The Sound of Silence: EDI in the European Studies Canon

Roberta Guerrina Koen Slootmaeckers THE SOUND OF SILENCE: EDI in the European Studies Canon 1 First published by UACES (University Association for Contemporary European Studies) in 2023. www.uaces.org Authors: Roberta Guerrina and Koen Slootmaeckers Research Assistant: Poppy Moncaster Bridgeman The report is published under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence, with copyright remaining with the authors. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 SILENCES AND SILOS IN THE DISCIPLINE 21 3.1 Key findings and their implications 24 1 INTRODUCTION 06 3.2 Gender 27 1.1 Aims and Objectives 08 3.3 Race and Ethnicity 29 1.2 Background and context 10 3.4 LGBTQ+ 30 3.5 Disability 31 3.6 Omission and silences 32 4 CAN WE BELONG? PROCESSES FOR A MORE INCLUSIVE EU STUDIES 36 5 SENSITISING QUESTIONS FOR AN OPEN AND INCLUSIVE EU STUDIES 38 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 40 7 REFERENCES 41 2 METHODOLOGY 12 2.1 Constructing the canon 13 2.2 Defining “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion” topics 16 2.3 Analysing the state of the field 18 5 1 governance structure (e.g. the International Studies Association has a series of committees tasked with monitoring and improving the state of diversity within the discipline), others also commission research and the systematic collection of data that allows for the monitoring of inclusion/exclusions within the discipline (see e.g. a recent joint report by the British International Studies Association and the Political Studies Association: Hanretty, 2021). Over the last ten years equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) has become common currency in organisations as a signifier for culture change (Pringle and Ryan, 2015). The academy is no exception. The introduction of EDI charters, e.g. Athena SWAN in the UK, has helped institutions to develop processes to monitor progress against key objectives, e.g. increasing gender balance of the professoriate. Much of this work has focused on access and representation, reflecting a growing awareness of the under-representation of minoritised and marginalised groups. There have also been some moves to acknowledge the impact of bias on science, hence the inclusion of compulsory EDI statements in funding applications to some research councils. These are welcome developments, in so far as they have led to increased awareness of EDI across the sector, unfortunately, their impact on the political economy of knowledge production has been rather limited. As a professional association concerned with contemporary European Studies, UACES too considers it part of its mission to reflect on its own position in the field and the ways in which knowledge is produced. It has thus taken steps to take diversity more seriously, e.g. by establishing a dedicated EDI officer role as well as by engaging in projects aimed at diversifying the discipline (e.g. DIMES project, see David et al., 2023). Such steps are even more important given the nature and focus of European Studies, and in particular the field EU Studies, where the academic discipline and its subject of study (the European Union) are co-constitutive (Agger, 1989). When the knowledge produced actively shapes the object of study, the in/exclusions that shape the disciplinary boundaries of EU Studies as a field will also impact the way the European Union sees itself further institutionalising existing exclusions. As such, UACES has committed itself to recognise its own position within the discipline and use it to “un-discipline” European Studies — a process which is not about abandoning the discipline or its object of study, but rather “about finding a new and more effective form of engagement. It is about opening up spaces for more diverse scholars, voices and insights.” (Bleiker, 2023, p. 4). The calls for the decolonising of our knowledge require a constant reflection on how knowledge is created, as well as the power struggles that define who and what gets included in the canon, and what and who is left out (see e.g. Bhambra, 2022; Emejulu, 2019; Briscoe-Palmer & Mattocks, 2020; Oloruntoba, Nshimbi, & Ajisafe, 2021). Similarly, gender and sexuality scholars have highlighted the lack of diversity within European Studies and adjacent fields (Ayoub, 2022; Cooper & Slootmaeckers, 2020; Guerrina et al., 2018), and how these exclusions shape our knowledge and disciplinary boundaries (Haastrup, Milner, & Whitman, 2022). Increasingly, professional associations recognise their responsibilities in mapping, understanding and addressing power dynamics that shape in/exclusion within their respective fields. Some engage in this process through their The DIMES project is an example of this process. The project seeks to explore ways to increase diversity within the 6 field of European Studies, in particular with regards to the ethnicity, disciplinary focus and geographical location of its participants. As principal investigator and coordinator of this project UACES sought to use its position to facilitate processes that would enable the field to diversify and break down the silos within it. As a professional studies association, UACES plays a key role as knowledge broker through the organisation of events, research network funding, and high impact publications, e.g. the Journal of Common Market Studies. As part of this commitment, UACES commissioned this report asking us to provide a critical analysis of the canon of European Studies as presented through the textbook used in the teaching of European Studies. Building on the work by Guerrina et al. (2018), this report particularly focuses on textbooks as classes on European (and EU) studies are often the first encounter of (future) scholars with the field and may have a long-lasting impact on how the core elements of the fields are defined. We consider this report as a starting point of wider discussion on the state of our discipline that seeks to open a space