Gender Expertise in Public Policy

Towards a Theory of Policy Success

S. Hoard

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781137365170
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Through a selection of in-depth interviews, a survey of experts working with the European Union and United Nations, and Qualitative Comparative Analysis of policy debates, this text rethinks our understanding of gender expertise and the circumstances that lead to expert success in public policy.

1

Knowledge, Expertise, and Public Policy: The Changing Relationship Between Science and Public Policy

In February of 2011, the Quality in Gender+ Equality Policies project (QUING) held an international conference entitled “Advancing Gender Training in Theory and Practice” in Madrid. QUING features several projects designed to compare gender+ equality policies across Europe. The goal of the last phase of the QUING project OPERA was to improve gender+ equality policies and gender mainstreaming through the direct translation of knowledge to policymakers via training (QUING n.d.). The goals of translating knowledge directly to policymakers produced several meetings and eventually led to the conference in Madrid.

The conference brought together gender experts, practitioners, and commissioners in gender+ training to discuss their experiences working in gender equality policies. Although the majority of participants were from Western Europe, individuals hailed from a variety of countries, including Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Germany, Lithuania, Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe. A variety of professionals were present; academics, private consultants, gender trainers, and public sector employees were among those who presented research and shared their experiences working on gender equality issues, with special focus being placed upon gender expertise. The goals of the conference were numerous; however, an important aim was to produce a declaration on gender+ training in an effort to begin developing standards, a community of practice, and potentially a system of accreditation for gender trainers. The first draft of the Madrid Declaration on Advancing Gender+ Training in Theory and Practice asserts that gender+ training is based on the translation of “feminist and gender theories to practitioners” (Ferguson, Forest, and Bustelo 2011, 13). According to Ferguson, Forest, and Bustelo (2011), “trainers should actively search for ways to communicate up-to-date feminist and gender theories in the training” (13). The first draft of the declaration makes the transfer of feminist and gender theory an important component of gender training and expertise; however, exactly what constitutes gender expertise was at times contested among participants.

Some disagreement among conference participants revolved around the necessary academic standards for acquiring gender expertise. A few participants suggested an advanced degree in gender studies is a necessary professional requirement, while others asserted that a history of working in similar occupations or passing predetermined organizational gender training could qualify an individual as a gender expert. Many participants pointed out that gender experts perform a variety of activities, and as a consequence developing standard necessary requirements may prove difficult because the essential requirements could differ depending on the activity being performed. Many attendees agreed that feminist and gender theory form the common element of gender expertise; however, some participants questioned whether other theories and research should also be incorporated. Although many participants perform or have performed activities for a variety of organizations as gender experts, there was no definite consensus on what constitutes gender expertise.

The identification of key components and requirements for gender expertise seems particularly important given the rise of numerous institutions that seek gender expertise in order to help create and inform policy and the focus gender equality has received globally. Gender equality is a problem that all contemporary democracies confront due to changing international norms regarding what is considered democratic. Democracies face the challenge of gender equality utilizing a variety of methods, and although the policies adopted to combat gender inequality can differ considerably among countries, gender expertise is one tool often used in the development of gender equality policies. Gender expertise has increasingly become recognized as a special form of knowledge that is necessary (or at least important) when creating and developing policy, which means that adequately defining and conceptualizing what constitutes gender expertise is particularly important. Feminist studies have found that gender experts do matter in achieving feminist policies. Elgstrom (2000) argues that relying on gender experts early in the gender mainstreaming process helped ensure that gender equality was inserted into many European Union resolutions. The author goes on to state that the continual presence of gender experts helped to ensure gender equality concerns were not forgotten once policies were passed (Elgstrom 2000). Sauer (2010) stresses the importance of active gender framers for feminist policy adoption. She argues that success depends on gender experts willing to lend their expertise throughout the entire policy process (Sauer 2010). Research has pointed to the importance of gender experts in achieving feminist policy success, but what is gender expertise? What qualifications and credentials do gender experts possess? What constitutes policy success, and how do we measure success? When are the advice and recommendations of gender experts successfully incorporated into public policy? These are only some of the questions that are of interest to both scholars and policy practitioners. To date, these questions have not been satisfactorily addressed, as the majority of studies that attempt to examine gender expertise have not thoroughly investigated what constitutes gender expertise, and, more importantly, systematic comparison of the common factors that lead to gender expert policy success has not been thoroughly investigated.

