quing quality in gender equality policies final … 12.pdf · quing quality in gender+ equality...

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

http://www.quing.eu/


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

http://www.mageeq.net/

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


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

http://www.fragen.nu/

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


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


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

http://libarts.wsu.edu/polisci/rngs/

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

http://libarts.wsu.edu/polisci/rngs/

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


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


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.

http://www.quing.eu/files/opera/conference_programme_final.pdf

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.

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/gender_equality/legislation/legalacts_en.html

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,


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,


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.

http://www.ecprnet.eu/sg/ecpg/default.asp

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










STRIQ







108





WHY










OPERA

IWM, Institute for Human Sciences – Austria Mieke Verloo

Yellow Window – Belgium Lut Mergaert










FRAGEN

IWM, Institute for Human Sciences – Austria Mieke Verloo

Aletta, Institute for Women’s History - The Netherlands Tilly Vriend







109



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)


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)


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)

http://www.fragen.nu/aletta/fragen

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,

http://www.caladona.org/?s=Fragen

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


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


Jul 2009 Radio interview on newly introduced registered partnership ceremonies, aired on Hungarian Public Radio


Jun Information on FRAGEN project on Aletta website General public International 13 Alet

http://www.women.it/bibliotecadelledonne/fragen.htm

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


2 Countries



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


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


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


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


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


2 Countries



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

http://booleweb.ucc.ie/index.php?pageID=332

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


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


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


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


The Netherlands

2609 13 Alet

Feb 2011

Press release in English, Launch FRAGEN website and database


International 937 13 Alet

Feb 2011

News on Aletta website (www.fragen.nu), Core European feminist texts online


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



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



Feb 2011

Lectures, “Gender Equality Policies: Analysis and Evaluation”, Master on Gender and Development. Universidad del País Vasco (UPV)



Feb 2011

Lectures, “Gender Equality Policies: Analysis and Evaluation”, Master on Gender and Development, UCM



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?”


The Netherlands

500 13 Alet

Jan 2011

Lecture, Public politics class, QUING CFA theory and methodology workshop, UCM



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


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



Nov 2010

Lecture, Gender equality policies (CFA) Students Several, esp. Spain and EU


Nov 2010

Interactive seminar, ”Human body. Social Body“, organised by the Association of Sociology Students at


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“


Oct 2010 – Jan 2011

Undergraduate course, “Content Analysis“, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Department of Sociology


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

http://www.ucm.es/info/target/Art%20Chs%20EN/WHYCompITPES_LombardoBustelo0909.pdf

http://www.ucm.es/info/target/Art%20Chs%20EN/WHYCompITPES_LombardoBustelo0909.pdf

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



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


Mar 2010

Comparative politics class,QUING CFA theory and methodology workshop, UCM



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


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



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


Dec 2009

Plenary presentation on Equality Institutions in 10 CEE countries, conference on Traveling Gender Studies, Humboldt University Berlin

Academics 10 CEE countries


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


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”


Feb-May 2009

Lectures,Undergraduate Course on Comparative Politics. Department of Political Science, UCM


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


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”


Oct 2008-Jan 2009

Undergraduate course, “Introduction to Sociology“, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


2 Countries



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



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



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

http://www.aspekt.sk/

http://www.ruzovyamodrysvet.sk/

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


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

http://kvinfo.dk/

http://www.enut.ee/enut.php?id=28&uid=349

http://www.enut.ee/enut.php?id=307

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


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



Oct 2010

Paper, “Gender and intersectionality in politics”, Baeza, Feminist Reflection Conference, IAM, Italy

Academics, civil society, policymakers

Several, esp. EU


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


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


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


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


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


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,


http://www.bauw.hit.bg/

http://bauw-bg.com/en

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


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


Jan 2010

Paper, “Intersectionality: concept, debates and policy practice”, local government, Barcelona

Policy-makers, practitioners,

EU, Spain, other QUING


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



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


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,

http://www.feminismus.cz/

http://www.genderstudies.cz/

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


4 Dec 2008

Symposium, “Regional development and promotion of economic development – examples for equality policies in European structural funds”, Gender Competence Centre on, Berlin


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


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


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


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


Jul 2008 Conference, “Equality Policies in Spain: where are we coming from and where are we going to?”

Academics, practicioners, students


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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_sweden.pdf.

Carbin, Maria (2007): Issue Histories Denmark: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,


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,


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


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_portugal.pdf.

Fernández de Vega, Ana (2007): Issue Histories European Union: Series of Timelines of


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_eu.pdf.

Gregoriou, Zelia (2007): Issue Histories Cyprus: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_cyprus.pdf.

Harjunen, Hannele (2007): Issue Histories Finland: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_finland.pdf.

Jaigma, Martin (2007): Issue Histories Estonia: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_estonia.pdf.

Jarty, Julie (2007): Issue Histories France: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates, QUING


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:


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_slovenia.pdf.

Lauwers, Sophie (2007): Issue Histories Malta: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_malta.pdf.

Lauwers, Sophie (2007): Issue Histories The Netherlands: Series of Timelines of Policy


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


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_spain.pdf.

Martens, Saskia (2007): Issue Histories Belgium: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_belgium.pdf.

Martens, Saskia (2007): Issue Histories Luxembourg: Series of Timelines of Policy


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:


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_greece.pdf.

Pilinkaite-Sotirović, Vilana (2007): Issue Histories Lithuania: Series of Timelines of Policy


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_lithuania.pdf.

