Search

The aim of the paper is to discuss how thinking about gender-based violence intersectionally and in context can not only enrich our understandings but also lead to transformative change in organisations. The paper argues that to better understand gender-based violence in universities and research institutions, analyses need be intersectional and contextual. Such approaches go beyond binary understandings of gender and narrow legalistic definitions of gender-based violence. The paper reflects on how to operationalise this to derive starting points for intersectional categories to consider and contextual factors to measure at micro, meso and macro levels. It concludes that a multi-level intersectional analysis leads to more nuanced knowledge on experiences of gender-based violence, and is therefore better equipped to inform the development of measures to eradicate the problem in an inclusive way.

UniSAFE

Measuring violence against women raises methodological questions, as well as the wider question of how to understand violence and locate it in relation to a societal context. This is all the more relevant given that measurement of violence against women in the EU has made an interesting phenomenon apparent, the so-called 'Nordic Paradox', whereby prevalence is higher in more gender equal countries. This article examines this phenomenon by exploring a range of factors - methodological, demographic and societal - to contextualise disclosed levels of violence. The analysis makes use of a multilevel analytic approach to take into account how macro and micro levels contribute to the prevalence of violence. The intercepts are then used to illustrate how taking these into account might provide an alternative ranking of levels of violence against women in EU countries. The results show that the 'Nordic Paradox' disappears - and can be undone - when factors at individual and country levels are considered. We conclude that the 'Nordic Paradox' cannot be understood independently from a wider pattern of violence in society, and should be seen as connected and co-constituted in specific formations, domains or regimes of violence. Our results show that the use of multi-level models can provide new insights into the factors that may be related to disclosed prevalence of violence against women. This can generate a better understanding of how violence against women functions as a system, and in turn inform better policy responses.

The aim of the article is to examine if and how the welfare state regime typology translates into a violence regime typology in a European context. It builds on the concept of violence regimes (Strid et al. 2017; Hearn et al. 2020) to empirically examine whether the production of interpersonal violence constitutes distinct regimes, and how these correspond (or not) with welfare regimes, gender regimes, and with other comparative metrics on violence, gender equality and feminist mobilisation and transnational actors. Its main contribution is to operationalise the concept of violence regimes, thereby moving from theory to a first empirical measurement. By first constructing a new composite measure of violence, a Violence Regimes Index, based on secondary administrative and survey data covering the then 28 EU member states, countries are clustered along two axes of violence: ‘deadly’ violence and ‘damaging’ gender-based violence. This serves to examine if, and how, the production of gendered violence in different states constitutes distinct regimes, analogous to welfare state regimes, as well as to enable future research and further comparisons and contrasts, specifically related to violence and the welfare state. By providing an empirical measurement of violence regimes in the EU, the article then contributes further to the debates on welfare, welfare regimes, and violence. It specifically contributes with discussions on the extent to which there are different violence regimes, comparable to welfare regimes, and with discussions on the relevance of moving from thinking about violence as an institution within other inequality regimes, to thinking about violence as a macro-regime, a way of governing and ruling in its own right. The article concludes that the exclusion of violence from mainstream social theory and research has produced results that may not be valid, and offers an alternative classification using the concept of violence regimes, thereby demonstrating the, Regimes of Violence: Theorising and Explaining Variations in the Production of Violence in Welfare State Regimes

Measuring violence against women raises methodological questions, as well as the wider question of how to understand violence and locate it in relation to a societal context. This is all the more relevant given that measurement of violence against women in the EU has made an interesting phenomenon apparent, the so-called 'Nordic Paradox', whereby prevalence is higher in more gender equal countries. This article examines this phenomenon by exploring a range of factors – methodological, demographic and societal – to contextualise disclosed levels of violence. The analysis makes use of a multilevel analytic approach to take into account how macro and micro levels contribute to the prevalence of violence. The intercepts are then used to illustrate how taking these into account might provide an alternative ranking of levels of violence against women in EU countries. The results show that the 'Nordic Paradox' disappears – and can be undone – when factors at individual and country levels are considered. We conclude that the 'Nordic Paradox' cannot be understood independently from a wider pattern of violence in society, and should be seen as connected and co-constituted in specific formations, domains or regimes of violence. Our results show that the use of multi-level models can provide new insights into the factors that may be related to disclosed prevalence of violence against women. This can generate a better understanding of how violence against women functions as a system, and in turn inform better policy responses., Regimes of Violence: Theorising and Explaining Variations in the Production of Violence in Welfare State Regimes