This book seeks to address these questions and contribute to scholarly knowledge regarding gender expertise through a sequential mixed-methods research design utilizing semi-structured interviews with gender experts, a survey of experts and specialists working with and within the European Union and United Nations, and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of gender expert success in prominent policy debates from 1970 to 2000. The goal of this study is to not only examine the impact of gender experts, but to begin developing theoretical propositions regarding when experts will achieve policy success, defined here as having their information incorporated into formally adopted rules, statutes, decisions, actions, and/or decrees of the organization in question, that can be tested and refined in further research. I heed the call for greater comparison in comparative politics of gender research by utilizing gender experts across the globe to develop insights into the shared factors that bolster gender expert success in public policy (Beckwith 2010).

This chapter begins by providing an overview of the changing relationship between science and public policy. Following this discussion, gender mainstreaming literature is reviewed. Next, the foundations and contributions of this research are presented, followed by a discussion of the methodology utilized in the study. The chapter ends with a detailed plan of the book.

The End of Policy Expertise?

The lack of consensus among gender experts and policy practitioners regarding what constitutes gender expertise may seem disconcerting; however, it can be argued that the difficulties defining gender expertise reflect a policy environment in which the range of individuals that are considered experts has broadened dramatically. Originally, expertise was seen as a method to depoliticize policy issues, and experts were given a great deal of authority in public policy (Nelkin 1975, Collins and Evans 2002, Maasen and Weingart 2005). Collins and Evans (2002) refer to this as the golden age of expertise; scientific knowledge had a privileged role in public policy because it was seen as unbiased, rational, and reliable. Scientific experts were supposed to lead to the end of ideology in politics, providing clear and rational policy choices and making politics less important (Nelkin 1975).

During the golden age of expertise, there was a clear distinction between experts and laypersons. The individuals that were considered experts were limited, with academics and bureaucrats often performing the role of the policy expert (Collins and Evans 2002, Maasen and Weingart 2005). Scientific knowledge was seen as trustworthy and possessed by few; therefore, experts had a great deal of authority in decision-­making processes that fell within their domain (Collins and Evans 2002). The role of experts was to provide the “truth” to policymakers in order to improve decision making (Collins and Evans 2002). In technical arenas, it was virtually inconceivable that relevant information could be obtained from any other actors; therefore, scientific experts had a great deal of authority in these decision-making areas.

Over time, the optimism concerning the role of science in policymaking tempered considerably. While it would be a mistake to claim that positive views regarding the role of expertise were universal, indeed a number of theorists were quite critical of the growing influence of scientific experts and the impact on democratic institutions (Gilpin and Wright 1965, Lapp 1965, Habermas 1970), trust in science has eroded considerably among the public and policy actors. Several factors have led to this erosion in the prominence of scientific expertise in public policy. Scholars have noted that the utilization of expertise has become politicized; all competing sides in policy issues are now utilizing experts (Nelkin 1975, Collins and Evans 2002, Maasen and Weingart 2005, Collins and Evans 2007). Nelkin (1975) argues that the acceptance of technical advice frequently depends on the extent to which expertise reinforces existing positions rather than the validity of the information. This politicization of expertise has led to a corresponding increase in the number of institutions, organizations, and individuals seeking expertise (Maasen and Weingart 2005). Moreover, scientific expertise is not the only form of knowledge that politicians and institutions are seeking to formulate and legitimate their decisions (Maasen and Weingart 2005). This last development, referred to by Maasen and Weingart (2005) as the proliferation of expertise, has led to an influx of individuals and ­organizations that provide expertise to a variety of institutions, both governmental and nongovernmental. The authors assert that this proliferation of expertise has led to a narrowing of the knowledge required to be considered an expert and has eroded the distinctions between experts and laypersons (Maasen and Weingart 2005). Maasen and Weingart (2005) argue that due to this state of affairs, the “concept of expertise appears to be extended to the point of denoting almost any kind of knowledge” (6).

While the politicization and proliferation of expertise may point to the diminished authority of science in public policy, the sheer number of experts active in the policy process leads to some concerns that other forms of knowledge are unable to compete with expert knowledge. Scholars have long been concerned that scientific knowledge has replaced practical or local knowledge, knowledge that is garnered through trial and error and adaptable to a constantly changing environment (Lindblom and Cohen 1979, Scott 1998, Fischer 2000). Related to concerns regarding practical or local knowledge, social scientists have also pointed to the increasing distrust regarding the authority of experts and concerns over the monopolization of the public policy process by science (Fischer 2000).