Popa, Raluca Maria (2007): Issue Histories Romania: Series of Timelines of Policy


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_romania.pdf.

Putnina, Aivita (2007): Issue Histories Latvia: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,


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


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_czech_republic.pdf.

Stoykova, Elena (2007): Issue Histories Bulgaria: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,


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


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/ih_austria.pdf.

Urbanek, Doris (2007): Issue Histories Germany: Series of Timelines of Policy Debates,


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


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,


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,


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:


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,


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,


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:


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


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_ireland.pdf.

Björklund, Erika and Carbin, Maria (2008): Context Study Denmark, QUING Project,


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_denmark.pdf.

Björklund, Erika and Kvist, Elin (2008): Context Study Sweden, QUING Project, Vienna:


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:


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:


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


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_netherlands.pdf.

Longo, Valentina and Vianello, Francesca (2008): Context Study Italy, QUING Project,


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:


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,


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_uk.pdf.

Tertinegg, Karin and Sauer, Birgit (2008): Context Study Austria, QUING Project, Vienna:


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/cs_austria.pdf.

Urbanek, Doris, with input from Birgit Sauer (2008): Context Study Germany, QUING


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:


http://www.quing.eu/files/results/final_why_report.pdf.

Verloo, Mieke, Sylvia Walby, Jo Armstrong, and Sofia Strid (2009): Final STRIQ Report,


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)

mailto:[email protected]





179

Related to the work for WP 12, four additional lists were opened to facilitate the work on the

WHY papers:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

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.


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)


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


LANC contributed to the launch, interim, and final meetings.

WP 4 Literature search & methodology (LARG 2)


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


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.


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.


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).


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


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.


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.


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.


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)


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


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.


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)


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).


The partner reviewed and contributed to the work done by the country researcher for

Germany in mapping the policy debates in Germany.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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).


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)


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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


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).


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)


The EKKE team provided some input for the final report and recommendations.


Led by CEU, the consortium worked on the preparation of the final conference and on the

final report, which was submitted in December 2009.


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).


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


The METU team prepared and provided all documents required for the final report of the

LARG activity as requested by the Activity Leaders.


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)


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.


The EKKE team assisted in the management of the activity.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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)


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.


The partner contributed to the development of the methodology manual for the country

studies.


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)


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).


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


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).


RAD completed the country context studies for Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Malta, and the

Netherlands.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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)


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.


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).


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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)


The work for this work package consisted of reading and discussing the series of papers with

a view to potential publication.


The EKKE team provided input for the final report and the recommendations.


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.


Mieke Verloo wrote the final WHY report, together with Sylvia Walby.


The PI team contributed to the preparation of the final WHY report and recommendations

(D71, D73).


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


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.


The METU team prepared and provided all documents required for the final WHY report as

requested by the activity leaders.


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)


The IWM team was represented during the STRIQ workshop on good practices.


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.


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


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.


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.


The partner participated in the launch, methodology, and further workshops for STRIQ.


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.


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.


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


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)


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.


RAD commented on the literature review.


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.


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)


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.


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.


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).


RAD prepared and submitted on the reports analysing intersectionality in Belgium, France,

Luxembourg, Malta, and the Netherlands (D35).


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


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.


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).


The METU team prepared and submitted the report analysing structural and political

intersectionality in gender equality policies in Turkey (D35).


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)


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.


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.


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.


The PI team contributed to the final reporting and selection of good practices (D55, D66).


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.


UM contributed to the final reporting and selection of good practices.


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.


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)


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.


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.


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.


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


UCM actively participated in the launch workshop and was active in searching for and

identifying suitable partners in Italy, Portugal, and Spain.

207


Umeå actively participated in the launch workshop and was active in searching for and

identifying suitable partners in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden.


The METU team was represented at the launch and interim workshops and was active in

searching for and identifying suitable partners in Turkey.


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)


The scientific director at IWM finalised the manual for the selection of texts (D21).


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)


The scientific director at IWM contributed to the preparations for the work of the

subcontractors. The scientific director made comments and suggestions.


Mieke Verloo added suggestions for subcontractors and commented on the output of this

WP.


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)


Mieke Verloo commented on draft outputs for this WP.


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)


Mieke Verloo commented on draft outputs for this WP.


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)


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


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.


The CEU team contributed to the workshops in October 2007 and April 2008.


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.


PI contributed to the workshops in October 2007 and April 2008.


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.


UM contributed to the workshops in October 2007 and April 2008.


The METU team contributed to the workshops in October 2007 and April 2008.


The LANC team contributed to the workshops in October 2007, April 2008, and November

2008.

WP 26 Conduct of literature search (OPERA 2)


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.


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).


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)


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).


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).


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.


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


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.


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.


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).


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).


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


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.


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)


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).


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.


RAD commented on the manual on gender+ training.


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)


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 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).


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.


RAD contributed one pilot training in Luxembourg (this training was conducted with an

external partner) and a short report on this training for D50.


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)


The scientific director commented on this work package and contributed to its development.


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.


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.


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)


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.


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.


The EKKE team had some input into the final report.


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


Mieke Verloo participated in the training-the-trainers activities, which took the format of three

online forums, and co-moderated one of them.


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.


Within the framework of the OPERA activity, METU team provided a list of gender trainers in

Turkey to the OPERA activity leaders.


LANC had some input into this work package.

WP 32 Promoting and maintaining database & standards (OPERA 8)


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


Mieke Verloo participated in the selection of partners, and in the finalising of the contract with

EIGE.


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).


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)