for a constructive engagement with different forms of knowledge and pathways to understanding social, political and economic processes that construct the idea of Europe, which are ultimately the subject of European Studies. Whilst we recognise that European Studies as a field/discipline is much wider, we decided to limit the scope of this analysis on the subfield of EU studies. This is in part due to the fact that the majority of UACES affiliated scholarship relates to the EU one way or another, but because we see the European Union and European/EU Studies as co-constitutive (Agger, 1989), not only through the fact that our analysis informs processes of European Integration and European policy making, but also due to fact that the 7 European Union is a large funder within our discipline, whether it is through its big funding programmes, such as Horizon2020, or other funding streams such as Erasmus+ and the Jean Monnet programmes. Given this co-constitutive nature of discipline and subject of study, a structural understanding of the knowledge production processes can lead to real world changes. Finally, we want to clarify that our analysis is structural in nature. This means that whilst we are analysing textbooks (which are the products of labour of individuals) our focus is on how the ways in which the canon is constructed through the way in which the collection of textbooks as a whole presents our field to students. Our analysis should not be read as a critique of the individual work by scholars as authors and editors. In fact, we recognise that the nature of academic careers is such that our choices in what we study are often constrained by power structures in our discipline. We equally recognise that textbooks are not solely the responsibility of authors and editors, but are also constructed through commissioning editors, marketability of textbooks and demands of courses. One could say that whilst we study the construction of the canon through already published textbooks, our analysis is future focused in that we see to inspire change amongst colleagues, commissioning editors and publishing houses to actively consider the power structures that govern knowledge production so that they can take part in the disruption of these structures to decolonise, un-discipline and diversify the discipline of European Studies. 1.1 focus on these specific themes stems from the co-constitutive nature of the EU and EU studies. Failing to engage with these issues and domains not only marginalises the vast body of scholarship in this field, it also reproduces hierarchies of power within the subject of our study, the EU itself. We analyse the length and type of engagement textbooks typically have with included diversity themes as well as analyses who is included in these themes (citational practices). Doing so, the report aims to create an understanding of the (lack of) diversity within the discipline and, in so doing, highlight the limits of knowledge production systems that exclude these equalities+ agenda from the field. This report aims to analyse the knowledge production processes within the creation of the canon of European Studies, spanning the disciplines of Politics, Law, Economics and International Relations. Through a detailed analysis of textbooks, the report aims to raise awareness of how the field of European Studies interacts with accepted hierarchies and power structures. Particularly, it aims to reveal how key research themes associated with the equalities+ agenda (such as gender, race, sexuality, and disabilities) are included, or excluded, and, if included, what shapes this inclusion takes. The 8 Through our analysis of the canon produced by textbooks, the report aims to create a space for self-reflection within the field with the call for action to actively work on diversifying the field in terms of approaches, topics and methodologies. Through our analysis, we invite colleagues within our discipline to reflect on who gets to speak in the spaces we define as the canon (such as textbooks). We seek to inspire colleagues to reflect on who is given space, who takes space, and who gives space to those that are not (always) invited, and what these processes mean for knowledge production. For example, do our assumptions that underpin the idea of Europe shift when other forms of knowledge and other knowledge producers are given space? By asking such questions, we hope to break the cycles of policy-knowledge production that currently define much of European Studies by creating more conscious reflections on who is funded, what is funded and what choices we make about what matters and what/who should be included in the canon. The report aims to provide a set of recommendations to professional associations, to publishers, commissioning editors and (future) authors/editors of textbooks on how they can contribute to the decolonisation, un-disciplining and diversification of our discipline. We hope to provide a set of questions, akin to a toolkit, that can help to sensi- 9 tise colleagues to think about diversity themes not as a tick box exercise, but consider diversity in a more holistic way. In so doing, we hope to open a space to disrupt the wider inequalities that stem from knowledge production systems. Key to this exercise is the growing awareness that the practice of widening the scope of our field and diversifying the canon will allow us to produce a better understanding of our field of study, it will generate better knowledge. Failing to diversify the field means that we will remain unable to understand fully the social, political and economic implications of the process of European integration. In other words, what are often considered to be unintended consequences of policy, would have been preventable harms if our knowledge production process had been challenged to ask the questions necessary to see these potential harms. Overall, we see this report as an awareness raising exercise. The aim is not to be exhaustive, but rather shed light on the processes that have governed the production of the canon through textbooks. 