family at different stages of life in France and Spain”, ESA 2011 Conference, Geneva
Academics 7 RAD, Julie Jarty
Jun 2011
Flyer dissemination/Network of social movement archives
Academics Germany ca 45 FFBIZ
23-25 Jun 2011
Papers at SASE Madrid, 23rd Annual Meeting on Socio-Economics, Gender Equality in the Welfare State: Patterns of Leave Regulations in an Enlarged
Academics EU 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo, Rossella Ciccia, Julie Jarty
126
Europe
9-10 Jun 2011
Paper, Conference Politicologenetmaal “Intersectional and cross-movement politics and policies: reflections on current practices and debates”
Academics 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
May 2011
Presentation of FRAGEN Netherlands at Aletta Inst. Academics The Netherlands
13 Alet
12-13 May 2011
Lecture, Conference Comparing Civil Societies: Germany and the Netherlands, Münster
Academics The Netherlands, Germany
7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
Apr 2011
Article, UCC Library News: http://booleweb.ucc.ie/index.php?pageID=332
Higher education Ireland ca 1000 UCC Library, Carol Quinn
Apr 2011
Panel at AtGender conference, Utrecht Academics Europe 20 13 Alet
Apr 2011
Research seminar, “Une cartographie des recherche sur le genre en politique en Europe centrale“, CEFRES, Prague
Academics QUING cases
9 UCM, Maxime Forest, Zuzana Očenašová
15-17 Apr 2010
Papers and Panel, “The Europeanisation of gender and other equality policies: sociological and discursive approaches”, Seventeenth Council for European Studies International Conference. Europeanization frame in non-heterosexual intimacy policies in Europe, Montréal
Academics Canada, US, EU
60 or more 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo, Maxime Forest, María Bustelo; 8 PI, Roman Kuhar
12-13 Apr 2011
QUING symposium on gender-based violence policies in the EU, Lancaster
Academics All QUING countries
15 12 LANC, Sylvia Walby, Sofia Strid; 1 IWM, Mieke Verloo; 5 EKKE: Zelia Gregoriou; 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán, Raluca Maria Popa, Magdalena Dabrowska; 9 UCM, Lise Rolandsen Agustín
7 Apr 2011
Lecture, “The QUING Project. Quality in Gender+ Equality Policies. OPERA: Gender Training in Europe”. Ciclo de Conferências Internacionais. Políticas de igualdade de género: contextos, vozes e desígnios. Faculdade de Economia da Universidade de Coimbra
Academics EU 9 UCM, María Bustelo
28 Mar-1 Apr 2011
Seminar and teaching, Jyväskylä University Students and academics
Finland 60 10 UM, Elin Kvist
Mar Database presentation to students of the Social Students Romania NSPSPA (National School of
127
2011 Sciences and Public Administration Faculty, Bucharest
Political Studies and Public Administration), Romania
Mar 2011
Presentation of the FRAGEN website to students of the Gender and Minorities M.A. programme, NSPSPA
Students Romania NSPSPA (National School of Political Studies and Public Administration), Romania
Mar 2011
Roundtable participation, ‘Crisis on care’, Jornadas Feministas, UCM
Students and academics
International, Europe and Spain
60 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Mar 2011
Lecture,Conference and PhD course on Feminist Discursive Methodologies, QUING CFA theory and methodology workshop, Tarragona
PhD students Several, esp. Spain
35 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
Mar 2011
Lectures,Comparative politics class, QUING CFA theory and methodology workshop, UCM
Students Several, esp. Spain and EU
65 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
Mar 2011
Interview on the gender issues in Bulgaria, Konstrukt Magazine Online
Academics, higher education
Bulgaria 6 CEU, Elena Stoykova
17-18 Mar 2011
Postdoc seminar on non-employment Academics All QUING countries
7 1 IWM, Mieke Verloo, postdoctoral researchers
14 Mar 2011
Presentation of the project and FRAGEN database, Interdisciplinary course in Gender Studies, organised by the University of Bologna and the Orlando Association
Students Italy 40 Italian Women’s Library/IWL, Bologna, Annamaria Tagliavini
Feb-Jun 2011
Lectures, ‘Critical Policy Frame Analysis’, ‘Gender and Evaluation’,‘Metaevaluation of Gender Equality Policies’, Master on Public Management, UCM, Course on Evaluation applied to Public Administrations
M.A. students General and Spain
36 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Feb-Jun 2011
Undergraduate university course, “Sociology of Gender“, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Department of Sociology
Higher education International 35 6 CEU, Elena Stoykova
Feb-Mar 2011
BA/MA Course on Politics, power and gender Students EU 20 7 RAD: Marleen van der Haar, Mieke Verloo
Feb-Mar 2011
BA/MA Course on Gender theories and equality policies
Students EU 20 7 RAD, Marleen van der Haar, Mieke Verloo, Rossella Ciccia
Feb 2011
Article, “Feministische teksten online”, Lover, vol. 38, spring 2011, p. 30.
Higher education, academics
The Netherlands
3200 13 Alet
Feb Flyer dissemination Academics Germany, 15 FFBIZ
128
2011 Poland, US, Ukraine
Feb 2011
Launch of FRAGEN website, http://www.medinstgenderstudies.org/category/current-projects
Academics EU Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies, MIGS, Cyprus
Feb 2011
Blog message(http://www.talktoaletta.nu) Fragen.meer vragen
Higher education and academics
The Netherlands
9698 13 Alet
Feb 2011
Press release in Dutch, Lancering van FRAGEN website
Higher education and academics
The Netherlands
2609 13 Alet
Feb 2011
Press release in English, Launch FRAGEN website and database
Higher education and academics
International 937 13 Alet
Feb 2011
News on Aletta website (www.fragen.nu), Core European feminist texts online
Higher education and academics
International 1,000,000 per year
13 Alet
Feb 2011
Article, FRAGEN Nederland/Dutch newsletter Aletta Higher education and academics
The Netherlands
817 13 Alet
Feb 2011
Article, Core European feminist texts online in English Newsletter Aletta
Higher education and academics
International 637 13 Alet
Feb 2011
Kitchen Table seminar at Aletta Institute Higher education and academics
The Netherlands
40 13 Alet
Feb 2011
Seminar presentation, „Assessing the quality of gender equality policies in Europe: violence against women“, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University
Academics EU 20 12 LANC, Jo Armstrong, Sofia Strid
Feb 2011
Lectures, Master gender and development, QUING findings on gender equality policies and intersectionality, ICEI, UCM
Students Several, esp. Spain and EU
40 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
Feb 2011
Lectures, “Gender Equality Policies: Analysis and Evaluation”, Master on Gender and Development. Universidad del País Vasco (UPV)
M.A. students General and Spain
10 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Feb 2011
Lectures, “Gender Equality Policies: Analysis and Evaluation”, Master on Gender and Development, UCM
M.A. students General and Spain
25 9 UCM, María Bustelo
24-25 Feb 2011
Postdoc seminar on gender-based violence Academics All QUING countries
7 1 IWM, Mieke Verloo, postdoctoral researchers
22 Feb 2011
Guest lecture, course on comparative politics, Nijmegen
Students EU 80 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
18 Feb Discussant and Chair, NOV Research Day PhD students 45 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
129
2011 Conference, session on Europe, Utrecht
Jan-Apr 2011
Graduate university course, “Politics of Violence against Women”, Department of Public Policy, CEU, Budapest
Higher education International 20 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán
Jan 2011
Article in Information Professional, European feminist texts in online database
Higher education The Netherlands
3800 13 Alet
Jan 2011
Blogmessage on Talk to Aletta, “Wat zijn de 10 belangrijkste teksten?”
Higher education and academics
The Netherlands
500 13 Alet
Jan 2011
Lecture, Public politics class, QUING CFA theory and methodology workshop, UCM
Students Several, esp. Spain and EU
60 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
Jan 2011
Paper, “Un regard comparatif sur le cadrage des politiques du genre en Europe“, Séminaire “Genre et mobilisations collectives“, EHESS
Academics, M.A. students
QUING cases
20 9 UCM, Maxime Forest
13-15 Jan 2011
Keynote address and QUING panels on “Policies on Violence against Women in Europe” and “The Europeanization of gender equality policy: discursive-sociological approaches”, 2nd ECPG Conference, Budapest
Academics International 340 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán, Viola Zentai, Raluca Popa; 1 IWM, Mieke Verloo; 9 UCM, Alba Alonso, Maxime Forest, María Bustelo, Lucy Ferguson, Emanuela Lombardo; 11 METU, Feride Acar, Gülbanu Altunok; 12: Jo Armstrong, Sofia Strid, 13 Alet
2010 Keynote conference presentation, “Intersectionality and the equality architecture“, Newcastle
Academics UK, EU 25 12 LANC, Sylvia Walby
2010 Congress of the Polish Association of Social Communication in Lublin
Academics Poland 10 6 CEU, Magdalena Dabrowska
Dec 2010
Academic seminar Higher education Greece 30 ELIA, Greece
1-3 Dec 2010
Papers presented at the ‘Equality is not enough’ Conference, Antwerp
Academics All QUING countries
40-200 9 UCM, Maxime Forest, Emanuela Lombardo; 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán, 10 UM, Elin Kvist
Nov 2010
Lecture, Master on Feminism and Gender. Gender equality policies, UCM
M.A. students General and Spain
30 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Nov 2010
Lecture, Gender equality policies (CFA) Students Several, esp. Spain and EU
40 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
Nov 2010
Interactive seminar, ”Human body. Social Body“, organised by the Association of Sociology Students at
Academics, higher education
International 60 6 CEU, Elena Stoykova
130
Sofia University
18-20 Nov 2010
Paper, “Social and family contexts of gay and lesbian life”, Slovenian Sociological Association Conference, Ljubljana
Academics Slovenia 60 8 PI, Roman Kuhar
17 Nov 2010
Faculty lecture on current developments in gender equality policies in Europe, Ruhr Universität Bochum
Students and faculty
EU 45 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
15-19 Nov 2010
Seminar and teaching, Jyväskylä University Students and academics
Finland 60 10 UM, Maria Carbin
Oct 2010 – Jan 2011
Undergraduate course, “Introduction to Sociology“, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, BA Programme “European Union and European Integration“
Higher education International 35 6 CEU, Elena Stoykova
Oct 2010 – Jan 2011
Undergraduate course, “Content Analysis“, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Department of Sociology
Higher education International 40 6 CEU, Elena Stoykova
Oct 2010
Paper, “The political treatment of inequality in Europe: a comparative analysis of Italy, Portugal and Spain”, 2
nd Annual REPS congress, CSIC, Madrid
Academics Spain, Italy, Portugal
40 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo, María Bustelo
15-16 Oct 2010
Discussant in the session on gender practices in networking at the interdisciplinary conference Gender in Practice: on the practical turn in gender and sexuality, Institute for Gender Studies, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Academics 80 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
Sep-Dec 2010
Graduate university course, “Men and women in society”, Faculty of Philology and Arts, Programme in Social and Cultural Anthropology
Higher education International 20 6 CEU, Aivita Putnina
Sep 2010
Paper,„Do Hard Times Require a New Theory on the Symbolic Representation of Women?“, APSA Annual Meeting, Washington
Academics Several 35 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo, Petra Meier
Aug 2010
Conference of the International Federation for Research in Women’s History, Amsterdam
Professional historians from 35 countries
EU and beyond
100 Bulgarian Association of University Women (BAUW), Krassimira Daskalova
5-9 Jul 2010
CEU Summer University Course on Feminist intersectionality and political discourse
Doctoral and post-doctoral researchers
QUING countries and beyond
25 6 CEU CPS, Andrea Krizsán, Raluca Popa, Viola Zentai; 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
2 Jul Panel and paper presentations, “Liminal citizenship: Academics EU 30 10 UM, Maria Carbin, Hannele
131
2010 exploring spaces in-between (gender) equality policies”, conference Beyond Citizenship – Feminism and the Transformation of Belonging, Birkbeck, University of London
Harjunen, Elin Kvist, Malin Rönnblom
Jun 2010
Plenary, ‘Theorising violence’, and paper, ‘Gender and the financial crisis: policies on violence against women and employment in the UK’, International Sociological Association, Gothenburg
Academics Global 250 12 LANC, Sylvia Walby, Jo Armstrong
Jun 2010
Lectures,‘Metaevaluation of Gender Equality Policies’, Master on Evaluation of Programmes and Public Policies, UCM
M.A. students General and Spain
26 9 UCM, María Bustelo
24 Jun 2010
Roundtable chairing, ”A discursive and cognitive approach to the Europeanization of Gender and other equality policies”, and paper, “Europeanizing gender equality policies in a multi-governed Spain: a cognitive approach”, 5th Interpretive Policy Analysis Conference, Grenoble
Academics Spain, France, Slovakia
12 9 UCM, Maxime Forest, Alba Alonso
14 May 2010
Paper, “Policy reforms encouraging paid domestic work – a challenge or necessity for gender equality”, conference ‘Changing Social Organization of Care and Its Implications for Social Politics’, Ljubljana
Academics EU 40 10 UM, Elin Kvist
Apr 2010
Article in Folia, Paarse September/liever lesbisch Academics The Netherlands
12,000 13 Alet
Apr 2010
Press release (Scholarly –Academic Newsletter Aletta)
Academics EU 200 13 Alet
Apr 2010
Lecture, ‘Gender Equality Policies in Spain’, Master on Equality Agents, Instituto de la Mujer e Instituto de Investigationes Feministas de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid
M.A. students Spain 15 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Apr 2010
Papers, “Frames in Contestation: Domestic Violence Policy Debates in Five Countries of Central and Eastern Europe” and “Constructing Europe in Making Domestic Violence Policies in Central and Eastern Europe”, Conference: Council for European Studies, Montréal
Academics 5 CEE countries
400 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán
Mar 2010
Comparative politics class,QUING CFA theory and methodology workshop, UCM
Students Several, esp. Spain and EU
40 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
132
Mar 2010
Paper, ”Europeanizing the Political Treatment of Inequalities in Southern Europe: a Comparative Analysis of Italy, Portugal and Spain”, IPSA Conference, Panel „Is there a European Model of Governance?, Luxembourg
Academics Spain, Italy, Portugal
40 9 UCM, María Bustelo, Emanuela Lombardo
23-27 Mar 2010
Paper, “Demarginalizing? Different strategies to address the reproduction of inequalities through category-making in policies”, ECPR (European Consortium for Political Research) Joint Sessions; Workshop Category-Making and Public Policy, Münster
Academics 30 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
Feb-Jun 2010
Lectures, Master on Research Methodology, UCM:Course on Evaluation of Social Programmes and Policies, ‘Critical Policy Frame Analysis’, ‘Gender and Evaluation’, ‘Metaevaluation of Gender Equality Policies’
M.A students General and Spain
25 9 UCM, María Bustelo
18-19 Feb 2010
Conference AtGender Academics EU 20-30 13 Alet
Jan-Apr 2010
Graduate university course “Equality Policy in Comparative Approach”, CEU, Budapest
Higher education International 20 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán, Viola Zentai
Jan 2010
Lectures, Master on Evaluation of Programmes and Public Policies, UCM
M.A. students General and Spain
26 9 UCM, María Bustelo
14 Jan 2010
Lecture and seminar participation, “Una visión de la situación de la evaluación en España: institucionalización, áreas, políticas y metodologías”, La evaluación de las políticas públicas: claves para la transparencia y la eficacia de la gestión en tiempos de crisis,IESE Business School, Madrid
Academics Spain 20 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Dec 2009
Article: FRAGEN, an exciting project, IFRWH newsletter
Academics Europe 450 13 Alet
Dec 2009
Report, FRAGEN training, Aletta online newsletter Higher education and academics
International 1000 13 Alet
Dec 2009
Plenary presentation on Equality Institutions in 10 CEE countries, conference on Traveling Gender Studies, Humboldt University Berlin
Academics 10 CEE countries
50 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán
9-11 Dec
Paper, 11th National Social Sciences Congress,
Ankara Academics, higher education
50-60 11 METU, Feride Acar, Gülbanu Altunok
133
2009
8-11 Dec 2009
Paper, Xiamen University Confucius Institute Partnership Workshop, Xiamen, China
Academics 30-40 11 METU, Feride Acar
13-14 Nov 2009
Keynote presentation, „Linking demographic balance and gender equality in European policies: Exclusions and privileges“, Annual Conference of the Gender and Women’s Studies Section within the German Association of Sociology, Bad Orb, Germany
Academics Germany 30 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
Oct 2009-May 2010
Undergraduate course on public policies, Department of Political Science, UCM
Undergraduate students
General and Spain
140 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Oct 2009
Congress of the Polish Association of Culture Studies Academics Poland 40 6 CEU, Magdalena Dabrowska
13-16 Oct 2009
Paper, International Multidisciplinary Women’s Conference, İzmir, Turkey
Academics 20-25 11 METU, Feride Acar, Gülbanu Altunok, Asuman Göksel
9 Oct 2009
Keynote presentation, „Institutionalising Intersectionality in the European Union? Policy Development and Contestation“, The Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies (MIGS), conference on Reclaiming Gender: Understanding Equality Policies in EU and Cyprus, University of Nicosia
Academics Cyprus, Greece
120 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo; 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
2-3 Oct 2009
LARG-STRIQ-WHY Conference, Budapest; D47/49 Higher education, research
All QUING countries
200 All QUING partners
Sep 2009
FRAGEN weblog, http://fragen-project.blogspot.com FRAGEN participants
EU 40 13 Alet
24-27 Sep 2009
Workshop, “European Legal and Political Systems”, Rosa-Mayreder College, Vienna
Higher education Austria 15 1 IWM, Birgit Sauer
23-25 Sep 2009
Papers and panel, “La 'interseccionalidad' del género con otras desigualdades: su reflejo en las políticas públicas”,IX Congreso Español de Ciencia Política, AECPA, Málaga
Academics Spain, Portugal, EU
15 9 UCM, Maxime Forest, Emanuela Lombardo, María Bustelo, Alba Alonso, Raquel Platero, Elin Peterson, Silvia López
10-12 Sep
Papers and panel, “The making of equality policies in the enlarging European Union. A multi-level
Academics Spain, Portugal, Italy
25 UCM, Maxime Forest, Emanuela Lombardo, Alba Alonso
134
2009 comparison of equality policy frames in Southern Europe”,5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam
9 Sep 2009
Presentation at the Centre for feminist social studies, Örebro, Sweden
Academics EU, Sweden, UK
20 12 LANC
5 Sep 2009
Paper, “What is the use of marriage for lesbians? The challenges of same sex marriage for lesbians in Spain”,9th Conference of the European Sociological Association, Lisbon
Academics Spain 15 9 UCM, Raquel Platero (with Raquel Osborne)
3-6 Sep 2009
Conference presentation, “'Gender' and 'Equality' in the European Union. Policy developments and contestations“, APSA Annual Meeting, Toronto
Academics US, Canada, International
500 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo; 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
10-16 Jul 2009
Paper, “Gender quotas and mainstreaming: sparring partners in gender equality policies?”, 21st IPSA World Congress, Preconference sessions (sponsored by the IPSA conference), RC 19 on Women, Politics and Policies, Santiago de Chile
Academics 30 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo, Petra Meier
Jun 2009
Lecture, “La planificación y evaluación con perspectiva de género”,Summer School ‘Estrategias, políticas públicas, planes de igualdad y acciones positivas’, UCM
Students 9 UCM, Raquel Platero
15 Jun 2009
Presentation at the workshop on Gender, Economy, Social justice and Care – from Theory to Practice, organised by the excellence project Challenging Democracy, UM
Academics Sweden, Spain
30 UM, Elin Kvist
4-7 Jun 2009
Presentations and Panel on gender politics and policy in the European Union, 7
th European Feminist
ResearchConference, Utrecht
Academics Global 500 6 CEU, Erika Kispéter; 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
May 2009
Lectures, M.A. in Gender Equality policies, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, FOREM – Secretaría Confederal de la Mujer de Comisiones Obreras
M.A. students 30 UCM, Silvia López, Raquel Platero
May 2009
Lecture, “La evaluación en las políticas de igualdad”, M.A. Gender Equality, University of Castilla-la-Mancha
M.A: students 30 9 UCM, Raquel Platero
May 2009
Seminar at the Polish Academy of Sciences Academics Poland 20 6 CEU, Magdalena Dabrowska
19 May 2009
Research Seminar, “Towards Intersectional Policy Analysis“, Umeå Universitet
Academics Germany 12 1 IWM, Doris Urbanek
4 May Presentation at the Centre for Feminist Social Studies, Academics UK, Sweden 15 12 LANC
135
2009 Örebro, Sweden
Apr-Jul 2009
Teaching on “Antidiscrimination Law”, “Norms & Normalities”, “Inequalities”
Higher education Germany, International
10.-53 4 HU
14-19 Apr 2009
Papers, ECPR Joint Sessions Conference, Lisbon Academics EU 200 6 CEU,Andrea Krizsán, Violetta Zentai; 9 UCM, Alba Alonso, María Bustelo, Maxime Forest, Emanuela Lombardo, Elena del Giorgio; 11 METU, Feride Acar, Gülbanu Altunok
Spring 2009
Seminar Higher education Greece 20 5 EKKE
19 Mar 2009
Conference presentation on the QUING project, Panel on Gender Equality Politics and Policies in the European Union, Gender, Politics and Society Study Group, Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University
Academics US 30 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo; 4 HU, Susanne Baer; 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo, María Bustelo
5-6 Mar 2009
Paper, "European ’Future Legacy’", "Contesting Europe" Conference at York University, Toronto
Academics Canada, EU, Turkey
30 8 PI, Ana Frank
Feb-Jun 2009
Undergraduate course, “Sociology of Gender“, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
Higher education International 40 6 CEU, Elena Stoykova
Feb-May 2009
Lectures,Undergraduate Course on Comparative Politics. Department of Political Science, UCM
Undergraduate students
EU 50 9 Emanuela Lombardo
Feb-May 2009
Lectures, Master Course on Gender and Politics, Master in Political Science, UCM
M.A. students 6 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
Feb-May 2009
Lecture series, “Managing public policies: selected issues”
Academics, students
Slovenia 15 8 PI, Vlasta Jalušić
Feb-Apr 2009
Teaching on constitutionalism and fundamental rights from a comparative perspective; Seminar on Law and Inequalities, University of Michigan
Higher education US, international
20 4 HU
Feb 2009
Lectures, Master of Gender Studies, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM)
M.A. students 40 9 UCM, Elin Peterson, Emanuela Lombardo, María Bustelo
Feb 2009
Lectures, Master on Feminism and Gender, UCM M.A. students 40 9 UCM, María Bustelo, Elin Peterson
Feb 2009
Workshop, "Post-accession Compliance", Vienna Institute for European Integration Studies
Academics CEEC 10 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán
Jan-Apr 2009
Graduate course, “Equality Policy in Comparative Approach”, Department of Public Policy, CEU
Higher education International 20 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán, Violetta Zentai
Jan Presentation, “The challenge of assessing ‘quality’ in Academics UK 20 12 LANC, Jo Armstrong
136
2009 gender equality policies”, Conference of the Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University, UK
21-23 Jan 2009
Papers and roundtable presentation, “EU gender projects – practising self-reflexitivity?“, ECPR Gender and Politics Conference, Belfast
Academics Europe 40 6 CEU,Tamás Dombos, Raluca Popa; 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo; 8 PI, Roman Kuhar, 9 UCM, Maxime Forest, María Bustelo, Emanuela Lombardo, Petra Meier, Lise Rolandsen Agustín, Alba Alonso
Dec 2008
GARNET PhD Seminar 7, “Global Governance, Regionalism and the Role of the EU: the Gender Dimension”
Academics International 35 6 CEU, Erika Kispéter, Raluca Popa
Nov 2008
Paper, “Norms and margins in the framing of gender equality, care work and the welfare state in Spanish policy debates”, Seminar Gender, University of Roskilde, Sweden
Academics Spain 9 UCM, Elin Peterson
Nov 2008
Lecture, “Gender equality policies“, M.A. in social work, major in gender equality, Universidad Pública de Navarra
Postgraduate students
Spain 25 9 UCM, Raquel Platero
Nov 2008
QUING workshop, Vienna Academics EU 50 6 CEU, Tamás Dombos, Andrea Krizsán, Raluca Popa, Viola Zentai; 8 PI, Ingrid Röder
Oct 2008
Paper, “Claiming for a Full Citizenship Status. Analysis of Policy Frames on Gender Violence in Spain”, Aalborg University
Academics Spain 15 9 UCM, Silvia López
Oct 2008
Paper, “Policy Frames on Gender-Based Violence in Spain. A Prolific Context”, Dep. of History, International and Social Studies, Aalborg University
Academics Spain 15 9 UCM, Silvia López
Oct 2008
Panel discussion, “Intersectionality as Methodology: Potentials and Challenges”, organised jointly by the Center for Policy Studies and the Department of Gender Studies, CEU
Academics International 80 6 CEU, Raluca Popa
Oct 2008
Congress of the Polish Association of Culture Studies Academics Poland 40 6 CEU, Magdalena Dabrowska
Oct 2008-May 2009
Lectures, Undergraduate Course on Public Policies. Department of Political Science, UCM
Undergraduate students
General and Spain
125 9 UCM, María Bustelo, Elin Peterson
137
Oct 2008-Feb 2009
Teaching on “Law and Society”, “Rechtssetzung – Grenzen des Rechts”, “Science – Institutions and Politics”, “Interdependencies transdisciplinary”
Higher education Germany, international
30-320 4 HU
Oct 2008-Jan 2009
Undergraduate course, “Content Analysis“, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
Higher education International 40 6 CEU, Elena Stoykova
Oct 2008-Jan 2009
Undergraduate course, “Introduction to Sociology“, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
Higher education International 12 6 CEU, Elena Stoykova
Sep 2008
Conferences Research International 15-40 10 UM
Sep 2008
1st Congress of Polish Association of Social Communication, panel on feminist studies
Academics Poland 30 6 CEU, Magdalena Dabrowska
Sep 2008
Panel, ECPR 4th Pan-European Conference on EU
Politics, Riga Academics EU 20 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo; 9 UCM,
Emanuela Lombardo, Maxime Forest
Sep 2008
Academic workshop Higher education Norway 20 10 UM
10-12 Sep 2008
Conference, “Family, marriage and parenthood in the Baltics, Russia and Eastern Europe”, Södertörn University College, Sweden
Academics Sweden, Finland, Baltic states, Russia, Hungary, Romania
50-100 6 CEU, Raluca Popa
1-5 Sep 2008
7th International Conference on Social Science Methodology, International Sociological Association Research Committee on Logic and Methodology (RC33), Naples
Academics All QUING countries
20 6 CEU, Tamás Dombos
Jul 2008 Paper, “Multiculturalism, feminism and minority rights in Europe”, International conference on Inclusion and Exclusion in and on the Borders of Europe, Peace Institute, Portorož
Academics EU, former Yugoslavia
30 8 PI, Ana Frank
Jul 2008 Conferences Research International 10-45 10 UM
20-25 Jul 2008
Paper, “The unbearable comfort of privacy: experiences of transparent closet in Slovenia”, XXIX
Academics Slovenia 50 8 PI, Roman Kuhar
138
International Congress of Psychology, Berlin
Jun 2008
Paper, “Framing care matters: envisioning gender equality and the welfare state in feminist theory and Spanish policy debates”, Critical studies on gender equality policies – Mediterranean and Nordic examples, Umeå
Academics Spain 20 9 UCM, Elin Peterson
6-8 Mar 2008
Connex Final Conference, “Civil Society Organizations and EU Equality”
Academics Slovenia, Croatia
15 8 PI, Roman Kuhar
Feb-May 2008
Lectures on gender policies, policy frame analysis and evaluation using material and data from QUING, M.A. in Social Work, UCM
Graduate students General 30 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Feb 2008
Paper, ‘Exploitation, emancipation and ‘women’s work’: Framing gender (in)equality in feminist theory and policy debates on care and domestic work’, Gender, Equality and Politics – European Futures, PSA Women and Politics Working Group Annual Conference, University of Surrey, UK
Academics Spain 25 9 UCM, Elin Peterson
7-8 Feb 2008
Paper, „Multiculturalism, feminism and minority rights in Europe“, Kokkalis programme, Tenth Annual Graduate Student Workshop, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge/Mass.