The Gender Equality Index was developed at the European Institute for Gender Equality to monitor the progress in gender mainstreaming within EU policy areas. This chapter outlines the political, conceptual and technical background in its development. It also positions it within the wider context of the 1995 UN Beijing Conference, and the ensuing release of international measure of gender equality, as well as its interaction with the global measures of inequalities within the Sustainable Development agenda. It then discuss further the structure of the Gender Equality Index, its six domains (work, money, knowledge, time, power and health) and satellites (violence, intersecting inequalities), and the indicators used. We offer a criticism of methodological updates, arguing that recent ‘tinkering’ is at odds with the aim to offer a measure of gender mainstreaming. Finally, we conclude with examples of applications, an assessment of strengths and weaknesses, as well as some suggestions for future use.

The purpose of this paper is to establish the extent to which prospective students can see a visible commitment to study gender in the UK business/management school curriculum prior to enrolment. A content analysis of the descriptions of modules offered as part of business and management degrees offered by 112 UK universities was conducted. The analysis was restricted to the publicly available information on the websites visible to prospective students. Descriptive statistics re the distribution of gender topics across programmes and HEIs are presented in addition to university group affiliation (e.g. Russell Group), and accreditation in respect of variables. The analysis reveals significant gaps in the undergraduate and taught postgraduate offerings of UK business schools that we suggest are reflective of subject silos, and institutional risk reduction strategies. We conclude by arguing that accreditation bodies can use their influence to leverage change and to ensure gender content becomes core to curriculum design and its visibility as part of the practice of management to prospective students. This study provides a benchmark for the visibility of gender as an issue and perspective within UK business/management school offerings.

In this chapter, we explore how quantitative methods can be used to advance the understanding of gender and diversity in the field of business and management. To this end, we address three interrelated layers: feminist ontology and epistemology in relation to data and quantitative methods; how gender scholars give and make sense of a feminist purpose in using data and conducting statistical analysis by relating it to linguistic theory; and applications to established and newly developed forms of quantitative methods. Overall, we call for a greater critical engagement of gender scholars with quantitative methods to use data with a feminist purpose.

The paper is one of five papers in the proposed session Violence Regimes: Analysing the Multiplicity of Gendered Violence(s). It theoretically explores and empirically tests the framework of violence regime to analyse the multiplicity of violence(s). Violence regime is a newly developed framework for analysing violence (Hearn et al. 2018; Strid et al. 2018). It concerns direct and indirect violence; across four pillars of comprehensiveness; across macro, meso and micro levels; often with increasing amount of time and space between act and impact; and varying in both manifestation and understanding of violence, as well as for policy implications, thus extending the continuum of violence (Kelly 1988): 1. Deadly: manifestations of violence with potential to kill, usually direct and directed towards someone (has a ‘victim’ or ‘object’), as in deadly violence, e.g. homicide, femicide, death penalty; 2. Damaging: manifestations of violence/violations with potential to harm or injury, usually direct and directed towards someone (as ‘victim’ or ‘object’), e.g. recorded violent crime, violence against the person, IPV and stalking; 3. Diffuse: underpinnings to manifestations of violence, usually less direct, and directed towards a group, usually with an identifiable ‘victim’ or ‘object’, including e.g. legitimizations and regulations of violence; and 4. Dispersed: other manifestations not necessarily understood as violence, usually indirect, sometimes directed towards a group but with a less easily identifiable ‘victim’ or ‘object; manifestations not are not usually recognized as violence, e.g. environmental destruction. To develop and test the framework, we first construct a composite measure of violence, a so-called Violence Regime Index (Strid et al. 2019), and then cluster countries in terms of the four the pillars of violence. This serves to examine if and how the production of violence in different states constitutes distinct regimes, and to enable further comparisons, Violence Regimes: Theorising and Explaining Variations in the Production of Violence in Welfare State Regimes