Despite tensions in the literature regarding the prominence of expertise and the tension between experts and other forms of knowledge, it is clear that most research examining public policy expertise has pointed to an environment in which the production of knowledge and those with access as potential policy experts is changing. Knowledge production is no longer limited to universities; scientific theories, models, and methods are increasingly used by organizations to legitimate their policy positions (Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott, and Trow 1994). Academics and bureaucrats do not possess a monopoly on knowledge production and expertise (Collins and Evans 2002, Maasen and Weingart 2005). Despite some efforts to keep scientific knowledge as the main component of expertise (Collins and Evans 2002, Collins and Evans 2007), the growing familiarity with scientific methods and scientific theories means that it is not necessarily scientists and universities that have the most impact on public policy. Several organizations with widely varying policy goals are conducting research utilizing scientific methods that is increasingly seen as a valid contribution to knowledge production.

This current state of affairs means that gender experts are competing with experts in other fields in order to have their knowledge, recommendations, and services utilized by government institutions. Not only do gender experts have to compete with other experts to have their interpretations privileged, they face a policy environment in which the number of actors that are seen as having relevant information on a particular policy issue has dramatically increased since the 1950s. Perhaps the difficulty in defining gender expertise is directly linked to the changing relationship between science and public policy in which the concept of expertise and those considered experts has been broadened substantially and possibly to the point where expertise, at least in some policy areas, has lost much of its prior meaning. This state of affairs not only means that gender experts compete with many other individuals with relevant policy knowledge, but the credentials obtained by individuals who provide gender expertise may differ significantly since the organizations contributing to knowledge production have become increasingly diversified beyond academia (Stone, Maxwell, and Keating 2001, Hessels and van Lente 2008).

Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Expertise

Although gender expertise has received unprecedented global attention within the last two decades, gender experts are not new to the policy process. Gender experts have provided policy advice since the advent of women’s movements, particularly since the 1960s, when most women’s movements had achieved suffrage and began focusing on other important issues (Freedman 2003). As Mazur (2002) illustrates, Western postindustrial democracies have enacted a broad array of feminist policies, and a number of these policies were passed prior to international developments that led to increased focus on gender expertise, yet much of the research examining gender experts focuses primarily on developments that occurred after 1995. Why has gender expertise received more focus since 1995, even though feminist policies have been enacted over the last several decades? Gender expertise is increasingly garnering more attention due to the popularity of gender mainstreaming initiatives, both nationally and internationally. Gender mainstreaming has become an accepted strategy to help achieve gender equality and must be analyzed in some detail to understand why gender experts, although active in public policy for several decades, have seemed to gain more access to prominent policy actors in recent years than in the more distant past.

Although gender mainstreaming has been viewed as an innovation in gender equality policies and strategies (Mazey 2000, Pollack and Hafner-Burton 2000), Verloo (2001) asserts that gender mainstreaming is not new, noting that several organizations and governments implemented early forms of gender mainstreaming, which were largely unsuccessful. According to the author, what is new about gender mainstreaming is that it gained popularity in the 1990s, especially after the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing (Verloo 2001). In the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action, gender mainstreaming was established as an official strategy for achieving gender equality, and the Platform committed the United Nations and member governments to take explicit measures to eliminate discrimination against women (United Nations 1995). Following the Platform for Action, gender mainstreaming was adopted by various organizations, and several institutions dedicated to gender mainstreaming have been created, dramatically increasing the presence of gender experts worldwide.

While there are several definitions of gender mainstreaming, the Council of Europe definition is widely adopted because it lists gender equality, rather than a focus exclusively on women, as its main objective (Verloo 2001). The definition states, “gender mainstreaming is the (re)organization, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy-making” (Council of Europe 1998, 15). The support for gender mainstreaming as a tool to promote gender equality has expanded worldwide and has been adopted by numerous international organizations, including the European Union, the United Nations, and the World Bank, among others. The United Nations asserts that gender mainstreaming is thought of as an approach (not an end) to achieving gender equality (OSAGI n.d.). The purpose of gender mainstreaming is to ensure that the goal of gender equality and gender concerns are central to all activities of the organization (OSAGI n.d.).

In order to more thoroughly understand what gender mainstreaming entails, it is useful to examine the stated goals of the United Nations in regards to gender mainstreaming. The United Nations iterates several principles for “mainstreaming a gender perspective” into its system. Some of these principles are as follows: issues should be defined in a way that allows for the diagnosis of gender differences (avoiding assumptions of gender neutrality); gender mainstreaming should be system-wide, and outcomes need to be monitored constantly; mainstreaming requires an effort to increase women’s participation in decision making; and allocation of funding and additional resources (if necessary) for gender mainstreaming are important for translating gender mainstreaming into practice (United Nations Department of ...