Academics EU, former Yugoslavia
30 8 PI, Ana Frank
Jan 2008
Public event, “Two faces of feminism: a debate with representatives of academia, media and politics”
Students Poland 100 6 CEU, Magdalena Dabrowska
Nov 2007
Lecture, “Is it possible that equality policies are reproducing inequality?”, M.A in Social Work, Universidad Pública de Navarra
Postgraduate students
Spain 25 9 UCM, Raquel Platero
Nov 2007
Paper, “La igualdad de género y los marcos interpretativos sobre la ‘conciliación’”, II Jornadas sobre Administración Pública y Género. Escuela Gallega de Administración Pública
Academics Spain 25 9 UCM, Elin Peterson
Nov 2007
Seminar lecture, MAGEEQ and QUING research projects, Research group on social policies, UCM
Academics Italy, Portugal, Spain, EU
10 9, UCM, María Bustelo Emanuela Lombardo, Silvia López, Elin Peterson, Raquel Platero
20 Nov 2007
Seminar lecture, ‘Debating European Frames on Gender Equality: Three Levels of Analysis’, organised by the Center for Policy Studies and the Department of Gender Studies, CEU
Academics Multiple 30 6 CEU; 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
139
Oct 2007-Feb 2008
Seminar on anti-discrimination Higher education Germany 40 4 HU
18-19 Oct 2007
International Conference E.S.S.H.R.A, Towards FP7/Enlarging the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Agenda
Academics Turkey, Malta, Bulgaria, Switzerland
250 11 METU
Sep 2007
Teaching on “Anti-discrimination law in Europe” Higher education Canada 20 4 HU
5-8 Sep 2007
Panels on “Gender-based violence”, “Gender and intersectional analysis”, “Gender debates entering policy agendas”, ECPR conference, Pisa
Academics Europe 1 IWM, 6 CEU, 7 RAD, 8 PI, 9 UCM, 10 UM, 11 METU
25-28 Jul 2007
International Conference on Law and Society with workshops on gender and law
Academics All QUING countries
2800 in total, ca 60 in workshops
4 HU
19-21 Jul 2007
Workshop, “Gender Knowledge and Knowledge Networks in International Political Economy”, held in the framework of the GARNET Network of Excellence
Academics, higher education
International 20 6 CEU, Viola Zentai
Jun 2007
“After Empire: Gender Boundaries as the Boundaries of Nations”, European Humanities University (Belarus), Centre for Gender Studies, Vilnius
Academics, higher education
Poland 80 6 CEU, Magdalena Dabrowska
18 May 2007
Slovenian case study, International Seminar “Domestic Service and Social Economy in the Eastern European Region”, East-East programme
Academics, higher education
Slovenia 80 8 PI, Majda Hrženjak
17 Apr 2007
Project information Academics, higher education
Norway 30 10 UM
Mar-Jun 2007
Workshops on the course “El tajo del sexo: la construcción política del género y la sexualidad”, Feminist Laboratory, UCM
Academics, higher education
Spain 15 9 UCM, Ana Fernández de Vega
Feb 2007
QUING presentation at the FEMCIT kick-off meeting Academics Europe 30 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
6 Feb 2007
Project information Academics, higher education
Sweden 10 10 UM
Nov 2006
Workshop, Gender equality policies in Spain: analysis and evaluation, UCM
Higher education Spain 30 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Oct M.A. workshop, MAGEEQ and QUING theory and M.A. students Spain 50 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
140
2006 methodology (2 sessions)
d) various types of audiences Planned/ actual dates
Type1 Type of audience
2 Countries
addressed Size of audience
Partner responsible/involved
2011 Information on FRAGEN in reports on and a future printed leaflet on the documentation centre
General public, academics
Catalunya, Spain, Europe
1000 Ca la dona, Barcelona
2011 ENUT seminars – presentation of FRAGEN database to participants
Mixed Estonia ca 150 Estonian Women’s Studies and Resource Centre
Autumn 2011
Open seminar on gender mainstreaming and training, in collaboration with the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions
General public and civil servants
Sweden 100 10 UM, Malin Rönnblom, Elin Kvist
Jun 2011
Presentation on FRAGEN at the general meeting of Ca la Dona
Board members, general public, academics
Catalunya, Spain, Europe
45 Ca la dona, Barcelona
May 2011
Website announcement General public, academics
Greece 150-200 ELIA, Greece
May 2011
Website information: www.aspekt.sk and www.ruzovyamodrysvet.sk
Gender experts, students, teachers, general public
Slovakia ca 350 visitors per day
Aspekt, Slovakia
May 2011
Description of FRAGEN in the April/May programme of activities (e-mailed to a wide range of women's organisations, individual women active in the women's movement and in the field of women's studies, as well as to the nearly 500 members of Ca la Dona)
General public, academics
Catalunya, Spain, Europe
760 Ca la dona, Barcelona
17 May 2011
Lecture, Amsterdam FRAGEN presentation Mixed, including general public
All QUING countries
13 Aletta; 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
Apr 2011
FRAGEN presentation Students, media, academics
Romania NSPSPA (National School of Political Studies and Public Administration), Romania
Apr 2011
Article: ARA,I Newsletter Spring 2011 Academics, professional archivists
Ireland ca 100 UCC Library, Carol Quinn
23-28 Apr 2011
Lecture series, Vancouver, Simon Fraser University Academics, practitioners
EU 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
141
18-19 Mar 2011
Lecture,“Conocimientos y competencias para avanzar en la igualdad de género. La formación de género+: el proyecto de investigación QUING-OPERA 2006-2011”, II Congreso de políticas públicas de Igualdad de Género, Santander
Policy-makers, public administrators, academics and women’s movement
EU 200 9 UCM, María Bustelo
16 Mar 2011
Seminar paper “Stretching and Bending Gender+ Equality in a Changing Europe”, IWM
Academics and general public
All QUING countries
25 1 IWM, Mieke Verloo
Feb 2011
Presentation on FRAGEN to Kninfo staff and web department
Staff members/ academics
Denmark, Scandinavia
20 Kninfo, Denmark
Feb/Mar 2011
Madrid Declaration on gender+ training Researchers, policy-makers and practitioners
All QUING countries
unlimited 9 UCM, all OPERA partners
15 Feb 2011
Interview, “In socialism, there was less discrimination than today”, Tribuna (Ljubl.), vol. 52, no. 2, 4-5.
Academics, general public
Slovenia More than 2000
8 PI, Vlasta Jalušić
2-4 Feb 2011
OPERA conference on gender+ training Practitioners, policy-makers, academics and students
All QUING countries
160 9 UCM, all OPERA partners
Jan 2011
Online information on FRAGEN/QUING at http://kvinfo.dk
Higher education, academics, general public
Denmark, Scandinavia
100,000 visitors per year
Kninfo, Denmark
Jan 2011
Master class, Gender policies,Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM)
Students, practitioners
Several, esp. Spain and EU
40 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
31 Jan 2011
Conference/Workshop “Gender Plus: Gleichstellungspolitiken im intersektionellen Kontext“, IWM
General public, policy-makers, higher education, research
Austria, Germany, Switzerland
30 1 IWM, Mieke Verloo, Birgit Sauer, Lisa Wewerka
19 Jan 2011
Press release on the ENUT website about the opening of the FRAGEN database, http://www.enut.ee/enut.php?id=28&uid=349
website followers, academics
Estonia Estonian Women’s Studies and Resource Centre
2010-11 Updating the project page on the ENUT website, http://www.enut.ee/enut.php?id=307
website followers, academics
Estonia Estonian Women’s Studies and Resource Centre
Dec 2010
Electronic dissemination of launch of FRAGEN database
Academics, NGOs, policy-makers on national and EU levels
EU 4000 Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies, MIGS, Cyprus
142
Dec 2010
Project web-page news on FRAGEN Academics, NGOs, policy-makers on national and EU levels
EU 500 Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies, MIGS, Cyprus
10 Dec 2010
Lecture, “Intersectionality in the practice of European gender equality policy”, ESRC Fairness At Work Seminar Programme & EU WorkCare Synergies. Seminar Intersectionality: from Idea to Implementation, University of Brighton
Academics, practitioners
75 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
2 Dec 2010
Lab, “The role of law in antidiscrimination work” General public, field experts, students
Germany 25 4 HU
25-26 Nov 2010
Plenary, “The future of feminism”, and Lecture, “Stretching and bending gender+ equality in a changing Europe”, conference on Equality, Growth and Sustainability: Do They Mix?, Linköping
Academics, practitioners
120 12 LANC, Sylvia Walby; 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
18-20 Nov 2010
Lecture and conference, “Gender and Intersectionality in Development Policies”, Kigali Institute of Education
Academic, NGO, policy-makers, entrepreneurs, general pubic
Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi, Congo
60 8 PI, Vlasta Jalušić
11-12 Nov 2010
Discussant at the Euro-Sphere Conference “The Publics of Europe and the European Public Sphere: Tracing the Architects and Trespassers of Borders and Boundaries in Europe”
Mixed audience 120 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
Oct-Dec 2010
Lecture, QUING CFA theory and methodology workshop, IIF, UCM
M.A. students, practitioners
Several, esp. Spain and EU
40 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
Oct 2010
Paper, “Gender and intersectionality in politics”, Baeza, Feminist Reflection Conference, IAM, Italy
Academics, civil society, policymakers
Several, esp. EU
35 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
Oct 2010
Public Lecture at British Council CEU event “Trends and Processes in Equality Policy Thinking in Europe”
Academics, policy-makers, media, civil society
All QUING countries
100 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán
28 Oct 2010
Lecture and participation in the roundtable “La evaluación en su contexto: los retos de la mejora, la rendición de cuentas y la calidad en las políticas públicas”, Seminar on Co-operation for Development,
Academics, professionals
General 125 9 UCM, María Bustelo
143
IECAH; AECID y Fundación La Caixa, Madrid
6-8 Oct 2010
Paper, “Gendering Evaluation: What does it mean and imply?”, 9th European Evaluation Society International Conference, Prague
Academics, professionals
General 50 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Sep 2010
Website of the BAUW, http://www.bauw.hit.bg or http://bauw-bg.com/en
Members of the BAUW and General public
Bulgaria 50 + general public
Bulgarian Association of University Women (BAUW), Zornitsa Angelova
Sep 2010
Expert Meeting on Gender Mainstreaming in Europe, organised by the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), Vilnius
Policy-makers, academics, gender consultants and trainers
Several 40 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo, María Bustelo
Sep 2010
Lecture,“L’analyse discursive des politiques publiques d’égalité en Europe: le cas du projet QUING“, Master for gender equality agents, University of Paris 6 La Sorbonne
Professionals (long-life learning)
QUING country cases
23 9 UCM, Maxime Forest
24-27 Jul 2010
Paper at the International Conference on Multiculturalism and Global Community, Tehran
Academics, NGO Iran 50 8 PI, Ana Frank
4-9 Jul 2010
Invited lecture, 27. Internationale Sommerakademie, Burg Schlaining
Academics, NGO, policy-makers
EU, Austria 200 8 PI, Vlasta Jalušić
1 Jul 2010
Lab “Intersectionality in training and civic education” General public, field experts, students
Germany 25 4 HU
Jun 2010
Lecture,“Perspectives normatives, intersection du genre avec d’autres discriminations, usage de la comparaison: trois enjeux pour l’analyse des politiques publiques en Europe”, Master for Gender equality Agents, University of Paris 6 La Sorbonne
Professionals (long-life learning)
QUING country cases
23 9 UCM, Maxime Forest
24-25 Jun 2010
Lecture, “Gender mainstreaming and ‘neo-freedom’. How gender equality policies are stretched and bent and what that can possibly mean”, conference on “Neue Freiheit, neues Glück? Selbstentwürfe und Geschlechterpolitiken in Zeiten des Neoliberalismus“, Ruhr Universität Bochum
Students and general public
60 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
23-25 Jun 2010
Paper at the International Conference in Interpretat. Policy Analysis, Grenoble
Academics, policy-makers
EU, France 100 8 PI, Zuzana Očenašova
21-23 Jun
Panel participant, GendeRace, final conference, open floor discussion
Academics and policy-makers,
90 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
144
2010 mixed
27 May 2010
Lab “Intersectionality in consultancy work” General public, field experts, students
Germany 50 4 HU
9-14 May 2011
Workshop, Presentation of the FRAGEN Database, Italian Women's Library
Library users Italy 40 Italian Women’s Library/IWL, Bologna
Apr 2010
Virtual Forum Moderation,„Resistances in Gender+ Equality Training“, QUING Community of Practice
Trainers, academics
All QUING countries
9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo, 2 YW, Lut Mergaert
13-14 Apr 2010
Lecture, “La situación de la evaluación en España y en Europa. Resultados de una encuesta realizada a la comunidad evaluadora española y algunas ideas sobre la Sociedad Europea de Evaluación”, 21st permanent seminar of public administration “Evaluación y calidad de las políticas y servicios públicos”, Fundación Instituto Universitario de Investigación Ortega y Gasset, Madrid, CES
Academics, public administrators
General and Spain
200 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Mar 2010
Press release (paper and web versions), University of Amsterdam
Students, general public
The Netherlands
13 Alet
Mar 2010
Seminar on Gender Excellence in Research, Uppsala University
Academics and policy-makers
EU 30 12 LANC, Sofia Strid
Mar 2010
Virtual Forum Moderation, “Participatory and Experiential Methods in Gender+ Training”, QUING-OPERA online Community of Practice
Gender trainers and experts, academics
Several 18 9 UCM, María Bustelo
11-13 Mar 2010
4th Annual Critical Race Studies Symposium, “Intersectionality: Challenging Theory, Reframing Politics, Transforming Movements”
Research, higher education, activists
USA, Canada, EU, South America
400 4 HU, 1 IWM
Feb 2010
Virtual Forum Moderation, “Introducing Gender and Feminist Theory in Gender+ Training”, QUING-OPERA online Community of Practice
Gender trainers and experts, academics
Several 15 9 UCM, Maxime Forest; 1 IWM, Mieke Verloo
Feb 2010
Invited lecture to high-level panel (Beijing+15 Forum organised by the Spanish EU Presidency), “La igualdad en la Unión Europea: desafíos y prioridades”, Foro europeo de mujeres Beijing +15, Presidencia Española de la Unión Europea, Cádiz
Academics, policy-makers and women’s movement
General and EU
400 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Jan 2010
Paper, “Intersectionality: concept, debates and policy practice”, local government, Barcelona
Policy-makers, practitioners,
EU, Spain, other QUING
35 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
145
academics, civil society
cases
Jan 2010
Paper, “Spanish gender equality policies in the European context: intersectionality”, provincial government, Málaga
Policy-makers, practitioners, academics, civil society
Spain and EU
300-400 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
Dec 2009
Conference Beni comuni delle donne General public, researchers, librarians
Italy 100 Italian Women’s Library/IWL, Bologna, Annamaria Tagliavini
Dec 2009
Master class, Gender policies, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM)
Students, practitioners
Several, esp. Spain and EU
40 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
4-5 Dec 2009
Moderation and introduction of session, “Managing Gender and Diversity – Key Competencies in Cultural and Citizenship Education?“, NECE Conference The Impact of Cultural and Citizenship Education on Social Cohesion, Vilnius
Academics, NGOs, policy-makers, practitioners
International 100 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
Nov 2009
Plenary speech on domestic violence policies in CEE countries, Swedish EU Presidency conference on Strategies to Combat Men’s Violence against Women, Stockholm
Governmental policy-makers, academics
5 CEE countries
150 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán, Raluca Popa
Nov 2009
Roundtable discussion “Girls and Boys Together on Their Way to Equal Opportunities”, Center for Culture and Debate “Red House”, Sofia
NGO activists, academia, media, general public
Bulgaria 60 6 CEU, Elena Stoykova
29 Nov 2009
Paper, “El mainstreaming de género y sus nuevos desafíos: cuestionando el concepto de igualdad(es)”, XIV Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estadoy de la Administración Pública, Salvador de Bahia
Academics, civil servants
All 35 All
10-14 Nov 2009
Paper, “Evaluation in Spain. Practice and Institutionalization”, AEA Annual Meeting, Orlando, USA
Academics and professionals in evaluation
Spain 40 9 UCM, María Bustelo (with Jody Fitzpatrick)
Oct 2009
Paper, “Les conséquences de l’intégration européenne sur l’égalité des sexes en Europe centrale”, Conference “Féminismes à l’Est”
Academics, NGO representatives, journalists
EU 40 9 UCM, Maxime Forest
Oct 2009
Conference on Justice in the Balkans: Equality for Sexual Minorities, Podgorica
Academics, activists
International 25 6 CEU, Tamás Dombos
21-24 Keynote presentation, „Mainstreaming gender in city Academics, NGOs, Global 400 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
146
Oct 2009
policies: transformation and empowerment“, 2nd Metropolis-Women International Network Forum. Dynamic Cities Need Women: Visions and Challenges for a Women-Friendly City, Seoul
policy-makers, practitioners
16-17 Oct 2009
Introduction speech and paper, “Children in GLBT community: the new minority?”, International conference 'GLBT Families – The New Minority?', Ljubljana
Academics, NGO, policy-makers
EU, Slovenia, Croatia
50-70 8 PI, Roman Kuhar
Sep 2009
Workshop presentation, 14th Budapest Pride LGBT
Film and Cultural Festival NGO activists, general public
Hungary 40 6 CEU, Tamás Dombos
Sep 2009
Project website, http://www.feminismus.cz, http://www.genderstudies.cz (http://feminismus.cz/fulltext.shtml?x=2196676)
General public, including academics, journalists, students, historians etc.
Global Gender Studies, o.p.s., Prague, Michaela Svatošová
24-26 Sep 2009
11th
WAVE Conference “Stop Violence against Women and Children“, Vienna
Women’s NGOs, policy-makers, academics
International, EU
200 1 IWM, Mieke Verloo, Karin Tertinegg; 6 CEU, Andrea Krizsán, Raluca Popa
8 Sep 2009
Lecture, “Las políticas de género y el reto de la interseccionalidad: concepto y dificultades. El ejemplo de las políticas europeas y españolas”, Segundas Jornadas de Derecho, Género y Sexualidad, Escuela de Derecho. Universidad EAFIT, Medellín, Colombia
Academics, students, activists, policy-makers
Europe, Spain
250 9 UCM, María Bustelo
15-17 Jul 2009
Panel, “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Times of Global Crisis”, EOI (Equal Opportunities International) Conference, Istanbul
Academics, policy-makers, practitioners
30 countries, mainly Europe, US, New Zealand
120 4 HU
1 Jul 2009
Symposium, „Making use of opportunities – creating stimuli. Overcoming structural discrimination by means of positive measures in accordance with the German General Equal Treatment Act”, Berlin
Civil society, policy-makers, general public
Germany 100 4 HU
24 Jun 2009
Symposium, “Equal participation for all? Political participation from an equal treatment perspective”, Gender Competence Centre, Berlin
International and national policy-makers, civil servants, academics, NGOs
EU, Germany 64 4 HU
12-13 Seminar organisation, TARGET seminar on ‘Gender+ Practitioners, 35 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo,
147
Jun 2009
training: towards minimum quality criteria’, UCM academics, policy-makers
María Bustelo, Alba Alonso, Maxime Forest, Elena del Giorgio
May 2009
Training seminar, “Developing mechanisms and implementation of social and legal protection from violence against women”, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
Academics, social workers
EU 50 6 CEU,Vilana Pilinkaite-Sotirović
29 May 2009
Invited expert at TAKING STOCK Expert Meeting, the Hague
Academics, civil servants, NGOs
The Netherlands
100 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
20 May 2009
Invited expert at seminar on gender mainstreaming for senior officials of the Hungarian National Development Agency, Budapest
Academics, civil servants, NGOs
Hungary 100 7 RAD, Mieke Verloo
22 Apr 2009
Symposium, “Towards equal pay – Strategies, instruments and best practices”, Gender Competence Centre, Berlin
International and national policy-makers, civil servants, academics, NGOs
EU, Germany 61 4 HU
Mar 2009
Conference Presentation, “Global Arc of Justice: Sexual Orientation Law Around the World”, organised by the Williams Institute and the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association (ILGLaw), UCLA, Los Angeles
Academics, activists
Global 25 6 CEU, Tamás Dombos
30 Mar 2009
Lecture, “Buying Equality: Some recent developments from Europe”
Local administration, academics
UK, Germany, Switzerland, EU, US
40 4 HU
28 Mar 2009
Lecture workshop, 4-hour session on ‘Evaluation from a Gender Perspective’, Master on Evaluation of programmes and Publics Policies, UCM
Professionals, practicioners graduate students
26 9 UCM, María Bustelo
9-13 Mar 2009
PhD Seminar, Debate on the article ‘Evaluation of Gender Mainstreaming Ideas from a Meta-evaluation Study’, as part of a Mobility Erasmus Grant for University Professors, Roma
Academics, graduate students, practitioners
30 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Feb-Aug 2009
Lectures and workshop, “The Politics of Gender Equality: the opportunities and the role institutional mechanisms”, Faculty of Pedagogics, Peace Institute
Teachers, educators
Slovenia 30 8 PI, Vlasta Jalušić, Jasminka Dedić
Feb 2009
Discussion (Geschäftsstelle Gleichstellungsbericht) Administration, academics
Germany, Czech Republic
4 8 PI
23 Feb Presentation of research results to EU Politicians, Nordic 20 10 UM, Maria Carbin, Elin Kvist,
148
2009 parliamentarians, Umeå Centre for Gender Studies, UM
academics countries, EU Malin Rönnblom
12 Feb 2009
Lecture, ”Las políticas de género en España: ¿El reto de la interseccionalidad?”, Open Seminar on Intersectionality, Athena Network and Centro Francesca Bonnemaison, Barcelona
Academics, activists, policy-makers
150 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Jan 2009-Dec 2010
Service contract with EC DG RTD to develop a gender toolkit and training programme on how to integrate gender in research (application of OPERA-gained knowledge)
Academics, research project co-ordinators, national contact points, all involved in EU RTD framework programme
All EU member states + FP7 associated countries
2000 toolkits disseminated + minimum 700 persons trained + wider outreach through project website
2 EADC
22-23 Jan 2009
Workshop, “Implementation of legal norms: violence against women in Turkey”, Berlin
Policy-makers, NGOs, women’s movement, academics
Turkey, Germany
60 4 HU
12 Dec 2008
Lecture workshop, 4-hour session on Programme Theory and Policy Frame Analysis, Master on evaluation of programmes and publics policies, UCM
Professionals, practicioners, graduate students
26 9 UCM, María Bustelo
4 Dec 2008
Symposium, “Regional development and promotion of economic development – examples for equality policies in European structural funds”, Gender Competence Centre on, Berlin
International and national policy-makers, civil servants, academics, NGOs
EU, Germany 53 4 HU
13 Nov 2008
Network meeting, “Gender Diversity fits Europe” General public, policy-makers
15 countries from Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe
60 4 HU
13 Nov 2008
NGO Workshop on Slovakian gender equality policies and CEDAW, Bratislava
Policy-makers, NGOs, academics
Slovakia 60 1 IWM, Karin Tertinegg
Oct Paper, “The social construction of the Lesbian Academics, 45 9 UCM, Raquel Platero
149
2008 individual“, Workshop on Gender, sexualities and Human rights. Forum DIVERGENCIAS. Human rights directorate of the Uruguayan Ministry of Culture and education and Centro de estudios de genero y de la diversidad sexual, Montevideo
activists, policy-makers
Oct 2008
Conference presentation, "Lesbian and Gay Rights Are Human Rights!", organised by Nash Mir, Amnesty International and the Hirschfeld-Eddy-Stiftung, Kiev
Academics, activists
Hungary, Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Russia, Moldova, Romania
40 6 CEU, Tamás Dombos
29 Oct 2008
Lecture, “Las nuevas políticas de igualdad europeas y su reflejo en las políticas españolas ¿Un enfoque de desigualdades múltiples o un enfoque de ‘interseccionalidad’?”, Jornadas sobre Nuevas Políticas en la Unión Europea. Junta de Andalucía y Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla
Academics, activists, policy-makers
Europe, Spain
80 9 UCM, María Bustelo
22-23 Oct 2008
Conference and presentation, LEFÖ-IBF, Federal Minister for Women, Federal Ministry of the Interior
General public, experts, academics, public administration, lawyers
International, Austria
150 1 IWM
1-3 Oct 2008
Panel presentation and organisation, ”Attending to the language of evaluation”, Conference European Evaluation Society ‘Building for the future: evaluation in governance, development and progress’, Lisbon
Academics, policy-makers
Europe 60 9 UCM, María Bustelo, Peter Dahler-Larsen, Thomas Schwandt
Aug 2008
Roundtables, “Intersectionality as a tool for analysis“ and “Gender, discrimination and public policies: an analysis through the paradigm of intersectionality“,Universidad Menéndez Pelayo, Santander
Students, civil servants, MPs, policy-makers
Spain 20 9 UCM, Raquel Platero
Jul 2008 Conference, “Equality Policies in Spain: where are we coming from and where are we going to?”