This paper is part of the session Violence Regimes: Analysing the Multiplicity of Gendered Violence(s). Violence regime is a framework developed for analysing the multiplicity of violence(s) (Hearn et al 2018; Strid et al 2018). The framework concerns direct and indirect violence; across four pillars of comprehensiveness; across macro, meso and micro levels; often with increasing amount of time and space between act and impact; and vary in both manifestation and understanding of violence, extending the continuum of violence (Kelly 1988) across four pillars: Deadly, Damaging, Diffuse and Dispersed violence. Empirically, this paper explores manifestations of violence in the first and fourth pillar of the violence regime framework: deadly and direct forms of violence such as homicide, femicide and suicide; and dispersed manifestations not necessarily understood as violence, usually indirect, sometimes directed towards a group but with a less easily identifiable ‘victim’ or ‘object; manifestations not usually recognized as violence; e.g. environmental destruction. Two different cases will be discussed, 1) automobility and 2) killings of animals for food, both associated with negative impact on the environment. First, we examine the violent, damaging and deadly effects of automobility across country comparisons of the EU28. Second, we examine slow violence (Nixon 2011) and the levels of slaughtering of animals in relation to the levels of homicide, femicide and suicide through cross country comparisons of the EU28. The paper contributes to the violence regime framework analysing how manifestations of violence not usually understood as violence correlate with the most direct and deadly forms of violence., Violence Regimes: Theorising and Explaining Variations in the Production of Violence in Welfare State Regimes

How do we approach violence as an issue for scientific research and a problem for professional practices? This introduction explores this through engagements with the framework of violence regime. It analyses different manifestations and measurements of violence and their implications, and develops violence regimes as a fruitful approach and as means to deepen the analysis of gender relations, gender domination, and policy. It concerns the ontology of violence and conceptualizes violence as inequality in its own right and as autotelic (Schinkel 2010). Violence regime is a relatively newly developed framework for analysing the multiplicity of violence(s) (Hearn et al 2018; Strid et al 2018). The framework concerns direct and indirect violence; across four pillars of comprehensiveness; across macro, meso and micro levels; often with increasing amount of time and space between act and impact; and vary in both manifestation and understanding of violence, extending the continuum of violence (Kelly 1988): Deadly: manifestations of violence with potential to kill, usually direct and directed towards someone (has a ‘victim’ or ‘object’), as in deadly (or minimal) violence; e.g. homicide, femicide, death penalty, and militarism; to Damaging: manifestations of violence/violations with potential to harm or injury, usually direct and directed towards someone (as ‘victim’ or ‘object’); e.g. recorded violent crime, violence against the person, IPV and stalking; and then Diffuse: underpinnings to manifestations of violence, usually less direct, and directed towards a group, usually with an identifiable ‘victim’ or ‘object’, including e.g. legitimizations and regulations of violence; and Dispersed: other manifestations not necessarily understood as violence, usually indirect, sometimes directed towards a group but with a less easily identifiable ‘victim’ or ‘object; manifestations not are not usually recognized as violence; e.g. environmental destruction. The first paper in t

What happens when we focus primarily on violence as a central question – either within the gender regime approach or by making violence regime an approach in itself? The paper first interrogates gender regimes theoretically and empirically through a focus on violence, and then develops violence regimes as a fruitful approach, conceptualizing violence as inequality in its own right, and a means to deepen analysis of gender relations, gender domination, and policy. The article is a contribution to ongoing debate, which specifically and critically engages with the gender regime framework, as developed by Walby (2009).