Academics, practicioners, students
Spain 80 9 UCM, María Bustelo
3-8 Jul 2008
Paper and roundtable, “What’s gender equality about? Exploring new understandings of gender (in)equality in Spain”, Women’s World Conference, UCM
Academics, practitioners
Spain 40 9: UCM, María Bustelo, Silvia López
2 Jul Roundtable discussion, “Adoption and reproductive NGO activists, Hungary 30 6 CEU, Tamás Dombos
150
2008 rights”, 13th LGBT Festival, Budapest general public
May 2008
Lecture, M.A. Gender and Equality policies of FOREM (online programme), Major in policies and state-level equality machineries
Postgraduate students, civil servants, policy-makers, trade union members
Spain 90 9 UCM, Raquel Platero, Silvia López
21 May 2008
Conference, Equality Forum on “Gender Mainstreaming in Austria: State of Affairs – Assessment – Perspectives”, Gender Competence Centre
Academics, government executives, international guests
Germany, Austria
16 4 HU; 1 IWM
16-17 May 2008
Conference, Expert meeting: Content of Gender+ Equality Training, Berlin
Academics, gender/diversity training experts
EU, US 23 4 HU; 7 RAD; 9 UCM
Apr 2008
Lectures, “Gender Policies, frames, instruments and strategies”, Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, Ministry of Presidency, Madrid
Academics, policy-makers
General 40 9 UCM, María Bustelo
29 Mar 2008
Conference, Women in Politics: Challenges and Opportunities under the project Promoting Women Politicians’ Initiatives to Achieve Equal Representation, funded by EU structural funds
Women’s NGOs, academics, women politicians
Lithuania 80 6 CEU, Vilana Pilinkaite-Sotirović
11 Mar 2008
Conference, World Café on “Inclusive Equality Policies in Germany”, Berlin
Academics, government executives, NGO actors
Germany 14 4 HU; 1 IWM
Feb 2008
Presentation of TARGET project on gender training, FIPSE Meeting Atlantis Project European Directors, Fredericton, Canada
Civil servants, academics
Europe 50 9 UCM, Emanuela Lombardo
13-15 Feb 2008
Conference International International 100 1 IWM
Dec 2007
Public lecture Youth, students, general
Poland, Georgia, Bulgaria
50 6 CEU, Magdalena Dabrowska
1 Dec 2007
Lecture at CEU, Budapest Youth Slovenia 30 6 CEU; 8 PI, Roman Kuhar
Nov 2007
Conference, “The evaluation of public policies from a gender perspective. The evaluation of gender violence policies in Spain”, Observatorio de Salud de la Mujer,
Academics, social movements, policy-makers
Spain 200 9 UCM, María Bustelo
151
Spanish Ministry of Health
Nov 2007
Conference, “Los ‘marcos interpretativos’ de las políticas de conciliación, trabajo y cuidado”, Proyecto EQUAL "Concilia Alaquàs", Comunidad Valenciana
Academics, policy-makers
Spain 9 UCM, Elin Peterson
Nov 2007
Conference Gender Competence Centre, Equality Forum on “Equality in governmental action in the Netherlands”
Academics, government executives, international guests
Germany, the Netherlands
19 4 HU; 7 RAD
28-30 Nov 2007
10th National Social Sciences Conference, Ankara Academics, general
public Turkey 11 METU
10-12 Oct 2007
The European Parliament of Equal Opportunities Politicians, NGO actors, higher education
EU 150 4 HU
10 Oct 2007
Conference, ”Social Work for equal opportunities for all”, Congress of Social Work
Youth Slovenia 200 8 PI, Roman Kuhar
Jun 2007
Workshop Femocrats, Research, Higher Education
Sweden 60 10 UM;4 HU, 9 UCM
4-6 Oct 2006
Workshop, “Exploring Critical Frame Analysis as a tool for evaluating programme theory and design”, European Evaluation Society/UKES Joint International Conference “Evaluation in Society: Critical Connections”, London
Professionals, academics
International 20 9 UCM, María Bustelo
Jan-Jun 2006
Guest Teacher at the Gender Equality Agent Training Programme organised by the Trade Union CCOO
Academics, higher education, policy-makers
Spain 100 9 UCM, Raquel Platero
Academic publications are listed in section 3 (publishable results).
152
2.1.3 Publishable results
Academic Publications
A. In regular academic journals
A.1 Articles in English
Special Issue for Social Politics in preparation (edited by Sylvia Walby and Mieke
Verloo, currently under review) containing the following QUING articles:
Mieke Verloo and Sylvia Walby, ‘Introduction: the implications for theory and practice
of comparing the treatment of intersectionality in the equality architecture in Europe’
Sylvia Walby, Jo Armstrong and Sofia Strid, ‘Intersectionality and the quality of the
gender equality architecture’
Emanuela Lombardo and Lise Rolandsen Agustín, ‘Framing Gender Intersections in
the European Union: what implications for the quality of intersectionality in policies?’
Mieke Verloo, Sophie Lauwers, Saskia Martens and Petra Meier, ‘Applying
intersectionality: potential and practice of different configurations of equality architecture
in Belgium and the Netherlands’
Andrea Krizsán, ‘A Typology of Equality Institutions for Intersectional Analysis.
Equality Architectures in Central and Eastern European Countries’
Emanuela Lombardo and María Bustelo, ‘The political treatment of inequalities in
Southern Europe: a comparative analysis of Italy, Portugal and Spain’
Alba Alonso, ‘Intersectionality by other means? New equality policies in Portugal’
1. Armstrong, Jo, Sylvia Walby, and Sofia Strid 2009. “The gendered division of labour:
how can we assess the quality of employment and care policy from a gender equality
perspective?”, Benefits: Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 17:3, pp. 263-275.
2. Bustelo, Maria 2009. “Spain: Intersectionality Faces the Strong Gender Norm”,
International Feminist Journal of Politics, 11:4, pp. 530-546.
3. Dombos, Tamás, Andrea Krizsán, Melinda Szabó, Violetta Zentai 2009. “Policy
Histories of Four Gender Equality Related Policy Fields in Hungary”, CPS Policy Report
Series.
4. Frank, Ana 2010. Rethinking European past and future legacies. Journal of
contemporary European studies, 18: 2, pp. 229-239.
5. Krizsán, A. 2009. “From formal adoption to enforcement. Post-accession shifts in EU
impact on Hungary in the equality policy field”, European Integration online Papers
(EIoP), Special Issue 2, Vol. 13, Art. 22.
153
6. Krizsán, Andrea 2010. “State Institutions Protecting Vulnerable Groups in Transition
Societies. The East Central European Experience”CPS Policy Studies Series. June 2010.
7. Krizsán, A. and R. Popa 2010. “Europeanization in Making Policies against Domestic
Violence in Central and Eastern Europe”, Social Politics, 17:3, pp. 379-406.
8. Kuhar, Roman 2009. “(Intersectional) discrimination as a practice of inequality”. Roma
rights, no. 2, pp. 25-32.
9. Kuhar, Roman 2011. “Resisting the Change: Same-Sex Partnership Debates in
Croatia and Slovenia”, Südosteuropa. Zeitschrift für Politik und Gesellschaft, 59:1, in
print.
10. Kvist, Elin and Elin Peterson 2010. “What Has Gender Equality Got to Do with It? An
Analysis of Policy Debates Surrounding Domestic Services in the Welfare States of Spain
and Sweden”, NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 18, pp. 185-
203.
11. Lombardo, Emanuela and Elena del Giorgio (forthcoming). “EU antidiscrimination
policy and its unintended domestic consequences: the institutionalization of multiple
inequalities in Italy”, Women’s Studies International Forum, special issue on unintended
consequences, ed. by Gill Allwood.
12. Lombardo, Emanuela and Petra Meier 2009. “Power and Gender: Policy Frames on
Gender Inequality in Politics in the Netherlands and Spain”, Journal of Women, Politics &
Policy, 30:4, pp. 357-380.
13. Lombardo, Emanuela, Petra Meier and Mieke Verloo 2010. “Discursive dynamics in
gender equality politics: what about ‘feminist taboos’?”, European Journal of Women's
Studies, 17:2, pp. 105-123.
14. Lombardo, Emanuela and Lise Rolandsen Agustín (forthcoming). “Framing Gender
Intersections in the European Union: What Implications for the Quality of Intersectionality
in Policies“, Social Politics.
15. Lombardo, Emanuela and Maria Sangiuliano 2009. “Gender and employment in the
Italian policy debates 1995-2007: the construction of ‘non employed’ gendered subjects”,
Women's Studies International Forum, 32:6, pp. 445-452.
16. Lombardo, Emanuela and Mieke Verloo 2009. “Institutionalising intersectionality in
the European Union? Policy developments and contestations”, International Feminist
Journal of Politics, 11:4, special issue: Institutionalising Intersectionality, ed. Johanna
Kantola and Kevät Nousiainen, pp. 478-495.
17. Lombardo, Emanuela and Mieke Verloo 2009. “Contentious citizenship: feminist
debates and practices and European challenges”, Feminist Review 92, pp.108-128.
18. Popa, Raluca Maria 2009. “Meanings and Uses of Intersectionality in Public Policies”
[Sensurile și uzul intersecţionalității în politicile publice] [Hatiarimata thaj linimata e
butyange so maladion andel publike politike], Roma Women’s Journal 1, pp. 70-80.
154
Available at http://www.femrom.ro/infopub/Nevi_Sara_Kali.pdf Language of publication:
English, Romanian, Romani.
19. Walby, Sylvia 2007. “Complexity Theory, Systems Theory, and Multiple Intersecting
Social Inequalities”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37, pp. 449- 470.
20. Walby, Sylvia, Jo Armstrong and Sofia Strid (in press). “Intersectionality: Multiple
inequalities in social theory”,Sociology.
A.2 Articles in other languages (Dutch, French, Hungarian, Portuguese, Romani,
Romanian, Spanish)
1. Alonso Álvarez, Alba 2010. “A introdução da interseccionalidade em Portugal:
repensar as políticas de igualdade(s)”, Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, nº 90, 25-43.
2. Alonso Álvarez, Alba2008. “La europeización de las políticas de género en el nivel
subnacional: análisis del caso gallego”, Revista de Investigaciones Políticas y
Sociológicas, 7:2, pp. 63-78
3. Alonso Álvarez, Alba 2009. “El mainstreaming de género y sus nuevos desafíos:
repensando el concepto de igualdad(es)”, Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, nº
47, pp. 47-70.
4. Forest, Maxime 2009. “La longue marche des femmes d’Europe centrale et orientale
vers l’égalité politique”, Informations sociales, 151:1.
5. Forest, Maxime 2009. “Au royaume des lettres mortes ? L’européanisation des
politiques d’égalité dans les nouveaux Etats membres de l’UE”, Chronique féministe,
101.
6. Lombardo, Emanuela and María Bustelo 2009. “Promotion de l’égalité de genre en
Espagne: de la parité politique à la lutte contre les violences domestiques”, Informations
sociales, 151, pp. 118-126.
7. Lombardo, Emanuela and Mieke Verloo 2010. “La institucionalización de la
interseccionalidad del género con otras desigualdades en la Unión Europea: desarrollos
políticos y contestaciones”, Revista Española de Ciencia Política, 23, pp. 11-30.
Thematic block on framing gender equality in Replika, 56/57 (December 2006):
8. Krizsán, Andrea and Violetta Zentai (eds.) 2006. “Közpolitikai keretelemzés:
koncepciók a nemek közötti egyenlőségről.” [Policy frame analysis. Policy frames on
gender equality.] Thematic block in Replika, 56/57 (December), pp. 107-205.
9. Krizsán, Andrea, Marjolein Paantjens and Ilse van Lamoen 2006. “Családon belüli
erőszak. Kiről szól?” [Domestic violence. Whose problem?], Replika, 56/57 (December),
pp. 155-181
155
10. Krizsán, Andrea and Violetta Zentai 2006. “A nemek közti egyenlőség politikája
Magyarországon.” [Gender equality policy in Hungary]. Replika, 56/57 (December), pp.
181-205.
11. Peterson, Elin 2009. “Género y Estado de bienestar en las políticas españolas”,
Asparkia, 20, pp. 35-58.
12. Platero, Raquel 2009. “La construcción del sujeto lésbico en el estado español”,
Regiones, suplemento de antropología (México), 39 (Oct-Dec).
13. Platero, Raquel 2009. “Transexualidad y agenda política: una historia de
(dis)continuidades y patologización”, Política y sociedad, 46:1.
14. Platero, Raquel 2009. “La homofobia como elemento clave del acoso escolar
homofóbico. Algunas voces desde Rivas Vaciamadrid”, Informació psicològica, nº 94.
15. Popa, Raluca Maria 2009. “Meanings and Uses of Intersectionality in Public Policies”
[Sensurile și uzul intersecţionalității în politicile publice] [Hatiarimata thaj linimata e
butyange so maladion andel publike politike], Roma Women’s Journal 1, pp. 70-80.
Available at: http://www.femrom.ro/infopub/Nevi_Sara_Kali.pdf Language of publication:
English, Romanian, Romani.
16. Verloo, Mieke 2009. “Intersectionaliteit en interferentie. Hoe politiek en beleid
ongelijkheid behouden, bestrijden en veranderen”, Tijdschrift voor Gender Studies 3, 12,
pp. 34-46.
B. Books with regular academic publishers
B.1 In English
Krizsán, Andrea, Hege Skjeie and Judith Squires (eds.) (forthcoming),
Institutionalizing intersectionality, Palgrave MacMillan: London.
Contains the following QUING chapters:
Alonso, Alba, María Bustelo, Maxime Forest and Emanuela Lombardo.
Institutionalizing Intersectionality in Southern Europe.
Krizsán, Andrea and Violetta Zentai. Institutionalizing Intersectionality in Central and
Eastern Europe
Kuhar, Roman. 2009. At the crossroads of discrimination: multiple and
intersectional discrimination, Ljubljana: Peace Institute.
Kuhar, Roman and Judit Takács (eds.) 2007. Beyond the Pink Curtain: Everyday
Life of LGBT people in EasternEurope, Politike Symposion, Ljubljana: Peace
Institute.
156
Lombardo, Emanuela and Maxime Forest (eds.) (forthcoming), The
Europeanization of Gender Equality Policies: a Discursive-Sociological Approach.
Palgrave MacMillan: London.
Contains the following QUING chapters:
Forest, Maxime and Emanuela Lombardo. Chapter 1. The Europeanization of Gender
Equality Policies: a Discursive-Sociological Approach
Krizsán, Andrea and Raluca Popa. Chapter 3. Meanings and Uses of Europe in
Making Policies against Domestic Violence in Central and Eastern Europe
Lombardo, Emanuela and María Bustelo. Chapter 6. Comparing the Europeanization
of Multiple Inequalities in Southern Europe: a Discursive Institutionalist Analysis
Kuhar, Roman. Chapter 8. Use of the Europeanization Frame in Same-Sex
Partnership Issues across Europe
Alonso, Alba and Maxime Forest. Chapter 9. Is Gender Equality Soluble into Self-
Governance? Regionalizing and Europeanizing Gender Policies in Spain
Lombardo, Emanuela and Maxime Forest. Chapter 10. Prospects and Challenges for
Discursive-Sociological Studies of the Europeanization of Equality Policies
Lombardo, Emanuela, Petra Meier and Mieke Verloo (eds.) (2009), The Discursive
Politics of Gender Equality Stretching, Bending and Policymaking. Routledge (240
pp.)
This book contains the following chapters by QUING authors:
Lombardo, Emanuela, Petra Meier and Mieke Verloo: Stretching and bending gender
equality: a discursive politics approach.
Walby, Sylvia: Beyond the politics of location: the power of argument in gender
equality politics.
Lombardo, Emanuela, and Mieke Verloo: Stretching gender equality to other
inequalities: political intersectionality in European gender equality policies.
Bustelo, María and Mieke Verloo: Grounding policy evaluation in a discursive
understanding of politics.
Rönnblom, Malin: Bending towards growth: discursive constructions of gender
equality in an era of governance and neoliberalism.
Jalušić, Vlasta: Stretching and Bending the Meanings of Gender in Equality Policies.
Lombardo, Emanuela and Petra Meier: Stretching, bending and policy-making:
inconsistencies in gender equality policies.
Verloo, Mieke and Anna van der Vleuten: The discursive logic of ranking and
benchmarking: understanding gender equality measures in the European Union.
157
Lombardo, Emanuela, Petra Meier and Mieke Verloo: Conclusions: a critical
understanding of the discursive politics of gender equality.
Walby, Sylvia (in press for July 2011): The Future of Feminism. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
There is one book that builds a bridge between the previous MAGEEQ project and the
current QUING project: Mieke Verloo (ed.) 2007. Multiple Meanings of Gender
Equality. A Critical Frame Analysis of Gender Policies in Europe. CEU Press.
Budapest.
Book contract signed:
Lombardo, Emanuela and Petra Meier. The Symbolic Representation of Gender. A
Discursive Approach, Ashgate.
B.2 Books in other languages (Dutch, Slovenian)
1. Hrženjak, Majda (2007) Nevidno delo (Invisible Work), (Politics). Ljubljana: Peace
Institute.
2. Kuhar, Roman (2010) Intimno državljanstvo (Intimate Citizenship). Ljubljana: Skuc.
3. Verloo, Mieke (2009) Intersectionaliteit en interferentie. Hoe politiek en beleid
ongelijkheid behouden, bestrijden en veranderen. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit
Nijmegen.
C. Book chapters
C.1 Book chapters in English
1. Baer, Susanne 2009. “Equal Opportunities and Gender in Research: Germany's
Science Needs a Promotion of Quality”, in Tajmel, Tanja and Klaus Starl (eds.), Science
Education Unlimited. Approaches to Equal Opportunities in Learning Science, Münster,
pp. 103-110.
2. Baer, Susanne 2008. “Options of Knowledge – Opportunities in Science”, in Grenz,
Sabine, Beate Kortendiek, Marianne Kriszio and Andrea Löther (eds.), Gender Equality –
Programmes in Higher Education. International Perspectives, Wiesbaden, pp. 13-26.
3. Bustelo, María 2009. “Gender Politics in Spain: The Challenge of Intersectionality”, in
M. Franken, A. Woodward, A. Cabó and B. Bagilhole (eds.) Teaching Intersectionality:
Putting Gender at the Centre. Teaching with Gender. European Women’s Studies in
International and Interdisciplinary Classrooms. A book series by ATHENA. Budapest:
CEU, pp. 121-132.
158
4. Bustelo, M. and C. Ortbals 2007. “The Evolution of Spanish State Feminism. A
Fragmented Landscape”, in Joyce Outshoorn and Johanna Kantola (eds.), Changing
State Feminism. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan, pp. 201-223.
5. Kuhar, Roman 2010. “Slovenia”, in Stewart, Chuck (ed.), The Greenwood
encyclopedia of LGBT issues worldwide. Vol. 2. Santa Barbara; Denver; Oxford: ABC
Clio, pp. 373-391.
6. Kuhar, Roman 2011. “Heteronormative panopticon and the transparent closet of the
public space in Slovenia”, in Kulpa, Robert (ed.), De-centring western sexualities: Central
and Eastern European perspectives. Farnham; Burlington: Ashgate, pp. 149-165.
7. Lombardo, Emanuela 2009. “Integrating or Setting the Agenda? Gender
Mainstreaming in the European Constitution-Making Process”, in Bose, Christine E. and
Minjeong Kim (eds.), Global Gender Research, London: Routledge, pp. 323-330.
8. Lombardo, Emanuela, Mieke Verloo and Petra Meier (forthcoming, 2012). Entry
‘Policymaking’ for the Gender and Politics Handbook to be published by Oxford
University Press.
9. Lombardo, Emanuela and Mieke Verloo 2010. “Towards Feminist Citizenship:
Contentious Practices and European Challenges”, in Oleksy, Elzbieta H., Dorota
Golanska and Jeff Hearn (eds.), The limits of gendered citizenship. Contexts and
complexities, London: Routledge, pp. 42-61.
10. Lombardo, Emanuela and Petra Meier 2010. “EU Gender Equality Policy: Citizen’s
Rights and Women’s Duties”, in Oleksy, Elzbieta H., Dorota Golanska and Jeff Hearn
(eds.), The limits of gendered citizenship. Contexts and complexities, London: Routledge,
pp. 62-79.
11. Meier, Petra and Emanuela Lombardo 2009. “Power as a Conceptual Metaphor of
Gender Inequality? Comparing Dutch and Spanish Policy Frames”, in Ahrens,Kathleen
(ed.), Politics, Gender, and Conceptual Metaphors, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave
MacMillan, pp. 235-253.
12. Pilinkaite-Sotirović, Vilana 2009. “Trends in Development of Family Institution:
whether transformations from traditional to modern family occur?", in Pavilioniene M. and
E. Kuliesyte (eds.), Lytiskumas: socialiniai, kulturiniai ir sveikatos aspektai [Sexuality:
Social, Cultural and Health Aspects], pp. 29-41.
13. Pilinkaite-Sotirović, Vilana and Dovile Budryte 2009. “European Norms, Local
Interpretations: Minority Rights Issues and Related Policy Discourses after EU
Expansion”, in Prügl, Elisabeth and Markus Thiel (eds.), Diversity in the European Union,
Palgrave, pp. 221-233.
14. Putnina, Aivita 2007. “Sexuality, Masculinity and Homophobia. The Latvian Case”, in
Kuhar, Roman and Judit Takács (eds.), Beyond the Pink Curtain, Ljubljana: Peace
Institute, pp. 313-326.
159
15. Röder, Ingrid 2007. “Europeanisation and Gender Equality in the Czech Republic and
Slovakia”, in Kirschbaum, Stanislav (ed.), The meaning of Europe: Central Europe and
the EU, Palgrave.
16. Tagliavini, Annamaria,forthcoming. “Looking toward the Future: The Italian Digital
Women’s Library“, in Women’s Memory, Cambridge University Press.
17. Verloo, Mieke 2010. “Trojan horses and the implications of strategic framing:
reflections on gender equality policies, intimate citizenship and demographic change”, in
Ernst, Waltraud and Heike Kahlert (eds.), Reframing demographic change in Europe:
perspectives on gender and welfare state transformations, Berlin: Lit, pp. 51-73.
C.2 Book chapters in other languages (French, German, Greek, Italian, Polish,
Slovenian, Spanish)
1. Baer, Susanne 2009. “Wozu und was macht Gender? Notwendige Erweiterungen der
Governance-Perspektive”, in Botzem, S., J. Hofmann, S. Quack, G. F. Schuppert and H.
Straßheim (eds.), Governance als Prozess. Koordinationsformen im Wandel, Baden-
Baden, pp. 99-125.
2. Baer, Susanne 2008. “Diskriminierung beenden – Toleranz fördern. Das Allgemeine
Gleichbehandlungsgesetz”, in Zypries, Brigitte (ed.), Die Renaissance der Rechtspolitik.
Zehn Jahre Politik für den sozialen Rechtsstaat, München 2008, pp. 135-140.
3. Baer, Susanne 2008. “Religionsfreiheit und Gleichberechtigung”, in Bielefeld, Heiner,
Volkmar Deile, Brigitte Hamm, Franz-Josef Hutter, SabineKurtenbach and Hannes
Tretter (eds.), Religionsfreiheit – Jahrbuch Menschenrechte 2009, Köln, pp. 105-115.
4. Baer, Susanne 2008. “Ungleichheit der Gleichheiten? Zur Hierarchisierung von
Diskriminierungsverboten”, in Klein, Eckart and Christoph Menke (eds.), Universalität –
Schutzmechanismen – Diskriminierungsverbote, Berlin, pp. 421-450.
5. Baer, Susanne 2008. “Frauen und Männer, Gender und Diversität:
Gleichstellungsrecht vor den Herausforderungen eines differenzierten Umgangs mit
Geschlecht”, in Arioli, Kathrin, Michelle Cottier, PatriciaFarahmand and Zita Küng (eds.),
Wandel der Geschlechterverhältnisse durch Recht?, Baden-Baden, pp. 21-37.
6. Baer, Susanne 2009. “Backlash? Die Renaissance gleichstellungsfeindlicher
Positionen in Wissenschaft und Politik”, in Riegraf, Birgit and Lydia Plöger (eds.),
Geschlecht zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik, Opladen, pp. 131-148.
7. Baer, Susanne 2009. “‘Sexuelle Selbstbestimmung’? Zur internationalen Rechtslage
und denkbaren Konzeptionen von Recht gegen geschlechtsbezogene Diskriminierung”,
in Lohrenscheit, Claudia (eds.), Sexuelle Selbstbestimmung als Menschenrecht, Baden-
Baden, pp. 89-118.
160
8. Bustelo, María and Emanuela Lombardo 2009. “Politiche di genere in Spagna e in
Europa: conciliazione, violenza e disuguaglianza in politica”, in Brezzi, Francesca, Marisa
Ferrari Occhionero and Elisabetta Strickland (eds.), Pari opportunità e diritti umani.
Roma-Bari: Laterza, pp. 81-109.
9. Dabrowksa, Magda 2009. “Polityczna skuteczność argumentów na rzecz równości
płci w Polsce i w Europie. Analiza ram” [Political efficiency of arguments on behalf of
gender equality in Poland and EU. Frame analysis] Congress of the Polish Association of
Social Communication, in press.
10. Dabrowksa, Magda 2009. “‘Ramy równości’ w polskim dyskursie politycznym i
wybranych dokumentach polityki społecznej” [Frames of equality” in Polish political
discourse and documents of social policy], in Budrowska, Bogusława (ed.), Kobiety –
Feminizm – Demokracja. [Women-Feminism-Democracy] Wybrane zagadnienia z
seminarium IFiS PAN z lat 2001-2009, Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN, Warszawa.
11. Dabrowksa, Magda 2009. “Dyskurs polityczny a równość płci. „Strategiczne
ramowanie” jako feministyczna metoda prowadzenia polityki równości” [Political
discourse and gender equality. Strategic framing as feminist method for gender equality
politics], in Dudek,Patrycja (ed), Zawartość mediów masowych: od kultury popularnej
przez studia genderowe do języka komunikowania [Contents of mass media: from
popular culture and gender studies to language of communication], Wydawnictwo Adam
marszałek, Toruń.
12. Forest, Maxime 2009. “Regards croisés sur la féminisation de la sphère publique par
excellence: la sphère politique”, in Sénac-Slawinski, R. and P. Muller (eds.), Genre et
action publique: la frontière public-privé en questions, Paris: L’Harmattan.
13. Jalušić, Vlasta 2010. “Die Zivilgesellschaft in Slowenien”, in Polzer et al. (eds.), Das
politische System der Republik Slowenien in der Zeit vor dem EU-Beitritt (ASO Ljubljana
Forschungsdokumentation, Bd. 1). Klagenfurt; Laibach; Wien: Hermagoras = Celovec;
Ljubljana; Dunaj: Mohorjeva, pp. 247-273.
14. Kuhar, Roman 2006. “Prava poroka?” (The Real Marriage?), in Kobe, Zdravko and
Igor Pribac (eds.), Hočva ohcet: O nezadostnosti registriranega partnerstva (We Want to
Get Married: About the Insufficiency of Registered Partnership), Krt, pp. 107-134.
15. Pantelidou Maloutas, M., M. Kakepaki and A. Nikolaou 2009. “The evolution of beliefs
on gender relations in Athens”, in Maloutas, Th. et.al. (eds.), Social and spatial
transformations in 21st century Athens, EKKE, pp. 247-278 [in Greek].
16. Pantelidou Maloutas, M. 2010. “Gender inequality as a policy problem: Implicit
assumptions of contemporary political analysis”, in Kantsa, V. et al. (eds.) Gender and
social sciences in contemporary Greece. Athens, Alexandria [in Greek].
17. Platero, Raquel 2008. “Apuntes sobre la represión organizada del lesboerotismo y la
masculinidad de las mujeres en el período franquista”, in Eres Rigueira, J. B. and C.
Villaga (eds.), Homosexuals i Transsexuals. Els altres represaliats i discriminats del
franquisme, des de la memòria històrica.Barcelona: Bellaterra.
161
18. Platero, Raquel 2009. “Lesbianas y gays en la agenda política española”, in VVAA (eds.),
Soy lo que ves. Cultura, identidad y representación homosexual. Madrid: Egales.
19. Platero, Raquel 2009. “Discriminación por orientación sexual e identidad de género”,
in Álvarez, Enrique, Ángela Figueruelo and Laura Nuño (eds.), Estudios interdisciplinares
sobre igualdad. Madrid: Iustel. pp. 169-182.
D. Public QUING Reports (online at http://www.quing.eu)
D.1 QUING State of the Art Reports (D8)
Acar, Feride, Gülbanu Altunok, Saniye Dedeoğlu, Asuman Göksel, and Elif Gözdasoğlu-
Küçükalioğlu, with input from Aydın Albayrak (2007) State of the art and mapping of
competences report: Turkey.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences
(IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_turkey.pdf.
Armstrong, Jo (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report: United
Kingdom.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_uk.pdf.
Carbin, Maria (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report:
Denmark.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_denmark.pdf.
Dabrowska, Magda (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report:
Poland.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_poland.pdf.
Dedić, Jasminka, with input from Marja Kuzmanić (2007) State of the art and mapping of
competences report: Croatia.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences
(IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_croatia.pdf.
Espírito Santo, Ana and Ana Prata, with input from Inês Nunes Fernandes, Emanuela
Lombardo, María Bustelo, and Silvia López (2007) State of the art and mapping of
competences report: Portugal.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences
(IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_portugal.pdf.
Espírito Santo, Ana, María Reglero, and Emanuela Lombardo, with input from Lut
Mergaert (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report: European Union.
QUING Project. QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_eu.pdf.
Gregoriou, Zelia (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report:
Cyprus.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_cyprus.pdf.
Harjunen, Hannele (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report:
Finland.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_finland.pdf.
162
Jaigma, Martin (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report:
Estonia.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_estonia.pdf.
Jarty, Julie, in collaboration with Nicky Le Feuvre and Soline Blanchard(2007) State of
the art and mapping of competences report: France.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_france.pdf.
Kuhar, Roman (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report:
Slovenia.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_slovenia.pdf.
Kvist, Elin (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report: Sweden.QUING
Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_sweden.pdf.
Lauwers, Sophie (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report:
Malta.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_malta.pdf.
Lauwers, Sophie (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report: The
Netherlands.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_netherlands.pdf.
Martens, Saskia, Petra Meier, and Karen Celis (2007) State of the art and mapping of
competences report: Belgium.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences
(IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_belgium.pdf.
Pantelidou Maloutas, Maro and Manina Kakepaki (2007) State of the art and mapping of
competences report: Greece.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences
(IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_greece.pdf.
Raluca Popa (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report:
Romania.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_romania.pdf.
Putnina, Aivita (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report: Latvia.QUING
Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_latvia.pdf.
Reglero, María, María Bustelo, Silvia López and Raquel Platero, with input from Ana
Espírito Santo and Emanuela Lombardo (2007) State of the art and mapping of
competences report: Spain.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM),
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_spain.pdf.
Repar, Stanislava (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report:
Slovakia.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_slovakia.pdf.
Röder, Ingrid (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report: Czech
Republic.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_czech_republic.pdf.
163
Sangiuliano, Maria and Emanuela Lombardo (2007) State of the art and mapping of
competences report: Italy.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM),
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_italy.pdf.
Sotirović-Pilinkaite, Vilana (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report:
Lithuania.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_lithuania.pdf.
Stoykova, Elena (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report:
Bulgaria.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_bulgaria.pdf.
Szabó, Melinda (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report:
Hungary.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_hungary.pdf.
Tertinegg, Karin and Birgit Sauer(2007) State of the art and mapping of competences
report: Austria.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_austria.pdf.
Urbanek, Doris, with input from Birgit Sauer and Lucy Nowottnick (2007) State of the art
and mapping of competences report: Germany.QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_germany.pdf.
Walby, Sylvia (2007) State of the art and mapping of competences report: Ireland.QUING
Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/soa_ireland.pdf.
D.2 QUING Issue Histories (D19)
Acar, Feride, Göksel, Asuman, Dedeoğlu-Atılgan, Saniye, Altunok, Gülbanu, and
Gözdasoğlu-Küçükalioğlu, Elif (2007): Issue Histories Turkey: Series of Timelines of
Policy Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_turkey.pdf.
Armstrong, Jo, Strid, Sofia, and Walby, Sylvia (2007): Issue Histories Ireland: Series of
Timelines of Policy Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences
(IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_ireland.pdf.
Björklund, Erika (2007): Issue Histories Sweden: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_sweden.pdf.
Carbin, Maria (2007): Issue Histories Denmark: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_denmark.pdf.
Dąbrowska, Magdalena (2007): Issue Histories Poland: Series of Timelines of Policy
Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_poland.pdf.
164
Dedić, Jasminka (2007): Issue Histories Croatia: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_croatia.pdf.
Dombos, Tamás, Krizsán, Andrea, Szabó, Melinda, and Zentai, Viola (2007): Issue
Histories Hungary: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates, QUING Project, Vienna:
Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_hungary.pdf.
Espírito Santo, Ana, Prata, Ana, and Fernandes, Inês Nunes, with input from Emanuela
Lombardo and María Bustelo (2007): Issue Histories Portugal: Series of Timelines of
Policy Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_portugal.pdf.
Fernández de Vega, Ana (2007): Issue Histories European Union: Series of Timelines of
Policy Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_eu.pdf.
Gregoriou, Zelia (2007): Issue Histories Cyprus: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_cyprus.pdf.
Harjunen, Hannele (2007): Issue Histories Finland: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_finland.pdf.
Jaigma, Martin (2007): Issue Histories Estonia: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_estonia.pdf.
Jarty, Julie (2007): Issue Histories France: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates, QUING
Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_france.pdf.
Kuhar, Roman, Jalušič, Vlasta, Hrženjak, Majda, and Kuzmanić, Marja (2007): Issue
Histories Slovenia: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates, QUING Project, Vienna:
Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_slovenia.pdf.
Lauwers, Sophie (2007): Issue Histories Malta: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_malta.pdf.
Lauwers, Sophie (2007): Issue Histories The Netherlands: Series of Timelines of Policy
Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_netherlands.pdf.
Longo, Valentina and Sangiuliano, Maria (2007): Issue Histories Italy: Series of Timelines
of Policy Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available
at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_italy.pdf.
López, Silvia, Peterson, Elin, and Platero, Raquel, with input from Inês Nunes Fernandes
and Amaia Pérez (2007): Issue Histories Spain: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,
165
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_spain.pdf.
Martens, Saskia (2007): Issue Histories Belgium: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_belgium.pdf.
Martens, Saskia (2007): Issue Histories Luxembourg: Series of Timelines of Policy
Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_luxembourg.pdf.
Pantelidou Maloutas, M. Kakepaki, M., Maratou-Alipranti, L., and Nikolaou, A. (2007):
Issue Histories Greece: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates, QUING Project, Vienna:
Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_greece.pdf.
Pilinkaite-Sotirović, Vilana (2007): Issue Histories Lithuania: Series of Timelines of Policy
Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_lithuania.pdf.
Popa, Raluca Maria (2007): Issue Histories Romania: Series of Timelines of Policy
Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_romania.pdf.
Putnina, Aivita (2007): Issue Histories Latvia: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_latvia.pdf.
Repar, Stanislava, with input from Zuzana Očenášová (2007): Issue Histories Slovakia:
Series of Timelines of Policy Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human
Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_slovakia.pdf.
Röder, Ingrid (2007): Issue Histories Czech Republic: Series of Timelines of Policy
Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_czech_republic.pdf.
Stoykova, Elena (2007): Issue Histories Bulgaria: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_bulgaria.pdf.
Strid, Sofia, Armstrong, Jo, and Walby, Sylvia (2007): Issue Histories United Kingdom:
Series of Timelines of Policy Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human
Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_uk.pdf.
Tertinegg, Karin and Sauer, Birgit (2007): Issue Histories Austria: Series of Timelines of
Policy Debates, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_austria.pdf.
Urbanek, Doris (2007): Issue Histories Germany: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_germany.pdf.
166
D.3 QUING Intersectionality Reports (D35)
Acar, Feride, Altunok, Gülbanu, and Gözdasoğlu-Küçükalioğlu, Elif (2008): Report
Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for Turkey and the EU, QUING
Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_turkey.pdf.
Alonso, Alba and Fernandes, Inês Nunes, with input from María Bustelo, Emanuela
Lombardo, and Ana de Mendoza (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender
Equality Policies for Portugal and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna:Institute for Human
Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_portugal.pdf.
Carbin, Maria (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for
Denmark and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM),
available athttp://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_denmark.pdf.
Dąbrowska, Magdalena (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality
Policies for Poland and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences
(IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_poland.pdf.
Del Giorgio, Elena, Lombardo, Emanuela, Longo, Valentina, and Vianello, Francesca
(2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for Italy and the
EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_italy.pdf.
Dombos, Tamás, Kispéter, Erika, Krizsán, Andrea, and Zentai, Viola, with the assistance
of Melinda Szabó (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies
for Hungary and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna:Institute for Human Sciences (IWM),
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_hungary.pdf.
Fernández de Vega, Ana, Lombardo, Emanuela, and Rolandsen Agustín, Lise (2008):
Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for the EU, QUING Project,
Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_eu.pdf.
Forest, Maxime and Platero, Raquel, with the contribution of Amaia Pérez Orosco and
Silvia López (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for
Spain and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available
at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_spain.pdf.
Frank, Ana (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for
Croatia and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM),
available athttp://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_croatia.pdf.
Harjunen, Hannele (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies
for Finland and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for HumanSciences (IWM),
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_finland.pdf.
Jaigma, Martin (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for
Estonia and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences
(IWM),available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_estonia.pdf.
167
Jarty, Julie, in collaboration with Julie Rigaudière (2008): Report Analysing
Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for France and the EU, QUING Project,
Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_france.pdf.
Kakepaki, Manina, with input from Maro Pantelidou Maloutas and Zelia Gregoriou (2008):
Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for Cyprus and the EU,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for HumanSciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_cyprus.pdf.
Kuhar, Roman (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for
Slovenia and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM),
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_slovenia.pdf.
Kvist, Elin, with additions by Malin Rönnblom (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in
Gender Equality Policies for Sweden and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_sweden.pdf.
Lauwers, Sophie and Van der Wal, Femke (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in
Gender Equality Policies for Malta and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_malta.pdf.
Lauwers, Sophie and Van der Wal, Femke (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in
Gender Equality Policies for the Netherlands and the EU, QUING Project,Vienna:
Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_netherlands.pdf.
Martens, Saskia (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for
Belgium and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences
(IWM),available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_belgium.pdf.
Martens, Saskia, with contributions from Mieke Verloo (2008): Report Analysing
Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for Luxembourg and the EU, QUING Project,
Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_luxembourg.pdf.
Očenášová, Zuzana and Dedić, Jasminka (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in
Gender Equality Policies for Slovakia and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_slovakia.pdf.
Pantelidou Maloutas, Maro, Nikolaou, Anna, Kakepaki, Manina, Tsinganou, Ioannna,
Thanopoulou, Maria, and Maratou Alipranti, Laura (2008): Report Analysing
Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for Greece and the EU, QUING Project,
Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_greece.pdf.
Pilinkaite-Sotirović, Vilana (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality
Policies for Lithuania and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences
(IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_lithuania.pdf.
Popa, Raluca Maria (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies
for Romania and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM),
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_romania.pdf.
168
Putnina, Aivita (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for
Latvia and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM),
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_latvia.pdf.
Röder, Ingrid (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for
the Czech Republic and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences
(IWM),available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_czech_republic.pdf.
Stoykova, Elena (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in Gender Equality Policies for
Bulgaria and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM),
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_bulgaria.pdf.
Strid, Sofia, Armstrong, Jo, and Walby, Sylvia (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality
in Gender Equality Policies for Ireland and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute
forHuman Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_ireland.pdf.
Strid, Sofia, Armstrong, Jo, and Walby, Sylvia (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality
in Gender Equality Policies for the United Kingdom and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna:
Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_uk.pdf.
Tertinegg, Karin, with input from Birgit Sauer (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in
Gender Equality Policies for Austria and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_austria.pdf.
Urbanek, Doris, with input from Birgit Sauer (2008): Report Analysing Intersectionality in
Gender Equality Policies for Germany and the EU, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM),available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ir_germany.pdf.
D.4 QUING Country Context Studies (D41)
Acar, Feride and Göksel, Asuman, with input from Gülbanu Altunok and Elif Gözdasoğlu
Küçükalioğlu (2008): Context Study Turkey, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human
Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_turkey.pdf.
Armstrong, Jo, Strid, Sofia, and Walby, Sylvia (2008): Context Study Ireland, QUING
Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_ireland.pdf.
Björklund, Erika and Carbin, Maria (2008): Context Study Denmark, QUING Project,
Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_denmark.pdf.
Björklund, Erika and Kvist, Elin (2008): Context Study Sweden, QUING Project, Vienna:
Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_sweden.pdf.
Dąbrowska, Magdalena (2008): Context Study Poland, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute
for Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_poland.pdf.
169
Dedić, Jasminka and Frank, Ana (2008): Context Study Croatia, QUING Project, Vienna:
Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_croatia.pdf.
Dombos, Tamás, Krizsán, Andrea, Szabó, Melinda, and Wirth, Judit (2008): Context
Study Hungary, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_hungary.pdf.
Fernandes, Inês Nunes (2008): Context Study Portugal, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute
for Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_portugal.pdf.
Fernández de Vega de Miguel, Ana, with input from Emanuela Lombardo (2008): Context
Study European Union, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM),
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_eu.pdf.
Gregoriou, Zelia (2008): Context Study Cyprus, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_cyprus.pdf.
Harjunen, Hannele (2008): Context Study Finland, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_finland.pdf.
Jaigma, Martin (2008): Context Study Estonia, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_estonia.pdf.
Jarty, Julie and Rigaudière, Julie (2008): Context Study France, QUING Project, Vienna:
Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_france.pdf.
Kakepaki, Manina, Nikolaou, Anna, and Pantelidou-Maloutas, Maro (2008): Context
Study Greece, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available
athttp://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_greece.pdf.
Kuhar, Roman (2008): Context Study Slovenia, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_slovenia.pdf.
Lauwers, Sophie, with contributions from Frances Camilleri-Cassar and Mieke Verloo
(2008): Context Study Malta, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences
(IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_malta.pdf.
Lauwers, Sophie and Van der Wal, Femke, with contributions from Conny Roggeband,
Marianne Grunell, and Mieke Verloo (2008): Context Study The Netherlands, QUING
Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_netherlands.pdf.
Longo, Valentina and Vianello, Francesca (2008): Context Study Italy, QUING Project,
Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_italy.pdf.
Martens, Saskia (2008): Context Study Belgium, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_belgium.pdf.
Martens, Saskia (2008): Context Study Luxembourg, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_luxembourg.pdf.
170
Očenášová, Zuzana (2008): Context Study Slovakia, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_slovakia.pdf.
Pérez Orozco, Amaia, with input from Marta García de Lucio, Silvia López, Elin Peterson,
and Raquel Platero (2008): Context Study Spain, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_spain.pdf.
Pilinkaite-Sotirović, Vilana (2008): Context Study Lithuania, QUING Project, Vienna:
Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_lithuania.pdf.
Popa, Raluca Maria (2008): Context Study Romania, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_romania.pdf.
Putnina, Aivita (2008): Context Study Latvia, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human
Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_latvia.pdf.
Röder, Ingrid (2008): Context Study Czech Republic, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_czech_republic.pdf.
Stoykova, Elena (2008): Context Study Bulgaria, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for
Human Sciences (IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_bulgaria.pdf.
Strid, Sofia, Armstrong, Jo, and Walby, Sylvia (2008): Context Study United Kingdom,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_uk.pdf.
Tertinegg, Karin and Sauer, Birgit (2008): Context Study Austria, QUING Project, Vienna:
Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_austria.pdf.
Urbanek, Doris, with input from Birgit Sauer (2008): Context Study Germany, QUING
Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_germany.pdf.
D.5 On methodology
This section of the project website contains information on the conceptual framework as
well as the various steps of frame analysis: issue histories, sampling documents, coding,
code standardisation, frame building, contextual data. See
http://www.quing.eu/content/view/52/63.
D.6 Final reports for LARG, WHY, STRIQ and OPERA
Ferguson, Lucy, Maxime Forest et al. (2011): OPERA Final Report. Advancing Gender+
Training in Theory and Practice, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences
(IWM), available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/final_opera_report.pdf.
171
Krizsán, Andrea, Tamás Dombos, Erika Kispéter, Melinda Szabó, Jasminka Dedić,
Martin Jaigma, Roman Kuhar, Ana Frank, Birgit Sauer, and Mieke Verloo (2010):
Framing gender equality in the European Union and its current and future Member
States. Final LARG Report, QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM),
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/results/final_larg_report.pdf.
Verloo, Mieke and Sylvia Walby (2010): Final WHY Report, QUING Project, Vienna:
Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/final_why_report.pdf.
Verloo, Mieke, Sylvia Walby, Jo Armstrong, and Sofia Strid (2009): Final STRIQ Report,
QUING Project, Vienna: Institute for Human Sciences (IWM), available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/results/final_striq_report.pdf.
D.7 WHY papers (seehttp://www.quing.eu/content/view/19/36)
Acar, Feride and Gülbanu Altunok (2009): Paths, borders and bridges: impact of ethnicity
and religion on women’s movement in Turkey, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/acar_altunok.pdf.
Alonso, Alba (2009): Institutionalizing intersectionality in Portugal: towards a multiple
approach, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/alonso.pdf.
Alonso, Alba and Maxime Forest (2009): Is gender equality soluble into self-governance?
Europeanizing gender at the sub-national level in Spain, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/slonso_forest.pdf.
Armstrong, Jo, Sylvia Walby, and Sofia Strid (2009): Intersectionality and the quality of
gendered employment policy, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/armstrong_walby_strid.pdf.
Baer, Susanne, Janet Keim, and Lucy Nowottnick (2009): Intersectionality in gender+
training, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/baer_keim_nowottnick.pdf.
Bustelo, María and Maxime Forest (2009): The politics of intersectionality in Spain:
shaping intersectional approaches in a multi-level polity, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/bustelo_forest.pdf.
Carbin, Maria, Hannele Harjunen, and Elin Kvist (2009): Children and fathers first?
Fertility treatment policies in Denmark, Finland and Sweden, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/carbin_harjunen_kvist.pdf.
Ciccia, Rossella and Mieke Verloo (2011): Who cares? Patterns of leave regulation in an
enlarged Europe: using fuzzy-set ideal types to assess gender equality, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/ciccia_verloo.pdf.
Dabrowska, Magdalena (2009): European vs. national in Polish gender equality debates
and policy documents, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/dabrowska.pdf.
Dedić, Jasminka (2009): Roma in European gender equality policy debates:
intersectionalized and feminized, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/dedic.pdf.
172
Del Giorgio, Elena and Emanuela Lombardo (2009): Institutionalising intersectionality in
Italy: gatekeepers and political dynamics, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/delgiorgio_lombardo.pdf.
Forest, Maxime and Emanuela Lombardo (2009): Beyond the ‘worlds of compliance’: a
sociological and discursive approach to the Europeanisation of gender equality policies,
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/forest_lombardo.pdf.
Frank, Ana (2009): Rethinking the effects of Europeanization: civil society and state
framing of gender equality policies in Turkey and Croatia, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/frank.pdf.
Jaigma, Martin (2009): On the interface between civil society and state and its
implications for the quality of gender equality policies in Estonia, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/jaigma.pdf.
Jarty, July (2009): Women and employment: Does France go it alone?, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/jarty.pdf
Kispéter, Erika (2009): Family policy debates in post-state socialist Hungary: from
maternalism to gender equality, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/kispeter.pdf.
Krizsán, Andrea and Raluca Popa (2009): Frames in contestation. Domestic violence
policy debates in five countries of Central and Eastern Europe, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/krizsan_popa.pdf.
Krizsán, Andrea and Raluca Popa (2009): Stretching EU conditionality: mechanisms of
Europeanization in making domestic violence policies in Central and Eastern Europe,
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/krizsan_popa.pdf.
Krizsán, Andrea, Raluca Popa, and Viola Zentai (2009): Intersectionality: who’s concern?
Institutionalizing equality policy in new Central and Eastern European Members States of
the EU, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/krizsan_popa_zentai.pdf.
Kuhar, Roman (2009): In the background of non-discrimination discourse: From the rights
of same-sex partners to the rights of children. The use of the Europeanization frame in
non-heterosexual intimacy policies in Europe, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/kuhar.pdf.
Kvist, Elin and Elin Peterson (2009): Norms and silences in gender equality policies: an
analysis of policy debates on domestic services in Spain and Sweden, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/kvist_peterson.pdf.
Kvist, Elin, Maria Carbin, and Hannele Harjunen (2009): Domestic services or maid?
Discourses on gender equality, work and integration in Nordic policy debate, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/kvist_carbin_harjunen.pdf.
Lauwers, Sophie (2009): Identifying gender transformation in welfare state policies: an
analysis of leave regulations and framing in EU member states and the EU, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/lauwers.pdf.
Lauwers, Sophie and Saskia Martens (2009): Accommodating multiple discrimination.
Equality bodies in Belgium and the Netherlands analyzed from an intersectional gender
perspective, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/lauwers_martens.pdf.
173
Lombardo, Emanuela and María Bustelo (2009): The political treatment of inequalities in
Europe: a comparative analysis of Italy, Portugal and Spain, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/lombardo_bustelo.pdf.
Lombardo, Emanuela and Lise Rolandsen Agustín (2009): Framing gender intersections
in the European Union: what implications for the quality of intersectionality in policies?,
available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/lombardo_rolandsen.pdf.
Lombardo, Emanuela and Mieke Verloo (2009): Institutionalising intersectionality in the
European Union? Policy developments and contestations, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/lombardo_verloo.pdf.
Očenášová, Zuzana (2009): Europeanization of gender equality policies through the
needle's eye of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/ocenasova.pdf.
Pantelidou Maloutas, Maro (2009): Gender policies as means of Europeanization: The
case of Greece, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/maloutas.pdf.
Pilinkaite-Sotirović, Vilana (2009): Limits of Europeanization: marriage, family and
reproduction policies in Lithuania, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/pilinkaite.pdf.
Röder, Ingrid (2009): Gender+ equality policies as Europeanisation of old and new
member states? An ongoing process, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/roeder.pdf.