Wearable sensors are becoming increasingly popular in organizational research. Although validation studies that examine sensor data in conjunction with established social and psychological constructs are becoming more frequent, they are usually limited for two reasons: first, most validation studies are carried out under laboratory settings. Only a handful of studies have been carried out in real-world organizational environments. Second, for those studies carried out in field settings, reported findings are derived from a single case only, thus seriously limiting the possibility of studying the influence of contextual factors on sensor-based measurements. This article presents a validation study of expressive and instrumental ties across 9 relatively small R&D teams. The convergent validity of Bluetooth (BT) detections is reported for friendship and adviceseeking ties under three organizational contexts: research labs, private companies and universitybased teams. Results show that, in general, BT detections correlated strongly with self-reported measurements. However, the organizational context affects both the strength of the observed correlation and its direction. Whereas advice-seeking ties generally occur in close spatial proximity and are best identified in university environments, friendship relationships occur at a greater spatial distance, especially in research labs. We conclude with recommendations for fine-tuning the validity of sensor measurements by carefully examining the opportunities for organizational embedding in relation to the research question and collecting complementary data through mixedmethod research designs.

This paper is part of the session Violence Regimes: Analysing the Multiplicity of Gendered Violence(s). Violence regime is a framework developed for analysing the multiplicity of violence(s) (Hearn et al 2018; Strid et al 2018). The framework concerns direct and indirect violence; across four pillars of comprehensiveness; across macro, meso and micro levels; often with increasing amount of time and space between act and impact; and vary in both manifestation and understanding of violence, extending the continuum of violence (Kelly 1988) across four pillars: Deadly, Damaging, Diffuse and Dispersed violence. Empirically, this paper explores manifestations of violence in the first and fourth pillar of the violence regime framework: deadly and direct forms of violence such as homicide, femicide and suicide; and dispersed manifestations not necessarily understood as violence, usually indirect, sometimes directed towards a group but with a less easily identifiable ‘victim’ or ‘object; manifestations not usually recognized as violence; e.g. environmental destruction. Two different cases will be discussed, 1) automobility and 2) killings of animals for food, both associated with negative impact on the environment. First, we examine the violent, damaging and deadly effects of automobility across country comparisons of the EU28. Second, we examine slow violence (Nixon 2011) and the levels of slaughtering of animals in relation to the levels of homicide, femicide and suicide through cross country comparisons of the EU28. The paper contributes to the violence regime framework analyzing how manifestations of violence not usually understood as violence correlate with the most direct and deadly forms of violence., Regimes of Violence: Theorising and Explaining Variations in the Production of Violence in Welfare State Regimes

The paper develops the concept and framework of violence regime to examine if and how the institutionalisation and production of violence in different states constitute distinct regimes, analogous to that of welfare state regime, and to enable further comparisons and contrasts specifically related to violence and the welfare state. It contributes to the debates on welfare, welfare states, and regime typology. Overall, the paper evaluates how welfare regimes translate into violence regimes, or how they do not. The study is conducted using secondary data on deadly and direct violence, and gender-based violence, largely from official sources, and Esping-Andersen’s welfare state regime framework. The paper builds a preliminary Violence Regime Index, based on administrative and survey data in the EU member states, aiming to create a violence regime typology, test for clusters of violence regimes, and compare with the original clusters of welfare state regimes to examine if the welfare state and gender welfare state typologies are valid when violence is mainstreamed into the research. The paper argues that the exclusion of violence from mainstream social theory and research has produced results that may not be valid, and suggests ways of developing previous research paradigms on the welfare state and the gendered welfare state: violence, in its multiple forms, should be included in any typology, classification or measurement of welfare states, not least typologies, classifications and measurements that claim to say something about the level of “women friendliness” of the welfare state regime.

This report provides an overview of the UK spinouts landscape from a gender perspective. It is part of a wider project, funded by the EPSRC’s Inclusion Matters programme, looking at the participation of women scientists, engineers and mathematicians in university spinout companies. The results examine sex-disaggregated data on the geography, governance and growth of these university spinout companies. The findings of this report are timely and important since little is known about spinouts from a gender perspective. This is despite evidence that women are greatly underrepresented on patent applications (14% according to Elsevier), spinouts are overwhelmingly founded or co-founded by men (Jarboe et al), and women only make up one in three entrepreneurs more generally (Rose Review). Addressing women’s underrepresentation in spinout companies is thus not only a matter of social justice, but could also address a critical element of the UK’s Industrial Strategy, which aims to increase business and growth through research and innovation.