Tertinegg, Karin (2009): Going international? Civil society voices and the role of
international actors in Austrian and German gender equality policies, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/tertinegg.pdf.
Urbanek, Doris (2009): Towards processual intersectional policy analysis, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/urbanek.pdf.
Van der Wal, Femke and Mieke Verloo (2009): Religion, church, intimate citizenship and
gender equality: an analysis of differences in gender equality policies in European
Catholic countries, available at http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/vanderwal_verloo.pdf
Walby, Sylvia, Jo Armstrong, and Sofia Strid (2009): Intersectionality and the quality of
equality architecture in Britain, available at
http://www.quing.eu/files/WHY/walby_armstrong_strid.pdf.
E. Other
Borbely, Szilvia, Judit Gazsi, Andrea Krizsán and Roza Vajda 2008. “Gender
Mainstreaming” E-learning manual for Hungarian public administration. EQUAL.
Budapest, December 2008. (In Hungarian)
European Commission 2009. Toolkit – Gender in EU-funded research, Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
174
Verloo, Mieke 2011. Gender equality policies as interventions in a changing world,
Keynote address at the 2nd ECPG Conference, Budapest, January 2011, available at
http://www.ecprnet.eu/sg/ecpg/documents/keyNotes/Gender_equality_policies_as_interv
entions_in_a_changing_world.pdf (accessed 5 May 2011).
F. PhD Theses
Dabrowska, Magdalena: Plec w polskim dyskursie politycznym. Analiza debat
parlamentarnych 1992-2005 (Gender in Polish political discourse. Analysis of
parliamentary debates 1992-2005), defended at CEU, 25 November 2009.
Forest, Maxime: Une analyse genrée du changement politique sur le terrain
parlementaire. La Chambre des députés de la République tchèque, 1996-2008 (A
Gendered Analysis of Political change in Parliamentary Politics. The Chamber of
deputies of the Czech Republic), defended at Sciences Po, Paris, June 2009.
Jarty, Julie: L’emploi, la famille, et l’articulation des temps de vie chez les enseignant-e-s
du secondaire. Une comparaison France-Espagne (Employment, family and work/life
balance for secondary school teachers. A comparison between France and Spain),
defended at the Université de Toulouse II-le Mirail, 10 December 2010, to be published
as Travail, genre et vie privée dans le professorat. Une sociologie comparative des
parcours enseignants, Octarès 2012.
López Rodríguez, Silvia: Un análisis de marcos de las políticas contra la violencia de
género en España (An analysis of policy frames on gender-based violence in Spain),
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, to be submitted in 2012.
Peterson, Elin: Beyond the women-(un)friendly welfare state. Framing gender inequality
as a policy problem in Spanish and Swedish politics of care, to be defended at the
Universidad Complutense de Madrid in October 2011.
Rolandsen Agustín, Lise: Gender equality and diversity at the transnational level.
Challenges to European Union policy-making and women's collective mobilization,
defended at Aalborg University (Denmark), April 29, 2011.
Urbanek, Doris: Citizenship meets political intersectionality. German intimate citizenship
policies in intersectional analysis (working title), to be defended at the University of
Vienna in December 2011.
175
2.2 Future route to full use and dissemination of knowledge
For FRAGEN, Mieke Verloo initiated the contact with Aletta, who took over the database and
its future management. We also formed a small taskforce consisting of some of the FRAGEN
partners who are willing to search for money to expand the database and further encourage
its use. Already a group of gender studies students in Utrecht has done a small project with
the Dutch part of the database for the FRAGEN dissemination in Amsterdam in May 2011
(under supervision of Dr Iris van der Tuin, also the Vice-President of ATGender).
For OPERA, we initiated the contact with EIGE, who took over the database of trainers and
its future management. We have a first meeting scheduled for the 14th of July 2011, in which
María Bustelo and Mieke Verloo will participate. Our goal is to hold further conferences
where gender+ trainers can meet and exchange experiences, skills, and knowledge, as well
as promoting thedatabase and its use and further developing the Madrid Declaration.
For LARG, WHY, and STRIQ, the past decision to make 90 reports public enables the wider
research community to join the QUING team in the further analysis of its material. Within the
QUING consortium, all team members who have an academic position will continue to
analyse and publish on the data, as well as encouraging younger researchers to do so. This
will include commenting on drafts and helping to see which outlets for publication are
suitable, as well as concluding PhD and MA dissertation projects based on QUING material
that are still being prepared or revised for publication. All existing contacts and networks will
be used for this. Some members recently acquired permanent positions (e.g., Emanuela
Lombardo has just been appointed to a professorship at Universidad Complutense de
Madrid). Moreover, there are also a number of smaller funding schemes that allow
continuation for team members without permanent positions (e.g., Sofia Strid with a Swedish
grant, Jo Armstrong and Rossella Ciccia with funding from Radboud University). First in line,
we work towards further analysis of the material concerning Gender-based Violence, and
hope to come to a special issue on this. We have good hope finding money for an extra
workshop to meet with all those who have done preliminary work on this, probably in autumn
2011.
176
3. Final plan for using and disseminating the knowledge
Overall, the final plan for using and disseminating QUING generated knowledge targets
teaching, future research, and coalitions with civil society. In this the QUING consortium will
continue to function as a network, using its proved mailing lists for connections and
communications also in the future.
Linked to the positions of several of its members, QUING generated knowledge will continue
to be disseminated in curricula of evaluation studies, gender studies, political science,
sociology, and interdisciplinary social sciences. A number of dissertations will be finished in
the next years (e.g., by Doris Urbanek and Lisa Wewerka from Vienna University).
All senior and junior QUING members will take on board QUING generated knowledge in
their future work, first but not only in future research work including funded research projects.
QUING papers will be presented at future conferences of ECPR, ESA, ATGender, IPA,
APSA and others, and at national-level conferences as well. There are many initiatives for
further collaboration, but we do not want to disclose our applications here when they are only
submitted and we do not have any response to them yet. In view of the scale of QUING, the
arrangements made so far will not enable the QUING consortium to continue as such, but
consist of relatively smaller collaborations.
There are plans to engage in closer collaborations with other European gender projects
building on earlier contacts (Mieke Verloo and Sylvia Walby will give a keynote at the launch
of new research centre in Aalborg, under the direction of Birte Siim, who leads the gender
part of Eurosphere). As a start, Verloo initiated collaboration with Amy Mazur (one of the
founders of the RNGS project), and they submitted a successful application for an ECPR
Joint Sessions workshop entitled “Thinking Big about ‘Gender Equality’ Policy in the
Comparative Politics of Gender”, specifically targeting the growing group of scholars involved
in large-scale comparative analyses of (gender) equality policy issues in Europe and globally.
These Joint Sessions, for which the convenors will actively approach the community of larger
European gender policies scholars, will be held in Antwerp in spring 2012.
For FRAGEN and OPERA, see the remarks in chapter 2.2 on the future route to full use and
dissemination of knowledge.
Beyond this, the results of the QUING project have helped in securing a follow-up project in
the Netherlands on the integration and participation of marginalised men by Mieke Verloo
(funded by the Oranje Fonds foundation). Based on QUING experiences, Mieke Verloo has
also accepted being on the Advisory Board of the European Commission study on the Role
of Men in Gender Equality. These follow-up activities allow a connection of the project
findings with the new masculinities field.
Given the overall success and productivity of the project, our biggest wish would be to
continue as a Consortium. While this does not appear to be feasible for the time being, there
will fortunately be quite a lot of QUING activities in the years to come.
177
4. Final management report
4.1 Justification of major cost items and resources
4.1.1 General description of activities
A. Management structure
QUING was co-ordinated by the Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen (IWM), a
private non-profit institute for advanced study in the humanities and social sciences. The
management structure of QUING comprised the following elements:
1. Project Co-ordinator, with overall responsibility for the successful implementation of
the project, and for contacts with the Commission. The Project Co-ordinator was
Susanne Fröschl, Managing Director at the IWM in Vienna.
2. Scientific Director, with overall responsibility for the scientific achievements of the
project, and for the promoting and dissemination activities related to this. This task
was carried out by Mieke Verloo, who was based at the IWM in Vienna as well as at
Radboud University Nijmegen.
3. Project Manager, responsible for the day-to-day management of the project,
administrative matters, the intranet and website, communication between the
partners, organising meetings, and the preparation of reports. The management of
the project was based at the IWM in Vienna and carried out initially by Barbara
Abraham and later by Manuel Tröster.
4. Executive Board, consisting of the researchers leading the respective teams. In
practice, this group was joined by Emanuela Lombardo for UCM, Andrea Krizsán for
CEU, and at times by Roman Kuhar for PI and Asuman Göksel for METU.
5. Activity leadership:
Activity Activity Leader Executive Board Member
LARG Viola Zentai (CEU) Vlasta Jalušić (PI)
WHY Birgit Sauer (IWM) Sylvia Walby (LANC)
STRIQ Sylvia Walby (LANC) Mieke Verloo (RAD)
FRAGEN Tilly Vriend (Aletta) Mieke Verloo (IWM)
OPERA María Bustelo (UCM) Mieke Verloo (IWM)
6. General Assembly, consisting of all the partners and researchers involved in the
project.
7. International Advisory Board, consisting of external experts who offer general advice
on the development of the project and provide quality control.
178
The International Advisory Board was formed in December 2006 (D5) and consisted
of the following members:
Carol Bacchi [email protected]
Rosi Braidotti [email protected]
Agnès Hubert [email protected]
Liz Kelly [email protected]
Myra Marx Ferree [email protected]
Lilja Mósesdóttir [email protected]
Ann Phillips [email protected]
Ann Phoenix [email protected]
Diane Richardson [email protected]
During the project term the Co-ordinator fulfilled the following tasks as set out in the Contract
and in the Consortium Agreement:
acted as the intermediary between the Contractors and the Commission
distributed the Community funding in accordance with the agreed budget set
out in Annex 1 of the Contract
set up and maintained the project website and intranet
established the International Advisory Board
convened a kick-off meeting, several workshops, and a large conference held
in October 2009, and prepared the minutes and a report
submitted reports and reports to the Commission
Communication between Partners
Communication among the Partners was facilitated by
mailing lists
an intranet
consortium meetings
Mailing lists
To facilitate communication among all team members, a project mailing list was set up at the
start of the project in month 1.
For administrative matters as well as for methodological discussions, specific mailing lists
proved most practical. As a result, the project members ended up using three different
mailing lists for managerial and methodological matters:
[email protected] (general list for all team members)
[email protected] (for administrational matters)
[email protected] (for discussion of the methodological design)
179
Related to the work for WP 12, four additional lists were opened to facilitate the work on the
WHY papers:
Intranet/Internet
The project website (http://www.quing.eu) consists of a public and an internal part. The public
part delivers general information on the project outline, the Consortium and the Advisory
Board, as well as contact information. In the course of the project, various publications,
produced as part of the research activities, were posted or announced on this site.
Members have the possibility to log in to access the Intranet. The internal office-section
contains material from the Co-ordinator on management issues, important documents for
FP6 projects, and links to websites with further information. The internal research section
contains all (non-public) material related to the research of the project, such as
methodological documents, research guidelines, and reports. The website remains active
after the end of the project term.
Meetings
Beyond the regular meetings and workshops organised by QUING, project partners and
researchers frequently met at international conferences. These events not only served
dissemination, but also provided additional opportunities for face-to-face contact and co-
ordination.
Co-operation with other projects and programmes
QUING members met representatives of other European projects on numerous occasions.
Interaction included:
participation in a panel with FEMCIT, RECCON, and EUROSPHERE at the Women’s
World Conference in Madrid, July 2008
participation in a seminar and workshop of the GARNET Network of Excellence, July
2007 and December 2008
joint workshops with the TARGET project at Berlin, Nijmegen, Boston, and Madrid,
May 2008, November 2008, March 2009, and June 2009
panel participation of Mieke Verloo in the final conference of GendeRace, June 2010
participation of Mieke Verloo as discussant in the EUROSPHERE Conference “The
Publics of Europe and the European Public Sphere: Tracing the Architects and
Trespassers of Borders and Boundaries in Europe”, November 2010
a workshop co-organised by Maxime Forest (together with Alena Křížková) on
Gender Research in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Prague, April 19, 2011. This
meeting involved scholars participating in the projects KNOWING and FEMCIT, as
well as in a Czech project.
180
These efforts will continue after the end of the project term. Thus, Mieke Verloo will co-
organise a workshop (with Amy Mazur, RNGS) within the frame of the ECPR Joint Sessions
at Antwerp in April 2012, entitled “Thinking big. Gender equality policies in the comparative
politics of gender”.
B. Main tasks
To carry out the five activities of the QUING project: LARG, STRIQ, WHY, FRAGEN, and
OPERA.
C. Timetable and Status
CalendarOct.
2006
April
2007
Oct.
2007
April
2008
Oct.
2008
April
2009
Oct.
2009
April
2010
Oct.
2010
Mar
2011
May
2011
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Work package >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> //
QUING ◆ 1 ◆ 2, 3 ◆ 10 ◆ 16 ◆ 31 ◆ 32
WP1 (Q1) ▭ MM ▱ 1 ▱ 3-
5
▭ MM
▭ MM
AR P1 ▭ MM
AR P2 ▭ MM
AR P3
WP2 (Q2) ▱ 6▭ WS
▱ 82, 84
LARG ◆ 4 ◆ 6 ◆ 8 ◆ 11 ◆ 12 ◆ 17 ◆ 20 ◆ 22 ◆ 25
WP3 (L1) ▭ WS
▭ WS
▭ WS
▭ MM▭ WS ▱ 34
WP4 (L2) ▱ 7 ▱ 2 ▱ 8 ▱ 9-
11
WP5 (L3) ▭ WS
▭ WS ▱ 17
▭ WS
WP6 (L4) ▱ 19 ▱ 22 ▱ 33 ▱ 40
WP7 (L5) ▱ 36 ▱ 48
WP8 (L6) ▭ CO ▱ 54 ▱ 61
WHY ◆ 7 ◆ 9 ◆ 13 ◆ 21 ◆ 22 ◆ 28
WP9 (W1) ▭ WS ▱ 31
▭ WS ▱ 34 ▱ 60
WP10 (W2) ▭ WS
▱ 20,
23,24
▭ WS
WP11 (W3) ▱ 41
WP12 (W4) ▱ 47,49
WP14 (W6) ▱ 71
CalendarOct.
2006
April
2007
Oct.
2007
April
2008
Oct.
2008
April
2009
Oct.
2009
April
2010
Oct.
2010
Mar
2011
May
2011
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Work package >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> //
STRIQ ◆ 5 ◆ 15 ◆ 18, 19 ◆ 22 ◆ 24
WP15 (S1) ▭ WS
▭ WS ▱ D18
▭ WS
▭ WS ▱ 38
▭ WS ▱ 34
WP16 (S2) ▱ 13,14
▭ EM ▱ 42
WP17 (S3) ▱ 35
WP18 (S4) ▱ 45 ▭ CO ▱ 59 ▱ 62
FRAGEN ◆ 26, 27
WP19 (F1) ▭ WS
▭ WS
▭ WS
▱ 100-
3▱ 105 ▱ 107
WP20 (F2) ▱ 21
WP21 (F3)
WP22 (F4) ▱ 104 ▱ 105
WP24 (F6) ▭ WS ▱ 106 ▱ 107
CalendarOct.
2006
April
2007
Oct.
2007
April
2008
Oct.
2008
April
2009
Oct.
2009
April
2010
Oct.
2010
Mar
2011
May
2011
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Work package >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> //
OPERA ◆ 14 ◆ 23 ◆ 29 ◆ 30
WP25 (O1) ▭ WS
▭ EM▭ WS ▱ 39
▭ WS ▱ D34
▭ WS
▱ 56, 64
▭ WS ▱ 75
WP26 (O2) ▱ 16 ▱ 29
WP27 (O3) ▭ EM ▱ 25 ▱ 26 ▱ 32 ▭ EM ▭ EM ▭ EM ▭ EM ▭ EM ▭ EM ▱ 57,
58▭ EM ▱ 78
WP28 (O4) ▱ 43
WP29 (O5) ▱ 37 ▱ 50
WP30 (O6) ▱ 65
WP31 (O7) ▭ Train
▭ Train
▭ Train
▭ Train
WP32 (O8) ▭ CO ▱ 81,
86
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
CalendarOct.
2006
April
2007
Oct.
2007
April
2008
Oct.
2008
April
2009
Oct.
2009
April
2010
Oct.
2010
Mar
2011
May
1201
Legend: AR Annual Reporting Start/End of work package
CO Conference ▭ Activity
EM Expert Meeting ▱ Deliverable
MM Management Meeting ◆ Milestone
WS Workshop
durationduration duration duration
duration duration duration duration
duration duration duration duration
182
4.1.2 Description of work performed by each contractor
WP 1 Management & co-ordination
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The co-ordinator established the management structure of the project consisting of the
International Advisory Board, the Executive Board, and the project management, in which
several staff members of the IWM (the managing director, the programme co-ordinator, the
network administrator, and the accountant) were involved to various degrees. The scientific
director continually monitored the scientific quality of the project and its reports, and was
responsible for organising the kick-off meeting, the Consortium Meetings, and the project
workshops as well as the LARG-STRIQ-WHY conference held at Budapest in October 2009.
The project intranet and website (http://www.quing.eu) was set up and maintained as well as
the mailing lists for internal communication. The co-ordinator was also responsible for
compiling and submitting the reports and the annual reporting documents as well as handling
all communication with the project and financial officers at the Commission.
WP 2 Dissemination & exploitation
See dissemination lists for further details.
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The scientific director disseminated the project at several international venues, including
meetings of related 6th and 7th Framework projects, academic conferences, and meetings
with policy-makers. The IWM team presented papers at various international conferences,
such as the ECPR General conference in Pisa (September 2007) and the international
Women’s World conference in Madrid (July 2008). Further the team disseminated the
QUING project and its findings in the German-speaking and especially Austrian and
Viennese contexts, culminating in a workshop on gender+ held at the Institute in January
2011. IWM also participated in NGO workshops and gave interviews to press and broadcast
journalists.
At the Management Meeting in Budapest (October 2009), the Consortium decided to make
three groups of reports public which were not originally planned as public documents: 30
country context studies, 30 issue histories, and 30 STRIQ reports. In order to carry out this
task, a budget transfer was arranged to partner 12 (Lancaster University) where the editing
of the reports was done.
Partner 4: Humboldt Universität, Germany
The HU Berlin team organised several public events, workshops, and roundtables as well as
labs (‘Werkstattgespräche’) with experts, where QUING findings were disseminated and
183
further discussed. Conferences organised and attended include the World Café on “Inclusive
Equality Policies in Germany” (March 2008) and a transatlantic expert meeting on “Content
of Gender+ Trainings” in collaboration with the TARGET project (May 2008).
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
The CEU team, especially members from Hungary, Lithuania and Romania, have been
actively participating in disseminating the methodology and results to a quite wide audience,
including academics as well as civil society and policy-makers. Being one of the activity
leaders of LARG, CEU was heavily involved in organising the main dissemination event of
the activity, i.e. the final conference in Budapest (October 2009).
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, the Netherlands
The Radboud team, most notably the team leader Mieke Verloo, disseminated the
methodology and results of QUING widely within academia as well as to civil-society actors
and policy-makers in Europe and beyond.
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The PI team delivered QUING-related papers at several international conferences as well as
producing book publications and articles. Further they gave a number of interviews to
disseminate the findings of the QUING research.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Apart from contributing to several QUING panels, members of the UCM team presented a
large number of papers as well as moderating roundtables at international conferences.
Moreover, María Bustelo and Emanuela Lombardo delivered invited lectures based on
QUING research, targeting academics as well as civil-society actors and policy-makers
(including a panel at the Beijing+15 Forum organised by the Spanish EU Presidency). Many
of these activities resulted in publications. At the same time, they and their colleagues
offered a large number of QUING-related university courses and gender trainings. Beyond
this, there was a lot of exchange and interaction with other teams and projects, including
seminars held at Umeå University and joint workshops with the TARGET project.
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
The METU team participated in a number of national and international conferences to
present the national research findings (especially STRIQ and LARG findings) on Turkey as
well as working on developing their conference papers into publishable articles.
184
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
In addition to delivering invited papers to a large number of academic and policy-oriented
conferences, the LANC team produced a book, co-edited a special issue of a journal, and
prepared several papers for publication in refereed journals and as chapters in books, based
on QUING findings. LANC was also responsible for the editing the QUING reports placed on
the website, such as the country context reports.
LARG
ACTIVITY LEADER: Viola Zentai, CEU (Partner 6)
EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER: Vlasta Jalušić, PI (Partner 8)
WP 3 Management of activity (LARG 1)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The scientific director has been in frequent contact with the activity leaders of LARG. The
IWM team prepared and attended the kick-off meeting of QUING/LARG, the LARG interim
workshop in Vienna, and the LARG-STRIQ-WHY final conference in Budapest.
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
The EKKE team assisted in the management of the activity.
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
The CEU activity leader of LARG and the CEU Senior Researcher, together with PI and the
Scientific Director of the project, managed all LARG activities throughout the reporting
period. Communication channels were established, and CEU contributed to designing
detailed work plans and timetables, fine-tuning division of labour, and ensured a continuous
and efficient flow of information to the entire consortium. CEU actively participated in all
project workshops as well as contributing to the final LARG final report and organising the
final LARG conference in Budapest in October 2009.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, the Netherlands
RAD contributed to the launch and interim workshops and prepared an ad-hoc meeting in
Nijmegen (26-28 May 2008) as well as participating in the final conference.
185
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The PI team contributed to the general management and workshops of the activity. The
partner worked on the management and finalisation of the final LARG activities together with
the CEU team and was present at the QUING conference in October 2009, where the results
were presented.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
UCM actively participated in the LARG interim and training workshops as well as the final
conference. Three new researchers were successfully recruited after their predecessors had
left the project for different personal reasons in August-Sept 2008.
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
The partner attended the kick-off meeting, the LARG interim workshop, and the final
conference as well as planning and managing the LARG activity for the UM team.
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
The METU team was represented at the launch, interim, and final meetings. The partner
worked on the Turkish case and prepared a paper presenting its findings.
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
LANC contributed to the launch, interim, and final meetings.
WP 4 Literature search & methodology (LARG 2)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The IWM team produced the state-of-the-art reports and country studies in LARG for Austria
and Germany, with input and comments by the scientific director. The team leader
contributed to developing the QUING guidelines for the state-of-the-art reports in LARG (D7),
for the frame and voice analysis manual (D9), for the guidelines for the sampling of
documents for the LARG analysis (D10), and for LARG country report manual (D11).
Towards the end of the project term, the scientific director arranged for the publication of
texts on LARG methodology and commented on the texts written mostly by Tamás Dombos
from the CEU team.
186
Partner 4: Humboldt Universität, Germany
The partner supported the country researcher for Germany by providing additional
information about existing literature and research results. The partner contributed to the
development of the frame and voice analysis.
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
The partner selected the researchers to do the country study in LARG, based on their skills
and previous experience. Two people from Greece and one from Cyprus were mostly
responsible for reviewing the existing literature and producing the state-of-the-art reports
(D8), with input from the rest of the ream.
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
Through a competitive selection process, CEU recruited scholars who would be responsible
for conducting research in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania.
Researchers focused on mapping existing gender-equality policy research in each country
and produced state-of-the-art reports. The Senior Researcher and Team Leader collaborated
with the Scientific Director in producing guidelines for the state-of-the-art reports and
sampling, as well as methodology manuals for frame and voice analysis, LARG country
reports, and comparative study. CEU contributed to the production of D2, D7, D8, D9, D10,
D11, and D22.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
RAD selected the researchers with country expertise and language skills and went on to
complete the state-of-the-art reports for the Netherlands, Malta, Belgium, France and
Luxembourg (D8).
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The partner selected the researchers for the country studies in LARG. The activity leader
participated in preparing guidelines for state of the art reports, methodology manual for
sampling of the policy documents, and county reports methodology manual. The state-of-the-
art reports for Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Croatia were finalised
(D8).
187
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
The partner selected the researchers for the state-of-the-art reports and country studies in
LARG. Building on methodological guidelines developed by the activity leader, the UCM
researchers conducted the literature review, including short travels, documentation
assistance from the countries of origins, and many telephone calls to Portugal and Italy in
order to gather the information needed.
Both the team leader and the senior researcher were active in the QUING methodology
group, contributing to the guidelines and manuals D7, D9, D10, and D11.
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
The Umeå researchers prepared state-of-the-art reports (D8) for Denmark, Finland and
Sweden. The reports included carrying out surveys of existing research and mapping
competences and initiatives in gender research.
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
The team leader selected two country researchers to do the country study in LARG. One
additional member of the staff was employed to do administrative work of the METU team
(D2).
The researchers reviewed the existing literature and research in Turkey, mapped
competence and initiatives in gender research, as well as the institutional gender-equality
policy environment in Turkey, and eventually prepared the state-of-the-art report (D8). They
also examined and commented on various manuals sent out by the Activity Leaders.
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
LANC selected the researchers with country expertise and language skills and completed the
state-of-the-art reports for the UK and Ireland (D8).
WP 5 Train researchers & workshop (LARG 3)
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
The LARG training took place in Vienna on May 12-14, 2007, with the participation of the full
CEU team. The training was partially led by the CEU team, which was responsible for
methodology development for the LARG activity. CEU contributed to the production of D15
and D17.
188
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The activity leader participated in the workshop and training on frame and voice analysis
methodologies, sample/pilot coding, and incorporation of the lessons into methodology.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Both the team leader and the senior researcher contributed to the preparation of the LARG
research guidelines (D15), which were necessary for the training workshop in June 2007.
WP 6 Selection of texts and conduct of country studies (LARG 4)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The IWM team discussed and contributed to the fine-tuning of the issue history guidelines.
The partner conducted the research for the issue histories for Austria and Germany. The
researcher for Germany established co-operation with the QUING team at Humboldt
University Berlin. As a next step, the IWM team prepared the list of selected texts for analysis
and for coding, based on a timeline of key policy debates and major institutional changes, in
accordance with the guidelines for the sampling of documents. This work resulted in D33 for
Austria and for Germany. Further each country researcher coded the relevant policy
documents for each country in the software, summarising the major arguments in the body of
texts by topic. On the basis of this work, the LARG reports on Austria and Germany were
delivered (D40).
Partner 4: Humboldt Universität, Germany
The partner reviewed and contributed to the work done by the country researcher for
Germany in mapping the policy debates in Germany.
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
For the selection of documents to be analysed, the Greek team allocated responsibilities to
various researchers. Thus, sub-groups worked in parallel on the different issues, researching
and composing the relevant issue history report (D19). After finalising the choices for the
selection of documents to be analysed, the Greek and Cypriot team coded the selected
documents, producing the supertexts following the methodology of voice and frame analysis.
Subsequently, the teams worked on the LARG country reports, which included an updated
timeline of key policy debates, the coded texts (supertexts), and an analysis of the coded
texts by issue.
189
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
The CEU team began by mapping the policy debates in each target country in selected
topics, and by identifying key actors, debates, and policy documents. Issue histories of policy
debates in the selected topics were produced and submitted for each one of the 29 countries
and the EU. The CEU team was instrumental in having the appropriate software for coding
documents developed, by contributing to the development of system specifications, by
participating in a pilot testing phase, and by launching the coding phase in mid-2007. The
CEU team acted as a point of contact for all software/coding related communications, fine-
tuning, and monitoring for the entire consortium. The partner compiled lists of documents for
coding and produced six country reports for LARG in May 2008. Thus, the CEU team
contributed to the production of D19, D33, and D40.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
RAD completed the timelines of policy debates in selected topics for the Netherlands, Malta,
Belgium, France, and Luxembourg (D19) as well as preparing the list of documents for
coding for these countries. Having completed the coding of the sampled documents, the
team updated the timelines of policy debates and produced conclusions per issue, resulting
in 5 LARG country reports.
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The partner mapped the policy debates in the selected topics (non-employment, gender-
based violence, intimate citizenship and general gender equality) in Estonia, Slovenia,
Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Croatia. Timelines were produced and explanations
written (D19). Documents were gathered, selected, and coded in accordance with the
sampling guidelines. Eventually, the PI team summarised the major arguments in the body of
texts by topic and completed its LARG country reports.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
After producing the timelines or the issue history reports (D19) for the cases of the European
Union, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, the UCM team worked on the selection, sampling and list
of documents for coding, thus completing the actual country reports.
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
The partner produced a timeline of policy issues in the selected topics of the project, reported
in the Issue Histories report (D19) for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. The UM team went on
to code the documents, and then analysed and summarised the analytical results for each
country in a country report.
190
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
The METU team worked on the preparation of a timeline of policy debates (issue histories) in
Turkey in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Activity Leaders, and submitted the
relevant report for Turkey (D19). Subsequently, the partner worked on the selection of
relevant policy documents and contributed to the testing of the software for coding. Finally,
the METU team submitted the list of documents to be coded (D33), and prepared the LARG
country report on Turkey (D40).
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
LANC completed the timelines of policy debates in selected topics for the UK and Ireland
(D19). As a next step, the team produced the list of documents for coding and the LARG
country reports for the UK and Ireland.
WP 7 Comparative analysis country – EU (LARG 5)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The country researchers and team leader conducted the comparative analysis Austria – EU
and Germany – EU, following the guidelines for the mapping of frames provided for each
topic. Thus, the IWM team identified key frames in each selected topic for Austria and
Germany, described deficiencies, deviations, and inconsistencies as compared to the EU,
and assessed standing and voice of civil society in gender+ equality policies. This work
resulted in D48 for the two countries.
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
The researchers identified the key policy frames for every issue and compared the findings
for Greece and Cyprus with the frames in Europe, thus producing two comparative reports.
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
CEU took up a central role in developing the methodology for the comparative analysis in
LARG. The main partners in this WP were scientific director Mieke Verloo, the Umeå team
and the Peace Institute. The comparative methodology consisted of a voice and frame
analysis method and the relevant software. Using these tools, a small team comparatively
mapped the policy frames for each issue. Apart from developing the method for mapping
frames, the team specifically worked on frames for gender-based violence and intimate
citizenship. Using these common sets of policy frames, CEU co-ordinated and guided the
work of country researchers to map the policy frames in their respective countries, and then
compare those to policy frames in the EU. In this framework, all researchers wrote a study
191
that compared framing in the country with framing in the EU across the four QUING policy
issues. 29 comparative studies were delivered. The report contained sections on the frame
typology in each QUING policy field and a section that mapped metaframes cutting across
the four issues according to their relationship to gender equality.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
All RAD researchers wrote a study that compared framing in the country with framing in the
EU across the four QUING policy issues. This report was produced for Belgium, France,
Malta, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. The team also gave comments on the frame
typology report. This report contains sections on the frame typology in each QUING policy
field and a section that mapped metaframes cutting across the four issues according to their
relationship to gender equality.
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The PI team worked on comparative studies to identify key policy frames dominating gender
equality policies in five countries: Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Estonia, and the Czech
Republic. Comparing the position of the countries in question in terms of their distance from
mainstream European equality frames, the partner produced LARG comparative reports (D
48) and contributed to the proposal for a typology of gender régimes (D 36).
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
The UCM team was responsible both for three comparative country reports and for the
elaboration of policy frames on the EU level, which were developed at the QUING workshop
in Vienna in November 2008. D36 on Spain, Portugal and Italy provide a comprehensive
mapping of the main combination of frames in our respective case-studies, as well as a
comparison with the ones on the EU level. Thus, they constitute a first analytical attempt at
challenging the definition of generic frames for each issue, emphasising instead the
contextual voices and variables. Apart from relying on regular QUING researchers, the work
of the UCM team also involved a lot of additional resources, most notably the work of
Emanuela Lombardo and a number of PhD students.
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
As a preliminary step, the partner constructed the overall analytical tool for one of the issues
in this comparison, namely general equality policies, which forms part of the guidelines for
the LARG comparative country studies. The team carried out a comparative analysis for
Denmark, Finland, and Sweden in relation to the EU, which was submitted as part of D36.
192
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Building on the country report, the METU team prepared the Turkey-EU comparative studies
on each topic, identifying key policy frames that dominate Turkish gender equality policies
and comparing them with the European Union gender equality frames (D36).
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
The LANC team compared the meaning of gender equality in equality policies in each
selected topic across countries, and produced the UK-EU and Ireland-EU comparative
analysis reports, which were submitted as part of D36.
WP 8 Preparation of final report & recommendations (LARG 6)
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
The EKKE team provided some input for the final report and recommendations.
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
Led by CEU, the consortium worked on the preparation of the final conference and on the
final report, which was submitted in December 2009.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
Mieke Verloo participated in the writing of the final LARG report.
Partner 8: Peace Institute
The PI team worked on the preparation and finalisation of the final LARG report and
recommendations together with the CEU team (D51, D53).
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
The UCM team dedicated 2 person-months (including 1 from its own staff) to the preparation
of the final LARG Conference in Budapest, where the UCM team presented a number of
papers.
193
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
The METU team prepared and provided all documents required for the final report of the
LARG activity as requested by the Activity Leaders.
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
LANC contributed to the preparation for the final LARG conference.
WHY
ACTIVITY LEADER: Birgit Sauer, IWM (Partner 1)
EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER: Sylvia Walby, LANC (Partner 12)
WP 9 Management of activity (WHY 1)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The scientific director was in frequent contact with the WHY activity leaders. A first draft
concept of the aims of WHY was presented at the launch workshop and subsequently
discussed and fine-tuned. The activity leader at IWM, Birgit Sauer, participated in the
preparations for the final WHY report (D71) and launched a call for WHY papers focusing on
women's policy agencies and civil-society organisations.
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
The EKKE team assisted in the management of the activity.
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
The partner participated in the launch and methodology workshops and contributed to the
management of WHY by helping to make the LARG and WHY activities cohesive, by
conducting ongoing correspondence and intellectual exchange with the WHY activity leaders,
and by attending joint meetings. Further the CEU team supported the LANC team in the
management of writing and editing country context studies and WHY papers composed by
researchers of the six countries covered by CEU.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
The partner participated in the launch and methodology workshops, contributed to one of the
calls for the thematic papers (on intersectionality, together with Sylvia Walby, LANC), and
194
participated in the cross-reading of papers. Later on, RAD contributed to the organisation of
and to presentations at the LARG-WHY-STRIQ conference in Budapest in October 2009.
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The partner participated in the launch and methodology workshops, contributed to the
management of the WHY activity, and participated in the cross-reading of papers.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
UCM actively participated in the launch and methodology workshops. Two of the UCM
members, Emanuela Lombardo and Maxime Forest, took on the initiative to launch an
internal call on Europeanisation, which involved a substantial increase in the tasks of
management and co-ordination. The call drew on a review of the literature on
Europeanisation sent to all QUING members and a system of cross-reading was established
among QUING members, in which UCM team members took a very active part. The initiative
eventually resulted in the preparation of the forthcoming volume The Europeanisation of
Gender Equality Policies. Discursive-Sociological Approaches, which will be published by
Palgrave Macmillan in December 2011.
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
The team leader co-ordinated and was responsible for the planning of the work of the team
concerning the merged reports D47 and D49. This included the planning for joint work
among the team members and between the UM team and other QUING teams in order to
create fruitful combinations for participation. In addition, the team leader supervised the
completion of the reports written for D47 and D49.
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
The METU team was represented at the launch and methodology workshops and
participated in the QUING Conference at Budapest in October 2009, where the partner
presented a paper. The team also provided all the documents required by the Activity
Leaders.
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
LANC co-organised both the launch and methodology workshops as well as contributing to
the organisation of further workshops and co-ordinating work on the final WHY report.LANC
led the development of the methodology that led to the country context studies, which
collected data on the gendered political opportunity structure in each country QUING studied.
195
WP 10 Literature search & methodology (WHY 2)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The activity leader at IWM contributed to a literature survey in the field of gender+ equality
policies, which was designed to summarise and systematically describe the theories.
Furthermore, she contributed to the guidelines for the country study analysis in WHY, the
preparation of which was led by LANC. The aim of this analysis was to gather information
and prepare this information for future comparison concerning the country contexts of
gender+ equality policies. One of the aims of WHY was to explain the specific policy settings
and the frames of gender+ equality policies. One of the methodologies developed in QUING
is named “discursive institutionalism”, which stresses the importance of political institutions
and of discursive settings/frames for policy processes. The scientific director commented on
the WHY reports.
Partner 4: Humboldt Universität, Germany
The partner contributed to the development of the methodology manual for the country
studies.
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
LANC initiated and completed the review of the literature on gender equality policies in the
EU and its member states (D12), the manual for the methodology of ‘discursive
institutionalism’ (D20), the country context study manual for WHY (D23), and the
comparative study methodology manual for WHY (D24).
WP 11 Institutional country studies (WHY 3)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The country researchers and team leader systematically gathered data on political
opportunities, existing (gender) equality institutions and their resources, and relevant social
structures in Austria and Germany. Following the earlier work on methodology (D20, D23),
this work resulted in country context studies for Austria and Germany (D41).
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
The EKKE team prepared the WHY country context studies for Greece and Cyprus.
Expanding on the data provided earlier in the issue histories (D19), these studies required a
wide range of information in order to allow a comparison between the EU and each country’s
gender+ equality policies, as well as taking into account its political and social institutions.
196
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
The CEU team contributed to this work package by commenting on the guidelines for WHY
institutional country studies. The partner submitted six WHY institutional country studies for
Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania (D41).
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
RAD completed the country context studies for Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Malta, and the
Netherlands.
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The PI team gathered the data needed for explaining differences, similarities, and
inconsistencies in gender+ equality policies in Croatia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, and the
Czech Republic. This resulted in context studies for the countries in question.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
As planned, the data were systematically gathered for each country and the EU, following the
methodology reflected in D23 and discussed at the Interim Workshop.
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
The partner systematically gathered data on political opportunities, existing (gender) equality
institutions and their resources, and relevant social structures for Denmark, Finland, and
Sweden. Building on this work, the team produced context studies for the countries in
question.
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Building on the methodology and guidelines developed by the activity leaders, the METU
team prepared and submitted the WHY country context study on Turkey (D41).
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
LANC co-ordinated and supervised the production of each of the country context studies
produced by the partners, since they had been responsible for the development of the
methodology manual. In addition, the team produced WHY country context studies for the
UK and Ireland (D41).
197
WP 12 Analysis of explanatory factors (WHY 4)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
Building on the methodology and guidelines developed by the WHY Activity Leaders, the
IWM team prepared and submitted explanatory country and thematic comparative reports in
WHY (D47/49, as supplement to LARG) for Austria and Germany. The team members and
the activity leader wrote two comparative papers explaining the framing of gender+ equality
policies from different theoretical angles. In the final year of the project, the scientific director,
together with the WHY leadership, organised a second call for WHY papers, selected the
best proposals, and commented on them so that researchers could work on them, could
meet one another to discuss them, and prepare them for conference papers or publications.
The management team appointed the six researchers and organised these meetings at the
IWM.
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
The Greek team worked on analytical reports showing to what extent differences, similarities,
and inconsistencies in gender+ equality can be explained. Following the call for papers for
the three thematic areas that were identified (Europeanisation, state & civil society interface,
intersectionality), two members of the Greek team proceeded to draft working papers in two
out of the three areas (D47/49).
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
Members of the CEU team participated in the debate on the format of the relevant report
(D54). They went on to produce a series of WHY explanatory papers within this work
package. This included: three comparative explanatory papers (on explaining differences and
similarities in framing, differences and similarities in EU impact, and differences and
similarities in state civil society interface), and three explanatory case studies (D47/49:
Hungary, Lithuania, and Poland).
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
RAD researchers produced a series of WHY explanatory papers within this work package.
This included four comparative explanatory papers (on explaining differences and similarities
in framing, differences and similarities in EU impact, and differences and similarities in state
civil society interface), and one explanatory case study on France (D47/49). In the final year
of the project, RAD hired two researchers to continue the work on the analysis of explanatory
factors. Rossella Ciccia worked on non-employment papers and Marleen van der Haar on an
intersectionality paper. Both researchers worked together with Mieke Verloo. One of the
resulting papers was put on the website with the earlier WHY papers. Both researchers will
198
present the papers at upcoming conferences (SASE in Madrid and ECPR in Reykjavik),
using additional non-QUING funding.
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
On the basis of the LARG comparative reports and the established database of supertexts,
the PI team worked on the series of explanatory reports in order to explain variations
(D47/49) and to contribute to the thematic comparative reports. Five reports were submitted.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
The UCM team submitted a series of WHY papers (D47/49) as academic presentations
drawing both on QUING data and methodology and on additional resources such as
exploratory interviews, additional text analysis and literature reviews. Six papers (co-
)authored by UCM team members were submitted within the call on intersectionality, two in
the call on Europeanisation. The WHY papers not only serve to deepen the analysis of
contextual institutional variables, but also to broaden the scope of the issues tackled in
QUING. For instance, the work on Spain uncovered the role played by the Spanish self-
governed regions in the institutionalisation of gender equality policies.
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
The UM team produced three papers for D47/D49, their focus being on comparing and thus
helping to understand differences and similarities between gender+ equality policies in
different member states, especially focusing on the differences among the Nordic countries,
as well as discussing how “the Nordic” could be explained and understood in a EU context.
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
The METU team prepared and submitted a WHY paper that analyses how interfaces,
alliances, and coalitions between civil society organisations and the women’s movement are
formed (or not formed) in relation to the axes of intersectionality (especially ethnicity and
religion) in gender equality policies, as well as exploring the actual voice of civil society
across policy issues in Turkey (D47/D49).
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
LANC produced explanatory analyses of the quality of gender equality policies. There was
particular development of analysis of the quality of gender equality policies in the areas of
equality architecture, non-employment, and gender-based violence.
199
WP 13 Selection of country studies (WHY 5)
cancelled
WP 14 Preparation of final report & recommendations (WHY 6)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The work for this work package consisted of reading and discussing the series of papers with
a view to potential publication.
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
The EKKE team provided input for the final report and the recommendations.
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
In the framework of this work package, the CEU team supported the Lancaster team in
writing WHY papers for six countries. This constituted part of the work on the WHY final
report and recommendations.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
Mieke Verloo wrote the final WHY report, together with Sylvia Walby.
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The PI team contributed to the preparation of the final WHY report and recommendations
(D71, D73).
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
The UCM team substantially contributed to the final results by preparing the papers collected
in the volume The Europeanization of Gender Equality Policies. Discursive-Sociological
Approaches, edited by Emanuela Lombardo and Maxime Forest (forthcoming, 2011), which
constitutes a significant contribution to the dissemination of discursive institutionalism.
200
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
The team leader was responsible for the elaboration of the work done by the team on the
WHY part of the project, focusing on how the relevant issues can be addressed in future
research.
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
The METU team prepared and provided all documents required for the final WHY report as
requested by the activity leaders.
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
LANC took a leading role in the preparation of the final WHY report, working jointly with
Mieke Verloo.
STRIQ
ACTIVITY LEADER: Sylvia Walby, LANC (Partner 12)
EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER: Mieke Verloo, RAD (Partner 7)
WP 15 Management of activity (STRIQ 1)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The IWM team was represented during the STRIQ workshop on good practices.
Partner 4: Humboldt Universität, Germany
The partner contributed to the launch and interim workshops as well as to the methodology
list, with a particular focus on intersectionality and the clarification of the workplan, including
discussions on the relations between LARG and WHY with STRIQ.
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
The EKKE team assisted in the management of the activity and was represented at the
interim workshop, contributing to the discussion on how the comparative analysis in
intersectionality should be conducted.
201
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
The partner participated in the launch, methodology, and further workshops for STRIQ,
helping to ensure the co-ordination of the LARG and STRIQ activities, conducting ongoing
correspondence and intellectual exchange with STRIQ activity leaders, and attending joint
meetings. CEU actively contributed to organising the final conference of the STRIQ-LARG
activities held at Budapest in October 2009.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
The partner participated in the launch, methodology, and further workshops for STRIQ as
well as contributing to the organisation of and to presentations at the LARG-WHY-STRIQ
conference in Budapest in October 2009.
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The partner participated in the launch, methodology, and further workshops for STRIQ.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
UCM actively participated in the launch, methodology, and interim workshops. The UCM
team was involved in the management of STRIQ, devoting both internal and QUING
resources to this task. An additional burden was placed on internal management when D35
had to be produced with three researchers that had joined the team only shortly before the
deadline.
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
The partner planned and managed the STRIQ activity for the UM team, setting up a detailed
workplan and supervising the writing of the STRIQ reports and reports. The partner took the
lead in organising one session on intersectionality in the STRIQ analysis workshop.
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
The METU team was represented at the launch, interim, and analysis workshops. Using the
material prepared for the intersectionality analysis in STRIQ, the METU team worked on a
paper in order to bring the intersectionality literature into the agenda of gender studies in
Turkey.
202
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
LANC co-organised both the launch and the STRIQ methodology workshops (D18), as well
as attending further workshops and contributing to the organisation of relevant parts. LANC
led the work developing the conceptual framework and methodology.
WP 16 Literature search & methodology (STRIQ 2)
Partner 4: Humboldt Universität, Germany
The partner reviewed literature relevant to gender equality policies and intersectionality,
methodological questions, and theoretical models around gender equality policies in Europe.
The partner discussed the report as well as the research guidelines. Based on the outcomes
of the roundtable discussions held in Vienna in April 2008, the HU team identified a list of
pending questions regarding theories on and methodologies of intersectionality. The paper
was presented during the STRIQ workshop.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
RAD commented on the literature review.
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
The partner reviewed literature relevant to an intersectional analysis of gender equality
policies, and contributed to the theory report on intersectionality (D13). UM took an active
part in developing the intersectional framework for the STRIQ-activity, as well as writing
about and presenting results from STRIQ at international conferences. Moreover, the UM
team worked to refine further the methodological tool for intersectional analysis of gender
equality policies, which was used in relation to their reports written in WP7 and WP12.
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
LANC initiated and completed the report (theory) on intersectionality (D13) and the research
guidelines for the analysis of intersectionality elements in LARG and WHY (D14). Further the
LANC team produced and submitted the conceptual framework for gender+ equality policies
in a multicultural context.
203
WP 17 Analysis of structural and political intersectionality (STRIQ 3)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The country researchers and the team leader combined the data gathered for LARG and
WHY, producing a comparative analysis of the variations in terms of bias towards other
inequalities and the inclusion of other inequalities in gender equality policies. This resulted in
D35 for Austria and Germany. The activity leader commented on these reports.
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
The Greek and Cypriot team produced and submitted the reports analysing intersectionality
in gender equality policies in the respective countries (D 35). The authors stressed that
intersectionality was not (yet) a source of controversy and debate in gender+ equality
policies, which meant that many aspects of the report were not relevant for the Greek and
Cypriot case.
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
The CEU team participated in the debate on the guidelines developed for intersectionality
country reports. The partner prepared and submitted six STRIQ intersectionality country
studies for Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania (D35).
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
RAD prepared and submitted on the reports analysing intersectionality in Belgium, France,
Luxembourg, Malta, and the Netherlands (D35).
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The PI team analysed country-level data on gender equality policies and intersectionality in
Croatia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, and Czech Republic, and produced reports on
intersectionality in gender equality policies for Croatia, Estonia, Czech Republic, Slovenia
and Slovakia (D 35).
204
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
The partner analysed structural and political intersectionality for the four UCM cases,
investing a lot of internal UCM resources along with regular QUING resources after three
new researchers had to be recruited prior to the deadline.
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
The partner analysed the country level data on gender equality policies and intersectionality,
and produced country reports on intersectionality for Denmark, Finland, and Sweden (D35).
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
The METU team prepared and submitted the report analysing structural and political
intersectionality in gender equality policies in Turkey (D35).
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
The LANC team submitted its contributions on the UK and Ireland to the series of reports
analysing intersectionality in gender equality policies for each country and the EU (D35).
WP 18 Preparation of final report & recommendations (STRIQ 4)
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
Building on its work concerning the Greek and Cypriot cases, the EKKE team contributed to
the conceptual framework of inclusive equality policies, including good practices (D45).
Moreover, the partner had some input into the final report and the recommendations.
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
The partner contributed to the STRIQ conceptual framework by delivering small reports on
good intersectional policy practices in all of the countries covered by CEU.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
RAD team members contributed to the STRIQ conceptual framework by delivering small
reports on good intersectional policy practices for Belgium, France, Malta, Luxembourg, and
the Netherlands. Also, the team delivered the conceptual framework of inclusive equality
205
policies, including good practices (D45). Later on, Mieke Verloo wrote the final STRIQ report,
together with Sylvia Walby, Jo Armstrong, and Sofia Strid.
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The PI team contributed to the final reporting and selection of good practices (D55, D66).
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Taking up the description of work package 15, it is worth mentioning the joint contribution of
four UCM team members to the book The Institutionalization of Intersectionality in Europe,
co-edited by Judith Squires, Hege Skeje, and Andrea Kriszán (forthcoming, 2012), which has
been directly inspired by the STRIQ results on Spain, Portugal, and Italy.
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
UM contributed to the final reporting and selection of good practices.
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
The METU team prepared and submitted the good practices in relation to intersectionality in
Turkey (D45), as well as preparing and providing the documents required for the final STRIQ
report of the STRIQ, as requested by the activity leaders.
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
The LANC team wrote the final STRIQ report, together with Mieke Verloo, in particular taking
responsibility for writing the section on the development of the conceptual framework.
206
FRAGEN
ACTIVITY LEADER: Tilly Vriend, ALETTA (Partner 13)
EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER: Mieke Verloo, IWM (Partner 1)
WP 19 Management of activity (FRAGEN 1)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
In the early stages of the project, the scientific director integrated a part on FRAGEN in the
workshops. The scientific director at IWM took part in the setting-up of the FRAGEN
structure. The IWM team helped to identify adequate partners for FRAGEN in Austria and
Germany. After Zenska Infoteka had left the consortium, the co-ordinator identified a new
partner for this activity and provided the necessary documents for the amendment of the
contract. Subsequently, the scientific director and co-ordinator discussed the new planning
for FRAGEN with the new partner.
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
CEU actively participated in the launch workshop and a further workshop in 2008, and
helped to identify suitable partners in Hungary, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia, and
Lithuania.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
RAD actively participated in the launch and further workshops and helped to identify suitable
partners in the Netherlands, Malta, Belgium, France, and Luxembourg. Moreover, Mieke
Verloo gave a presentation at the database workshop.
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The partner participated in the launch and interim workshops and provided information on
documentation centres in Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Croatia, thus
helping to select subcontractors for FRAGEN. The PI team also analysed
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
UCM actively participated in the launch workshop and was active in searching for and
identifying suitable partners in Italy, Portugal, and Spain.
207
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
Umeå actively participated in the launch workshop and was active in searching for and
identifying suitable partners in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden.
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
The METU team was represented at the launch and interim workshops and was active in
searching for and identifying suitable partners in Turkey.
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
The LANC team was represented at the launch workshop and a further workshop in 2008, as
well as being active in searching for and identifying suitable partners in the UK and Ireland.
Partner 13: ALETTA – Institute for Women’s History, the Netherlands
Between August 2008 and January 2009, the ALETTA team made the detailed workplan and
planning for the FRAGEN activity, following a meeting with members of the QUING and
FRAGEN teams as well as potential FRAGEN partners in conjunction with the Women’s
World Conference in Madrid. Later on, the team organised the database workshop, held in
Amsterdam in November 2009, and prepared a report on the event, including evaluation
(D101).
WP 20 Construction of methodology (FRAGEN 2)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The scientific director at IWM finalised the manual for the selection of texts (D21).
Partner 13: ALETTA – Institute for Women’s History, the Netherlands
A methodology for the analytical description/coding of the texts and the criteria for the
selection of relevant feminist texts were developed in co-operation with UCM and IWM in
mid-2009. The methodology and the selection criteria were transferred into a manual for the
selection of texts. The FRAGEN team developed a database format for storing the selected
texts and their descriptive codes. The database and website was developed as planned.
Moreover, ALETTA prepared a manual for the selection of texts and database manual;
including explanation of the methodology (D102).
208
WP 21 Selection & training of subcontractors (FRAGEN 3)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The scientific director at IWM contributed to the preparations for the work of the
subcontractors. The scientific director made comments and suggestions.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
Mieke Verloo added suggestions for subcontractors and commented on the output of this
WP.
Partner 13: ALETTA – Institute for Women’s History, the Netherlands
In 2009, the FRAGEN team was very active in locating and selecting subcontractors for the
FRAGEN activity (D100). By October 27 partners had committed themselves to join the
project. All partners signed a contract to ensure that they would fulfil the work required within
the given time. Moreover, they received the manual for the selection of texts and attended
the database workshop in Amsterdam in November 2009. Finally, quality assurance
guidelines for FRAGEN subcontractors regarding digitisation and copyright were developed
(D103).
WP 22 Selection of texts and filling of databases (FRAGEN 4)
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
Mieke Verloo commented on draft outputs for this WP.
Partner 13: ALETTA – Institute for Women’s History, the Netherlands
ALETTA coached the FRAGEN subcontractors in the process of selecting texts, entering the
texts in the database, sorting out copyright issues, and uploading texts to the database. The
report on this process was submitted as D104.
WP 23 Analysis of database and preparation of reports (FRAGEN 5)
Cancelled after change of partner.
209
WP 24 Maintaining and promoting the database (FRAGEN 6)
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
Mieke Verloo commented on draft outputs for this WP.
Partner 13: ALETTA – Institute for Women’s History, the Netherlands
ALETTA made the information in the FRAGEN database available and accessible to third
parties. In order to ensure the maintenance of the database beyond the lifetime of the
QUING project, a party for maintaining and updating the database was selected. ALETTA
prepared the transfer manual (D105) and a contract for maintaining and promoting FRAGEN
database, including the collection of signatures from the partners (D106). Moreover, the team
organised a FRAGEN workshop in Budapest in conjunction with the ECPR conference in
January 2011, and prepared a conference report (D107). The FRAGEN database and
website were launched in January 2011. ALETTA and the FRAGEN subcontractors
promoted the website through a wide range of publications and PR activities.
OPERA
ACTIVITY LEADER: María Bustelo, UCM (Partner 9)
EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER: Mieke Verloo, IWM (Partner 1)
WP 25 Management of activity (OPERA 1)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The scientific director at IWM took part in the setting-up of the work in OPERA. The IWM
team was involved in the management of OPERA and actively discussed the workplan for
OPERA at the launch and methodology workshops. The scientific director also took part in
the discussion on a questionnaire for gender trainers. The scientific director integrated a part
on OPERA in the workshops and closely collaborated with the activity leader at UCM.
Partner 2: EADC/Yellow Window, Belgium
The partner participated in the launch workshop and contributed to the finalisation of the
workplan and timetable for OPERA. Apart from assuming management tasks related to the
OPERA activity, EADC/Yellow Window contributed to the preparation of the OPERA
presentation for the QUING team meeting in Vienna in November 2008. The partner
participated in the QUING conference in Budapest in October 2009, which involved a
working meeting of the OPERA team, as well as the OPERA workshop in Madrid in July
2010.
210
Partner 4: Humboldt Universität, Germany
The partner contributed to the launch Workshop and established working agreements with
OPERA partners. HU was involved in the preparation, organisation, and post-processing of
the expert meeting held in Vienna in October 2007, where methodology, curricula, and
training experience were discussed. Building on this, a more specific outline of the following
OPERA activities could be developed, including the involvement of experts to be invited to
additional meetings (in collaboration with the TARGET project). This enabled the OPERA
team to define the frame for the manual on Gender+ Training. Subsequently, the partner was
represented during the OPERA interim workshop. The HU team was also involved in
organising the workshop on curricula and the discussion on the finalised curriculum
standards.
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
The CEU team contributed to the workshops in October 2007 and April 2008.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
RAD contributed to the workshops in October 2007 and April 2008 as well as to the
subsequent curriculum workshops and the OPERA workshop in Madrid.
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
PI contributed to the workshops in October 2007 and April 2008.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
UCM took the lead in organising and managing this activity. Following the launch workshop,
the UCM team organised collaboration among the partners involved (mainly IWM,
EADC/Yellow Window, and HU) as well as preparing the expert meetings, setting up the
methodology and guidelines for conducting the pilot trainings, and developing the
methodology and curricula for the first pilot manual for gender trainers and commissioners
(D43). Due to the resignation of the team researcher working on OPERA in 2009, some of
the responsibilities involved in the preparation of D65 on guidelines for curricula standards
for gender+ training were transferred to EADC/Yellow Window. Subsequently, additional
resources were mobilised at UCM to advance the work on OPERA. Among other things, the
UCM team co-ordinated two working sessions on quality and curriculum standards held
during a QUING workshop in Vienna in November 2008, which, along with the exchange with
the TARGET project, served to broaden the scope of expert input into OPERA. Later on, two
further workshops were held under WP25, respectively in October 2009 (workshop on
curricula) and in June 2010 (final OPERA workshop). Beyond this, the organisation of the
211
final OPERA conference, originally planned under WP32 (promoting and maintaining
database and standards) but consecutively turned into a major dissemination event for
OPERA outputs, required substantial co-ordination efforts on the part of the UCM team.
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
UM contributed to the workshops in October 2007 and April 2008.
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
The METU team contributed to the workshops in October 2007 and April 2008.
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
The LANC team contributed to the workshops in October 2007, April 2008, and November
2008.
WP 26 Conduct of literature search (OPERA 2)
Partner 2: EADC/Yellow Window, Belgium
The partner provided assistance with literature search and review of existing gender
trainings. Moreover, EADC/Yellow Window was responsible for co-organising a survey
among gender training commissioners, including work on the survey and questionnaire
design, the translation of the questionnaire into French, the management and analysis of
responses, and the reporting on the survey results. Moreover, the partner contributed to D29.
Partner 4: Humboldt Universität, Germany
Building on experience in gender trainings and on the consultation of other experts
(academics and institutions), the partner contributed to the development of a questionnaire to
explore existing and past training experiences. For the dissemination of the questionnaire,
the HU team contacted the relevant institutions in Germany (together with the country
researcher for Germany).
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Firstly, a questionnaire to assess existing and past training experiences of national
institutions was designed (D16). This questionnaire, targeted at commissioners of gender
training in all the countries, was available in five different languages through our website
212
(http://www.quing.eu). The processing and analysis of the results was done by EADC/Yellow
Window in collaboration with the UCM team. Secondly, UCM conducted a literature review of
the existing works on training in all countries (D29). In this context, information on gender
training experiences in each country was collected, with the help of the whole consortium, as
part of the LARG state-of-the-art reports. The work was performed with input from IWM,
Yellow Window and Humboldt University.
WP 27 Holding of expert meeting (OPERA 3)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The IWM team conducted research on the quality and standards of gender trainings in
Austria and Germany. The first step was to collect information on gender training institutions
and people in the two countries, who were then contacted and asked to fill in the OPERA
questionnaire. The team leader took part in an expert meeting in Vienna in October 2007.
The scientific director also took part in a second gender expert meeting in the context of an
international gender conference (see http://www.dynamiccitiesneedwomen.eu).
Partner 2: EADC/Yellow Window, Belgium
The partner contributed to the identification of gender training experts, assisted in the
preparation of the gender training expert meeting in Vienna in October 2007, and prepared a
second gender training expert meeting in Brussels in December 2007 (in context of an
international gender conference, see http://www.dynamiccitiesneedwomen.eu).
Partner 4: Humboldt Universität, Germany
The partner was involved in the preparation, organisation, and postprocessing of the expert
meeting held in Vienna in October 2007, which discussed methodology, curricula and
experiences. Building on this, a more specific outline of the following OPERA activities could
be developed, including the involvement of experts to be invited to additional meetings (in
collaboration with the TARGET project). This enabled the OPERA team to define the frame
for the manual on Gender+ Training.
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
After consulting expert sources, the EKKE team identified the most important gender training
experts in the country, either in the administration, in academia, or in civil society, and
provided some information on the material and the content of the training seminars and
curricula, where available.
213
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
The CEU team participated in identifying relevant academic, civil-society, and commercial
experts in gender training as well as institutions and consultancies that conduct gender
training in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. The data went into the
gender training expert database (D26). Two members of the CEU team also participated in
the expert meeting discussing gender training methodology, curricula, and previous
experience.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
The RAD team participated in identifying and contacting relevant academic, civil society and
commercial experts in gender training as well as institutions and consultancies that conduct
gender training from Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands. The data
went into the gender training expert database (D26). Mieke Verloo also participated in the
expert meeting discussing gender training methodology, curricula, and previous experience.
Partner 8: Peace Institute, Slovenia
The partner helped to identify academic, civil-society, and commercial experts in gender
training in Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Croatia and invited them to
fill in the questionnaire. The data went into the gender training expert database (D26).
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
The starting point of this work package was a search of relevant experts in training based on
the information gathered by the state-of-the-art reports. Two researchers of the UCM team
searched and gathered information on gender trainers in order to construct a database on
relevant gender training experts (D26), with the report on gender training in all countries
(D29). Also, the consent of experts to appear in the database was ensured. A set of
materials, guidelines, and contents were prepared for the expert meeting (D25) by the UCM
team with input form the other OPERA partners. The meeting was held in Vienna in October
2008 (D32). Further meetings took place in Brussels in December 2007 (‘Dynamic Cities
Need Women Forum’) and, in collaboration with the TARGET project, in Berlin (May 2008),
Nijmegen (November 2008), Madrid (February 2009), and Boston (March 2009).
Partner 10: Umeå Universitet, Sweden
The UM team participated in identifying and contacting relevant academic, civil-society, and
commercial experts in gender training as well as institutions and consultancies that conduct
gender training from Denmark, Finland and Sweden. The data went into the gender training
expert database (D26).
214
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
In terms of supporting the research of the activity leaders, the METU team identified the
relevant academic, civil-society, and commercial experts in gender training, as well as the
institutions and consultancies that co-ordinate, organise, and conduct gender training in
Turkey. The relevant data was provided in the state-of-the-art report on Turkey, and later
updated. Moreover, the METU team leader participated in the expert meeting.
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
The LANC team participated in identifying and contacting relevant academic, civil-society,
and commercial experts in gender training as well as institutions and consultancies that
conduct gender training from the UK and Ireland. The data went into the gender training
expert database (D26). Moreover, LANC participated in the expert meeting.
WP 28 Development of methodology and curriculum (OPERA 4)
Partner 2: EADC/Yellow Window, Belgium
EADC/Yellow Window had input into the gender training monitoring approach. The partner
conducted negotiations with the EC about and organisation of pilot gender training with
‘Science in Society’ National Contact Points. Moreover, EADC/Yellow Window reviewed
various QUING documents related to WP28 and provided comments as well as having input
into the draft manual on gender+ training (D43).
Partner 4: Humboldt Universität, Germany
Building on the outcomes of previous expert meetings with OPERA partners and the
previous work in OPERA, HU, together with UCM, worked on the manual on gender+
training.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
RAD commented on the manual on gender+ training.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Drawing on the literature review, the questionnaires to commissioners, the expert meetings,
and the monitoring of pilot trainings, a pilot manual for gender trainers and commissioners
(D43) was presented in July 2008. For that, a structure was presented and discussed, and
after reaching a consensus with the other partners, the pilot manual was developed. Working
215
together with EADC/Yellow Window and HU, the UCM team employed both QUING and
internal UCM resources to advance this work package.
WP 29 Conduct of pilot training (OPERA 5)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The IWM team conducted research on the quality and standards of gender trainings in
Austria and Germany. The first step was to collect information on gender training institutions
and people in the two countries, who were then contacted and asked to fill in the OPERA
questionnaire. The team leader took part in an expert meeting in Vienna in October 2007.
Partner 2: EADC/Yellow Window, Belgium
The partner prepared, delivered, and reported on a pilot gender training with National
Contact Points at the European Commission, as well as analysing ex-ante and exit
questionnaires. Moreover, EADC/Yellow Window contributed to the evaluation report
assessing the pilot studies and formulation of recommendations for training (D50).
Partner 4: Humboldt Universität, Germany
HU was responsible for the development of the guidelines for the selection of pilot countries.
This document assessed the opportunities provided by the context in each country,
identifying contextual factors, such as gender machinery, other influential voices, equality
climate, gender mainstreaming history, gender+ expertise, and gender+ data, as important
settings to be clarified for each country prior to the planning of a pilot training there.
Secondly, the guidelines included a chapter on training typology as agreed on in OPERA.
Thirdly, HU identified different formats of pilot trainings, viz. pre-guideline pilots, monitoring
and evaluation of existing trainings, and post-guideline pilots. Subsequently, the HU team
contributed to the evaluation report (D50), which assessed the pilot study and provided
recommendations for trainings.
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
RAD contributed one pilot training in Luxembourg (this training was conducted with an
external partner) and a short report on this training for D50.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Five pilot trainings were conducted and monitored in 2008, three in Spain (one in Sevilla by
Likadi consultors, one in Ceuta by Ágora, and one in Cantabria by Fundación Mujeres), one
216
in Brussels (Yellow Window), and one in Luxembourg (Verloo and Wuiame). For monitoring
those pilot trainings, the UCM team developed a set of criteria for qualifying as a pilot training
(D37), an ex-ante and an exit questionnaire for participants, as well as an ex-ante
questionnaire for trainers and an ex-post interview guide for trainers. The data on the
questionnaires was processed and analysed, and interviews with trainers were conducted
and analysed, too. The evaluation report assessing the pilot study and providing
recommendations for training (D50) was an important milestone for assessing existing good
(and bad) practices, as well as differentiating domestic institutional contexts in terms of
opportunity structure for gender+ training.
WP 30 Finalisation of curriculum standards (OPERA 6)
Partner 1: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Austria
The scientific director commented on this work package and contributed to its development.
Partner 2: EADC/Yellow Window, Belgium
Along with the other OPERA partners, EADC/Yellow Window revised the structure of the pilot
manual for gender trainers (D43) to develop guidelines for curriculum standards (D53).
Discussions were conducted within the OPERA team on how best to position and tailor D53
to its future audiences. The partner took over from the UCM the main responsibility for this
report. The work consisted of the compilation, final structuring, and drafting of the full
document for review within the team. After incorporating contributions and comments from
OPERA team members, a final version was produced and submitted to the European
Commission.
Partner 4: Humboldt Universität, Germany
The HU team contributed to the guidelines for curriculum standards (D53). The main focus of
the team was on the section of intersectionality and its relevance for trainings. Another focus
was placed on the legal context and the use of law in training contexts. Additionally, the HU
team produced a paper on intersectionality in gender+ trainings, which explored the concept
of intersectionality and how it is embedded in manuals for gender and diversity trainings. The
paper provided recommendations for trainers and commissioners as to how to ensure that
intersectionality is a cross-cutting aspect of each training activity.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
UCM researchers conducted an extensive literature review on gender training guides and
curricula. One of the conclusions of the survey of quality manuals on gender+ training was
that most manuals are a resource for trainers rather than for commissioners. As a
217
consequence, D53 (guidelines for curriculum standards) mainly targets the latter, thus
providing policy-makers with guidelines for a more effective implementation of gender
mainstreaming and considering training as a part of this broader process. D53 more
specifically addressed the objective of developing methodology, contents, and didactic
guidelines for curricula. Drawing on the cumulative work realised through WP29 and the
above-mentioned working sessions, it also contributed to the elaboration of minimum quality
training standards and to the development of a typology of different standards applying to
different target groups and categories of training.
WP 31 Training (OPERA 7)
Partner 2: EADC/Yellow Window, Belgium
Along with the other OPERA team members, EADC/Yellow Window worked on the
organisation and implementation of the trainings for gender trainers, as well as contributing
to the manual for gender trainers (D67). Subsequently, the partner was involved in building a
Community of Practice (CoP) for gender+ training and helped to organise and prepare online
discussions and the sharing of experience among practitioners. EADC/Yellow Window
actively participated in two and moderated one online CoP discussions. Furthermore, the
partner contributed to the monitoring and evaluation protocol for the training of trainers (D68)
and to the report on the training experience (D78). Finally, EADC/Yellow Window co-
ordinated and participated in the gender training and train-the-trainer session held in Madrid
in March 2011.
Partner 4: Humboldt Universität, Germany
The HU team contributed to the started to the manual for gender trainers (D67), building on
the literature review and findings of the comparative analysis of training manuals.
Partner 5: National Center for Social Research, Greece
The EKKE team had some input into the final report.
Partner 6: Central European University, Hungary
CEU team member Andrea Krizsán contributed to the brainstorming on the manual for
gender trainers, drawing on the experience of Central and Eastern European countries. She
participated in several meetings organised by OPERA in association with the TARGET
project.
218
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
Mieke Verloo participated in the training-the-trainers activities, which took the format of three
online forums, and co-moderated one of them.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Drawing on the pilot training experience and expert meetings, this work package focused on
the content of gender+ training and training methodologies. The OPERA activity, through its
own reports and in fruitful collaboration with the TARGET project, succeeded in creating a
widespread community of gender+ training experts, which allowed the OPERA team to
identify gender trainers’ needs, concerns, and challenges. After submitting guidelines
towards a community of practice among gender+ trainers (D57), the OPERA team went on to
hold three issue-specific online forums. More than 420 gender trainers and experts were
contacted to join this community of practice, of which 339 feature in the gender trainers’
database. Beyond this, a face-to-face training of trainers was organised at the UCM in March
2011.
Partner 11: Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Within the framework of the OPERA activity, METU team provided a list of gender trainers in
Turkey to the OPERA activity leaders.
Partner 12: Lancaster University, UK
LANC had some input into this work package.
WP 32 Promoting and maintaining database & standards (OPERA 8)
Partner 2: EADC/Yellow Window, Belgium
The partner helped to identify a high-quality partner to whom the database could be
transferred, conducting exploratory discussions with the European Institute for Gender
Equality (EIGE). Later on, EADC/Yellow Window assisted UCM in the negotiations for the
database transfer and had input into the contract (D81). Beyond this, the partner helped to
prepare and actively participated as a speaker and moderator in the final OPERA conference
held in February 2011. Further EADC/Yellow Window contributed to the drafting of the
Madrid Declaration and to the final OPERA conference report.
219
Partner 7: Radboud Universiteit, the Netherlands
Mieke Verloo participated in the selection of partners, and in the finalising of the contract with
EIGE.
Partner 9: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
The organisation of the OPERA final conference was the main task carried out under this
WP. Apart from launching the actual transfer of quality standards and the database, it also
constituted a further step towards the professionalisation of gender+ training activities across
Europe, as well as serving to consolidate the newly-established community of practice. After
defining basic requirements for the transfer of the database in mid-2010, the OPERA team
prepared and eventually signed a suitable contract with the European Institute for Gender
Equality (EIGE) at the end of the QUING period. Beyond the term of the project, the OPERA
team will continue to advise the EIGE, which committed itself to taking the lead in gender+
training in Europe by disseminating the Madrid Declaration adopted at the final OPERA
conference and by organising a conference on gender+ training in Europe in 2012.
Supplement
Partner 3: Zenska Infoteka, Croatia
In the second project year, the contract with partner 3, Zenska Infoteka, was terminated due
to management problems of this partner. There were no activities of this partner during the
reporting period. The amendment of the contract was accepted in November 2008 (official
end date of participation: 1 November 2007).
Partner 13: ALETTA – Institute for Women’s History, the Netherlands
The Institute for Women’s History (ALETTA) became the new partner 13. The amendment of
the contract was accepted in November 2008 (official start date of participation: 1 August
2008).
220
4.1.3 Explanatory note on major cost items
The total project costs over the full duration of QUING (54 months plus 45 days final
reporting period) amounted to almost € 4.700.000. Furthermore, additional resources
employed on the project by AC Contractors are valued at € 850.000. Major cost items were
as follows:
Personnel:
The largest proportion of the total project cost – € 3.412.000 or roughly 73 % (plus € 545.000
by AC Contractors’ own staff) – was spent on personnel costs for research and project
management. In addition to the Research Director, the Activity Leaders and Executive Board
Members, the Project Co-ordinator and management staff involved at the Co-ordinator 76
researchers were active in the course of the project full-time or part-time for the full duration
or on temporary contracts. Altogether the research and management teams invested 1.222
person months in the implementation of the project, including 198 person months by AC
Contractors. This is 30% more than originally planned (943 person months).
Some deviations occurred between original planning and actual implementation in terms of
cost per person month and number of person-months. The Consortium agreed on some
budget transfers from one consortium member to another in order to best utilise the research
teams’ capacities. Those adjustments were the result of adaptations in the workflow and time
planning which became necessary during the lifetime of the project to guarantee the most
effective and efficient completion of all activities. However, overall the Consortium completed
the work almost within the total project budget for personnel (103%).
Travel costs:
In sum € 162.000 or roughly 3.5% of total project costs were spent on travel. On the one
hand, travel costs were incurred by researchers attending the meetings, workshops and
conferences organised in the framework of QUING to present and discuss completed
research and to plan future activities. On the other hand, travel costs resulted from QUING
researchers presenting findings at other venues as part of their dissemination activities.
Naturally, this share increased during the final period due to the wealth of research results,
the active engagements of not only team and/or activity leaders but also junior researchers in
dissemination activities and the abundance of dissemination opportunities identified by the
QUING team.
Travel costs were also covered for Advisory Board Members taking part in project meetings
and conferences. In addition, some travel costs were also spent on stakeholders and
practitioners in the field of gender equality policy in order to e.g. transfer knowledge
generated by QUING and to train users – particularly in the case of the OPERA and
FRAGEN activities.
Meetings:
Starting with the Launch Workshop in month 1 and ending with a meeting in month 55 to
bring together all materials gathered from the Consortium members for the Final Reporting, a
number of research and training workshops, expert meetings, conferences and other events
bringing together selected groups of the QUING team were organised during the lifetime of
the project. Their objectives were to define the methodology for the different parts of the
221
empirical research and to train the researchers responsible for it, to present and discuss
interim results and plan subsequent activities, or to disseminate the research findings. In sum
the cost for meetings accounted for € 92.500 or 2% of the project budget.
Other:
This cost category mainly includes depreciation of equipment purchased for the project
researchers in earlier reporting periods, and costs for literature and other materials required
for carrying out the activities. Roughly € 75.000 were spent on those items (1.6% of the total
project costs, not including € 290.000 own resources employed on the project by AC
Contractors).
Subcontracting:
Roughly 4.5% or € 212.000 of total spending was used for subcontracting. This amount not
only includes the Consortium’s auditing costs for periods (4 audits per Contractor), but also
language editing services for publications and reports, particularly also the public sections of
the final reporting. A large share of subcontracting resulted from the contracts with FRAGEN
partners in all countries who were engaged and trained for selecting and entering texts into
the database developed by this Activity. It was planned and agreed with the Project Officer to
arrange this task in the form of subcontracts.
Indirect costs:
Overhead costs were calculated as a flat rate of 20% of total eligible direct costs (except
subcontracting) for the whole consortium. Accordingly, indirect costs come to roughly €
746.000.
4.1.4 Budgeted vs. actual costs
*) to tal budget f igures - no t EC funding
Contract N°: 28545 Date: 01.10.06-31.03.11
P erio d 1 P erio d 2 P erio d 3 P erio d 4 P erio d 5 T o tal T o tal
e a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 e1 a1+b1+c1+d1/e e-e1
P art . 1 IWMT o tal P erso n-
mo nth180 30 38,9 34,7 24,6 36,23 164,43 91% 15,57
Personnel costs 540.380,00 127.175,91 132.185,28 120.585,81 84.252,55 134.659,53 598.859,08 111% -58.479,08
Travel 38.500,00 1.628,87 1.748,29 249,45 2.428,30 5.007,97 11.062,88 29% 27.437,12
M eetings 121.000,00 8.054,12 8.743,91 4.637,65 13.259,42 16.773,46 51.468,56 43% 69.531,44
Other costs 24.000,00 2.614,88 3.224,63 2.995,07 5.060,96 1.894,23 15.789,77 66% 8.210,23
Overhead 144.776,00 27.894,75 29.180,42 25.693,60 21.000,25 31.667,04 135.436,05 94% 9.339,95
Subcontracting 68.000,00 0,00 1.800,00 1.800,00 7.842,18 6.290,00 17.732,18 26% 50.267,82
T o tal C o sts 936.656,00 167.368,53 176.882,53 155.961,58 133.843,66 196.292,23 830.348,52 89% 106.307,48
P art . 2 EA D CT o tal P erso n-
mo nth14 4 6,2 6,5 2,3 0,7 20 141% -6
Personnel costs 70.280,00 21.349,76 34.863,02 40.208,00 16.124,00 5.126,00 117.670,78 167% -47.390,78
Travel 3.200,00 1.085,73 397,04 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.482,77 46% 1.717,23
M eetings 1.500,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0% 1.500,00
Other costs 3.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0% 3.000,00
Overhead(1) 15.596,00 4.487,09 7.052,01 8.041,60 3.224,80 1.025,20 23.830,70 153% -8.234,70
Subcontracting 2.000,00 0,00 600,00 600,00 0,00 600,00 1.800,00 90% 200,00
T o tal C o sts ( 1 ) 95.576,00 26.922,58 42.912,07 48.849,60 19.348,80 6.751,20 144.784,25 151% -49.208,25
P art . 3 IKT o tal P erso n-
mo nth18 18 0 0 0 0 18 100% 0
Personnel costs 23.246,36 14.948,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 14.948,00 64% 8.298,36
Travel 1.629,27 1.629,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.629,00 100% 0,27
M eetings 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0% 0,00
Other costs 1.533,38 1.533,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.533,00 100% 0,38
Overhead 5.281,80 3.605,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3.605,00 68% 1.676,80
Subcontracting 819,19 820,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 820,00 100% -0,81
T o tal C o sts 32.510,00 22.535,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 22.535,00 69% 9.975,00
P art . 4: H UT o tal P erso n-
mo nth15 1,25 21,5 4 3 29,75 198% -14,75
Personnel costs 55.500,00 2.427,55 11.139,01 17.471,60 11.689,44 7.307,77 50.035,37 90% 5.464,63
Travel 3.800,00 1.666,29 1.021,69 783,45 404,58 907,21 4.783,22 126% -983,22
M eetings 1.500,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0% 1.500,00
Other costs 3.000,00 0,00 820,56 160,53 2.089,65 1.561,63 4.632,37 154% -1.632,37
Overhead 12.760,00 818,76 2.596,25 3.683,12 2.836,73 1.955,32 11.890,19 93% 869,81
Subcontracting 3.000,00 0,00 820,00 470,00 470,00 1.760,00 59% 1.240,00
T o tal C o sts 79.560,00 4.912,60 16.397,51 22.568,70 17.490,40 11.731,93 73.101,15 92% 6.458,85
P art . 5: EKKET o tal P erso n-
mo nth45 10 16 11,8 6 2 45,8 102% -0,8
Personnel costs 123.750,00 32.000,00 51.424,46 36.502,00 15.075,00 4.350,00 139.351,46 113% -15.601,46
Travel 14.100,00 2.445,00 2.316,78 766,15 0,00 0,00 5.527,93 39% 8.572,07
M eetings 1.500,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0% 1.500,00
Other costs 6.000,00 1.923,93 31,09 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.955,02 33% 4.044,98
Overhead 29.070,00 7.273,78 10.754,47 7.453,63 3.015,00 870,00 29.366,88 101% -296,88
Subcontracting 6.000,00 0,00 880,00 1.000,00 1.000,00 1.200,00 4.080,00 68% 1.920,00
T o tal C o sts 180.420,00 43.642,71 65.406,80 45.721,78 19.090,00 6.420,00 180.281,29 100% 138,71
P art . 6: C EUT o tal P erso n-
mo nth133 37,6 74,55 17,75 7,75 3,05 140,7 106% -7,7
Personnel costs 349.125,00 94.046,50 166.350,11 47.165,47 29.682,86 15.847,93 353.092,87 101% -3.967,87
Travel 11.700,00 5.875,65 9.197,74 2.950,11 11,27 1.637,41 19.672,18 168% -7972,18
M eetings 3.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0% 3000
Other costs 8.000,00 867,32 -1.118,56 942,31 139,86 39,07 870,00 11% 7130
Overhead 74.365,00 20.157,89 35.334,08 10.211,58 5.966,80 3.504,88 75.175,23 101% -810,23
Subcontracting 6.000,00 0,00 1.254,72 1.875,57 645,39 480,00 4.255,68 71% 1744,32
T o tal C o sts 452.190,00 120.947,36 211.018,09 63.145,04 36.446,18 21.509,29 453.065,96 100% -875,96
P art . 7: R A DT o tal P erso n-
mo nth103 18,6 39 29 1,5 11 99,1 96% 3,9
Personnel costs 381.100,00 53.356,17 142.065,15 111.709,31 5.947,42 70.925,69 384.003,74 101% -2.903,74
Travel 16.900,00 1.813,95 4.514,41 3.454,15 682,73 1.351,20 11.816,44 70% 5.083,56
M eetings 1.500,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0% 1.500,00
Other costs 6.000,00 761,49 3.521,23 86,05 0,00 50,00 4.418,77 74% 1.581,23
Overhead 81.100,00 11.186,32 30.020,16 23.049,90 1.439,88 14.465,38 80.161,64 99% 938,36
Subcontracting 6.000,00 0,00 8.485,75 905,00 1.073,00 1.003,00 11.466,75 191% -5.466,75
T o tal C o sts 492.600,00 67.117,93 188.606,70 139.204,41 9.143,03 87.795,27 491.867,34 100% 732,662
P art . 8: P IT o tal P erso n-
mo nth131 53 66 44,43 9,14 0 172,57 132% -41,57
Personnel costs 458.500,00 133.023,27 165.289,01 136.117,08 32.344,91 0,00 466.774,27 102% -8.274,27
Travel 20.400,00 6.271,49 3.049,55 4.448,87 3.014,58 1.661,80 18.446,29 90% 1.953,71
M eetings 1.500,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0% 1.500,00
Other costs 8.000,00 2.959,06 3.034,40 1.315,70 561,30 140,00 8.010,46 100% -10,46
Overhead 97.680,00 28.450,76 34.274,59 28.376,33 7.184,16 360,36 98.646,20 101% -966,20
Subcontracting 6.000,00 0,00 600,00 700,00 700,00 500,00 2.500,00 42% 3.500,00
T o tal C o sts 592.080,00 170.704,58 206.247,55 170.957,98 43.804,95 2.662,16 594.377,22 100% -2297,218
R emaining
B udget
(EUR )
Cost Budget Follow-up Table Acronym: QUING
P A R T IC IP A N T S
TY PE o f
EX PEN D ITU R E
( as def ined by
part icipant s)
B UD GETA C T UA L C OST S (EUR )
223
*) to tal budget f igures - no t EC funding
Contract N°: 28545 Date: 01.10.06-31.03.11
P erio d 1 P erio d 2 P erio d 3 P erio d 4 P erio d 5 T o tal T o tal
e a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 e1 a1+b1+c1+d1/e e-e1
P art . 9: UC MT o tal P erso n-
mo nth121 21 65 64 16 10 176 145% -55
Personnel costs 334.825,00 36.818,27 84.248,74 100.516,57 30.879,20 38.117,70 290.580,48 87% 44.244,52
Travel 16.900,00 4.089,81 4.281,64 7.117,74 7.382,55 4.110,52 26.982,26 160% -10.082,26
M eetings 6.740,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2.741,93 22.591,07 25.333,00 376% -18.593,00
Other costs 6.000,00 11.324,27 5.874,53 1.483,85 1.842,21 4.057,15 24.582,01 410% -18.582,01
Overhead 72.893,00 10.446,47 18.880,98 21.823,63 8.386,55 13.775,29 73.312,92 101% -419,92
Subcontracting 6.000,00 0,00 450,00 1.025,00 925,00 995,00 3.395,00 57% 2.605,00
T o tal C o sts ( 1 ) 443.358,00 62.678,82 113.735,89 131.966,79 52.157,44 83.646,73 444.185,67 100% -827,67
P art . 10: UM (1)T o tal P erso n-
mo nth78 20,9 36 25 1,3 0 83,2 107% -5,2
Personnel costs 312.000,00 75.447,00 141.186,86 102.682,00 17.674,57 0,00 336.990,43 108% -24.990,43
Travel 19.100,00 4.352,00 10.267,53 5.601,00 608,53 0,00 20.829,06 109% -1.729,06
M eetings 1.500,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0% 1.500,00
Other costs 6.000,00 1.296,84 605,29 1.883,62 104,28 0,00 3.890,03 65% 2.109,97
Overhead 67.720,00 16.219,16 30.411,94 22.033,32 1.325,48 0,00 69.989,90 103% -2.269,90
Subcontracting 6.000,00 0,00 1.799,15 1.398,57 1.711,75 559,40 5.468,87 91% 531,13
T o tal C o sts 412.320,00 97.315,00 184.270,77 133.598,51 21.424,61 559,40 437.168,29 106% -24848,286
P art . 11: M ET UT o tal P erso n-
mo nth29 10,1 12,39 6,21 1,5 0 30,2 104% -1,2
Personnel costs 65.250,00 22.708,93 28.215,32 14.064,09 3.427,93 0,00 68.416,27 105% -3.166,27
Travel 9.100,00 6.805,25 1.972,24 2.242,90 1.638,01 0,00 12.658,40 139% -3.558,40
M eetings 1.500,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0% 1.500,00
Other costs 6.000,00 3.725,50 408,24 142,30 651,89 0,00 4.927,93 82% 1.072,07
Overhead 16.370,00 6.647,93 6.119,16 3.289,86 1.143,57 0,00 17.200,52 105% -830,52
Subcontracting 6.000,00 0,00 399,00 367,14 201,06 0,00 967,20 16% 5.032,80
T o tal C o sts 104.220,00 39.887,61 37.113,96 20.106,29 7.062,46 0,00 104.170,32 100% 49,68
P art . 12: LA N CT o tal P erso n-
mo nth73 25 17 22 8 15 87 119% -14
Personnel costs 526.245,00 109.727,45 114.944,03 116.841,46 97.806,03 77.849,85 517.168,82 98% 9.076,18
Travel 13.600,00 3.123,24 3.909,38 2.233,67 2.687,28 7.949,83 19.903,40 146% -6.303,40
M eetings 3.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4.351,59 4.351,59 145% -1.351,59
Other costs 6.000,00 3.744,30 0,00 -1.183,16 216,51 409,54 3.187,19 53% 2.812,81
Overhead 109.769,00 23.318,93 23.770,68 23.834,79 20.141,96 18.112,16 109.178,53 99% 590,47
Subcontracting 6.000,00 1.904,35 1.676,98 1.217,98 2.021,55 3.537,72 10.358,58 173% -4.358,58
T o tal C o sts 664.614,00 141.818,27 144.301,07 142.944,77 122.873,33 112.210,69 664.148,14 100% 465,86
P art . 13: A lettaT o tal P erso n-
mo nth18 0 0 5 6,25 3,46 14,71 82% 3,29
Personnel costs 64.425,00 0,00 0,00 24.513,00 30.932,25 18.352,00 73.797,25 115% -9.372,25
Travel 4.166,67 0,00 0,00 0,00 6.944,62 459,00 7.403,62 178% -3.236,95
M eetings 21.750,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 10.994,81 0,00 10.994,81 51% 10.755,19
Other costs 2.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.325,00 1.325,00 66% 675,00
Overhead 18.468,33 0,00 0,00 4.902,60 9.774,34 4.027,20 18.704,14 101% -235,80
Subcontracting 153.600,00 0,00 0,00 3.836,20 56.590,00 86.310,00 146.736,20 96% 6.863,80
T o tal C o sts 264.410,00 0,00 0,00 33.251,80 115.236,02 110.473,20 258.961,02 98% 5.448,99
T OT A LT OT A LT o tal P erso n-
mo nth940 249,45 371,04 287,89 88,34 84,44 1081,16 115% -141,16
Personnel costs 3.304.626,36 723.028,81 1.071.910,99 868.376,39 375.836,16 372.536,47 3.411.688,82 103% -107.062,46
Travel 173.095,94 40.786,28 42.676,29 29.847,49 25.802,45 23.084,94 162.197,45 94% 10.898,49
M eetings 165.990,00 8.054,12 8.743,91 4.637,65 26.996,16 43.716,12 92.147,96 56% 73.842,04
Other costs 85.533,38 30.750,59 16.401,41 7.826,27 10.666,66 9.476,62 75.121,55 88% 10.411,83
Overhead 745.849,13 160.506,84 228.394,74 182.393,96 85.439,51 89.762,83 746.497,88 100% -648,74
Subcontracting 275.419,19 2.724,35 18.765,60 15.195,46 73.179,93 101.475,12 211.340,46 77% 64.078,73
4.750.514,00 965.850,99 1.386.892,94 1.108.277,22 597.920,87 640.052,10 4.698.994,12 99% 51.519,89
R emaining
B udget
(EUR )
Total Costs
(1) Personnel costs in period 4 include €11.760,00 from period 3 which are reported under " Adjustments to previous period(s)" in Form C for period 4.
Cost Budget Follow-up Table Acronym: QUING
P A R T IC IP A N T S
TY PE o f
EX PEN D ITU R E
( as def ined by
part icipant s)
B UD GETA C T UA L C OST S (EUR )
Table AC Contractors: Additional Resources Employed on the Project
ParticipantTypes of
Expenditure
Additional
resources
1st year
Additional
resources
2nd year
Additional
resources
3rd year
Additional
resources
4rd year
Additional
resources
5rd year
Total
Partner 3: IK(1) Person-month 3 0 0 0 0 3
Personnel 6.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 6.000,00
Travel costs 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Other costs 4.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4.000,00
Total 10.000,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 10.000,00
Partner 4: HU Person-month 6 6 6 6 3 27
Personnel 16.000,00 16.000,00 16.000,00 16.000,00 8.000,00 72.000,00
Travel costs 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Other costs 2.000,00 2.000,00 2.000,00 2.000,00 1.000,00 9.000,00
Total 18.000,00 18.000,00 18.000,00 18.000,00 9.000,00 81.000,00
Person-month 10,40 10,75 6,60 3 0 30,75
Personnel 30.690,00 39.525,00 16.380,00 10.500,00 0,00 97.095,00
Travel costs 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Other costs 2.000,00 3.000,00 2.500,00 2.000,00 500,00 10.000,00
Total 32.690,00 42.525,00 18.880,00 12.500,00 500,00 107.095,00
Person-month 7 7 7 7 0 28
Personnel 23.330,00 23.330,00 23.300,00 23.300,00 0,00 93.260,00
Travel costs 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Other costs 7.500,00 7.500,00 7.500,00 7.500,00 0,00 30.000,00
Total 30.830,00 30.830,00 30.800,00 30.800,00 0,00 123.260,00
Person-month 17 25 23 14 7 86
Personell 40.625,00 59.742,00 54.963,00 33.446,00 16.723,00 205.499,00
Travel costs 6.000,00 4.000,00 5.800,00 0,00 0,00 15.800,00
Other costs 10.000,00 8.000,00 6.000,00 6.000,00 4.000,00 34.000,00
Total 56.625,00 71.742,00 66.763,00 39.446,00 20.723,00 255.299,00
Person-month 1 1 1 1 1 5
Personnel 4.500,00 4.500,00 4.500,00 4.500,00 4.500,00 22.500,00
Travel costs 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Other costs 5.000,00 5.000,00 5.000,00 5.000,00 5.000,00 25.000,00
Total 9.500,00 9.500,00 9.500,00 9.500,00 9.500,00 47.500,00
Person-month 5,10 3,20 1,60 0,70 0,30 10,90
Personnel 11.600,00 7.350,00 2.400,00 900,00 300,00 22.550,00
Travel costs 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Other costs 2.400,00 2.400,00 2.400,00 2.400,00 1.200,00 10.800,00
Total 14.000,00 9.750,00 4.800,00 3.300,00 1.500,00 33.350,00
Person-month 3 1 0,50 0 0 4,50
Personnel 9.300,00 3.100,00 1.550,00 0,00 0,00 13.950,00
Travel costs 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Other costs 47.529,00 71.295,00 47.530,00 0,00 0,00 166.354,00
Total 56.829,00 74.395,00 49.080,00 0,00 0,00 180.304,00
Person-month 0 0 0,50 1,50 1,50 3,50
Personnel 0,00 0,00 1.800,00 5.400,00 5.500,00 12.700,00
Travel costs 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Other costs 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Total 0,00 0,00 1.800,00 5.400,00 5.500,00 12.700,00
Person-month 52,50 53,95 46,20 33,20 12,80 198,65
Personnel 142.045,00 153.547,00 120.893,00 94.046,00 35.023,00 545.554,00
Travel costs 6.000,00 4.000,00 5.800,00 0,00 0,00 15.800,00
Other costs 80.429,00 99.195,00 72.930,00 24.900,00 11.700,00 289.154,00
Total 228.474,00 256.742,00 199.623,00 118.946,00 46.723,00 850.508,00
(1) Partner 3, Infoteka, has been excluded from the Consortium after the f irst year.
(2) Partner 13 joined the project as of 01/08/2008.
Additional
Resources by
all AC
contractors
period 1-5
Partner 11:
METU
Partner 12:
LANC
Partner 13:
Aletta(2)
Partner 6: CEU
Partner 7: RAD
Partner 9:
UCM
Partner 10: UM
4.1.5 Budgeted vs. actual person months
Partner IWM EADC IK HU EKKE CEU RAD PI UCM UM METU LANC ALE IK HU CEU RAD UCM UM METU LANC ALE
RTD/
Innovation
activities
start
month
end
month
total
pm 1-54
WP
TOTAL
Actual
TOTAL per
activity
Planned
TOTAL per
activity
WP
TOTAL
Actual
TOTAL per
activity
LARG 400,03 352,00 63,15WP3 actual 5,5 0 0 0 2 9,3 1,8 12,8 3 2,5 0,4 1 0 38,30 9,4 2 4 1 0,4 16,80
1 29 planned 1 0 0 0 1 7 1 7 1 1 1 1 0 21,00
WP4 actual 2,5 0 0 0 2 6,2 6 17 5 2,8 3,1 2 0 46,60 2,5 1 1,7 5,20
2 11 planned 2 0 0 0 2 6 4 6 4 3 1 2 0 30,00
WP5 actual 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2,00 1,25 1 2,25
8 9 planned 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4,00
WP6 actual 15,2 0 0 0 9 15,8 31 54,1 26 28 12,36 15 0 206,46 3,5 2 14 1 4 24,50
8 19 planned 15 0 0 0 9 36 28 38 26 23 6 15 0 196,00
WP7 actual 8,6 0 0 0 6 17,2 7,8 23,38 12 11 2,64 6 0 94,62 5,8 1 5 0,6 12,40
18 27 planned 6 0 0 0 6 18 12 18 12 9 3 6 0 90,00
WP8 actual 3 0 0 0 1 2,85 0 2 2 0 0,2 1 0 12,05 2 2,00
27 29 planned 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 11,00
WHY 237,00 199,00 25,60WP9 actual 9,25 0 0 0 2 1 1,1 0,5 3 1 0,1 4 0 21,95 0,4 11 0,6 1,5 13,50
1 45 planned 4 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 0 15,00
WP10 actual 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 10,00 1 1,00
2 11 planned 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 12,00
WP11 actual 6 0 0 0 4 16 10 12 8 9 2,77 4 0 71,77 0,4 1 1,2 2,60
12 21 planned 4 0 0 0 4 12 8 12 8 8 2 4 0 62,00
WP12 actual 25 0 0 0 6 18,1 16 27,5 13 12 2,78 6 0 126,38 2 2 2 6,00
19 33 planned 6 0 0 0 6 18 12 18 12 9 3 6 0 90,00
WP13 cancelled 0,00 0,00
33 38 planned 9,00
WP14 actual 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0,5 1 0,2 0,2 3 0 6,90 2 0,5 2,50
39 45 planned 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 11,00
STRIQ 141,40 135,00 24,25WP15 actual 3 0 0 3 1,8 1,4 1,2 1 2 1 0,3 4 0 18,70 2 0,25 2 4 1 0,3 9,55
1 34 planned 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 0 16,00
WP16 actual 0 0 0 1,8 0 0 0 0 0 5,6 0 8 0 15,40 1 2 1 4,00
2 28 planned 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 4 0 8 0 21,00
WP17 actual 10,1 0 0 0 6 13,9 18 18,25 14 9 4,07 6 0 99,32 1,9 2 3 0,3 1 8,20
18 24 planned 6 0 0 0 6 18 12 15 12 9 3 6 0 87,00
WP18 actual 0 0 0 0 2 1 0,5 0 1 1,1 0,38 2 0 7,98 1 1 0,5 2,50
29 34 planned 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 11,00
FRAGEN 48,50 78,00 9,30WP19 actual 3 0 8 0 0 0 0,6 0,5 0 0 0 0 8,41 20,51 1 1,5 1 0,3 2 5,80
1 54 planned 4 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 16,00
WP20 actual 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,32 9,32 1 1 2,00
2 12 planned 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 8,00
WP21 actual 0,7 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,52 18,22 1 1,00
2 14 planned 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 10,00
WP22 actual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,03 0,03 0,00
15 50 planned 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3,00
WP23 cancelled 0,00 0,00
33 51 planned 37,00
WP24 actual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,42 0,42 0,5 0,50
35 54 planned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4,00
OPERA 97,20 95,00 46,00WP25 actual 4 0,54 0 4 0 0 0,6 0 6 0 0 0 0 15,14 7 1 10 18,00
1 54 planned 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 10,00
WP26 actual 1 2,7 0 0,5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6,20 0,5 0,5 1,00
9 14 planned 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 10,00
WP27 actual 1,5 2 0 1 1 0,7 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 11,20 0,5 1 0,5 2 4,00
12 15 planned 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 15,00
WP28 actual 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 10,00 1 2 3,00
15 22 planned 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 14,00
WP29 actual 0 3 0 5,5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 11,50 1 3 4,00
15 33 planned 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 8,00
WP30 actual 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 14,00 1 5 6,00
25 35 planned 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 13,00
WP31 actual 3 1,73 0 3 1 1 1 0 8 0 0 1 0 19,73 3 1 4 8,00
36 51 planned 5 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 0 19,00
WP32 actual 2 1,43 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 9,43 2 2,00
36 54 planned 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6,00
Dissemination 57,49 37,00 25,10WP2 1 54 actual 13,2 0,3 2 4 1 6,45 3 2,64 7 0 0,9 17 0 57,49 0,5 9,5 0,6 7 5,5 0,5 1,5 25,10
1 54 planned 22 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 37,00
Consortium Management 42,88 50,00 5,25WP1 1 54 actual 42,88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,88 2,75 2 0,5 5,25
1 54 planned 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,00
TOTAL person month efforts 164,43 19,70 30,00 27,80 45,80 112,90 99,60 173,17 136,00 83,20 30,20 87,00 14,70 1.024,50 946,00 3,00 27,00 30,75 28,00 86,00 5,00 10,90 4,50 3,50 198,65
AC - own staff
4.1.6 Summary explanation of the impact of major deviations
When comparing the planned budget with the actual costs for the Consortium as a whole,
the picture is as follows:
Cost category Planned in €1)
Actual in € Deviation in € Deviation
in %
Personnel 3.304.626,36 3.411.688,82 + 107.062,46 + 3,24%
Travel 173.095,94 162.197,45 - 10898,49 - 6,30%
Meetings 165.990,00 92.147,96 - 73.842,04 - 44,49%
Overhead 745.849,13 746.497,88 + 648,74 + 0,09%
Subcontracting 275.419,19 211.340,46 - 64.078,73 - 23,27%
Total Costs 4.750.514,00 4.698.994,12 - 51.519,89 - 1,08%
1) These numbers take into consideration planned budget shifts during the lifetime of the project.
The largest deviation in absolute numbers occurred in personnel costs. Nevertheless,
when considering that personnel costs constituted 70% of the total planned project
budget, the difference is comparatively minor. As explained above, one reason for this
“overspending” on personnel costs is the fact that more person months were devoted to
the implementation of the project than planned. A substantial part of the research was
carried out by junior researchers (mostly young post-docs) who were supervised by the
senior researchers (Team Leaders and Activity Leaders). Their input to a large extent did
not impact total costs because their working time was devoted as additional resources
employed on the project by AC Contractors’ own full-time staff. Overall, it can be
concluded that the Consortium members were very economical in planning and
monitoring their personnel expenditures. Even if they had to spend more for research staff
than planned, they were able to shift parts of their overall budget to cover these costs. In
sum, the impact on project implementation was clearly positive because not only was the
entire work programme successfully completed, but in some areas even more work was
performed and output produced than originally committed to.
Even though the number of meetings of all kinds (as explained above) was substantial
and the personal interaction between the Consortium members was frequent throughout
the duration of the project, their total cost was significantly lower than the budget
reserved. This is to some extent due to the fact that most of the meetings were organised
in venues provided free of charge by the Contractors (no rent for space, technical
infrastructure and service staff). Another reason lies in the fact that working meetings
were linked e.g. to conferences organised by other institutions where several QUING
researchers participated as speakers presenting their findings. Thus, travel costs arising
for dissemination activities were not duplicated by travel to separate Consortium
meetings. In summary, effective communication within the Consortium and between all
researchers involved was facilitated by regular meetings in a most economical way.
Most Contractors spent less on subcontracts than reserved for this cost item in the
budget. This is partly due to several reasons, i.e. auditing costs were somewhat lower
than expected, less was spent on language editing services because this was performed
227
at the expense of publishers or was carried out by the native English speakers within the
Consortium (consequently, budget was shifted to partner 12, Lancaster University, whose
researchers did some of the editing), the subcontracts with FRAGEN partners were lower,
and the project did not produce a final promotional publication of QUING results because
their dissemination was insured by an outstanding number of other venues directed
towards the general public, stakeholders in policymaking and the NGO sector, as well as
in academic communities.
The only real major deviation in the implementation of QUING resulted from the fact that
Partner 3, Zenska Infoteka, faced some institutional difficulties during the second year of
the project, before they had any substantial contribution to their assigned Activity, and
wished to be released from its duties in the Consortium. Consequently, a new partner had
to be identified and admitted to the Consortium in an addendum to the contract. This
required some changes in the implementation plan – both in terms of timing and content –
of the FRAGEN Activity as well as in some financial restructuring because it was
questionable at the time of accession of Partner 13, Aletta – Institute for Women’s History,
whether Partner 3 would be able to repay the share of EC prefinancing which was not
spent on the project. Nevertheless, the main objectives of FRAGEN as originally defined
were successfully completed by Partner 13, and arrangements for the accessibility and
maintenance of the data after the lifetime of QUING were made and contractually assured
for the next three years.
4.2 Form C and Audit Certificates by each contractor
See attached.
4.3 Summary Financial Report
See attached.
The final report on the distribution of the Community’s contribution as well as the
final science and society reporting questionnaire, the final reporting on the
implementation of the gender action plan and the final socio-economic reporting
questionnaire were submitted online.
i This section is a synthesis of parts from the final STRIQ report (Verloo, Walby, Armstrong and Strid 2009), especially chapter 2, Conceptual framework, by Sylvia Walby, Jo Armstrong and Sofia Strid, iiThis section is a synthesis of parts from the final OPERA report ( complied by Lucy Ferguson and
Maxime Forest based on contributions of the QUING team and all OPERA participants, 2011)