1.2 This report was commissioned by UACES as part of its EDI strategy and commitment to improving representation within European Studies. As a leading organisation in the field of European Studies it is important for UACES to investigate and challenge the construction of knowledge within the discipline. UACES has already engaged with projects (DIMES) to explore ways to increase diversity within the field of European Studies in practice, with the aim of increasing representation of traditionally marginalised people in the discipline. To understand why people are not engaging with the discipline of European Studies or why the discipline does not engage with diversity also requires an understanding of how the field and its knowledge is constructed. This report investigates the treatment of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) topics or themes in European Studies textbooks. It explores the treatment of ‘Gender’, ‘Race or Ethnicity’, ‘Sexuality/ LGBTQ+’ and ‘Disability’, with other EDI topics such as age and class included under ‘Other EDI topics’. Recognising that there are more nuanced approaches 10 to these topics (where there is a focus on the power structures), we also include categories of ‘Race+’ and ‘Gender+’. The focus on these topics is intended to reflect on the inclusion of equalities+ themes within the competencies of the EU. It is also to reflect claims by the EU itself as an equality actor. Von der Leyen’s inclusion of equalities+ in her 2019 headline ambitions provides a useful starting point for our evaluation (see von der Leyen, 2019). Additionally, it is worth noting that there is growing interest in the equalities+ agenda generated by requests by funders for EDI statements, shifts in policy discourse (e.g. union of equality and feminist foreign policy). This discussion is often treated as a novel development in the literature. Our analysis here starts from the assumption that research in the core thematics of this report has been growing for decades, but as the analysis of textbooks demonstrates, it has largely gone unnoticed by mainstream EU studies. The analysis presented here is thus to draw attention to this body of literature in order to enrich our understanding of the field, particularly at a point when interest in these areas of policy is growing amongst mainstream scholars. 11 We analyse textbooks because even though they are not an exhaustive representation of contemporary debates within the discipline (often reflecting areas of interest years prior to their publication date). They are however a gateway into the discipline and they act as sources of knowledge, playing a key role in disseminating information (Wachholz and Mullaly, 2001). The content of textbooks, both in terms of the topics included, and how they are treated/discussed is inherently political, mirroring disciplinary and societal norms (Stern, 1976). Textbooks thus reflect and reproduce the dominant approaches of a discipline; by providing students’ foundational knowledge, textbooks are constitutive, inducting them into the disciplinary consensus and informing the next generation of European Studies (Agger, 1989). Their influence goes beyond their direct inclusion within the classroom, as often they are used as a guide and tool in the curriculum and course design to determine and guide the core structure of introductory modules. In other words, what is included and excluded in textbooks influences how EDI issues are framed in the field for years to come. 2.1 To identify our sample of textbook, we started with the Jean Monnet Activities Database and the resources listed in the Jean Monnet Centres of Excellence (JMCEs). We start with the JMCEs because their funding stream has been created by the EU to serve as “ focal points of competence and knowledge on European Union subjects. They gather the expertise and competences of high-level experts aiming to develop synergies between the various disciplines and resources in European studies”. The centres play a key role within European Studies as they participate in wider networks, diplomacy, and policy on and with the EU. JMCEs and Jean Monnet Activities more broadly defined can be regarded as both reflective of European Studies as a discipline and of the EU itself. 12 13 vast majority of books were written/edited by men (58.4%), whilst only 16.8% of textbooks were written/edited by women. Yet, within the IR and security studies textbooks, there were no books written/edited by women only. Of the 125 textbooks analysed, the majority of textbooks are classified as coming from either politics or law, 46.4% and 34.3% respectively (see breakdown in Figure 2). The remaining books were either international relations (9.6%), economics (6.4%), or security studies (3.2%) textbooks. For all disciplines, the vast majority of books were written/edited by men (58.4%), whilst only 16.8% of textbooks were written/edited by women. Yet, within the IR and security studies textbooks, there were no books written/edited by women only. Figure 1: Geographical spread of universities from which reading lists were consulted Our sample was drawn using a two-stage sampling method. Stage one consisted of identifying universities teaching European Studies modules with publicly accessible reading lists in english. To do so we considered the function of JMCEs in production and dissemination of knowledge in the EU. This resulted in a sample of 32 universities (see Figure 1 for geographical spread)1. Stage two consisted of selecting all textbooks listed on the publicly available reading lists of European studies modules taught at those institutions. This resulted in an initial corpus of 496 textbooks. The sample was further refined using a coding scheme in which books were classified on a five-point scale: 1. specific topics areas of European studies; 2. specific policy domains and/or geographical regions; 3. sub-disciplines of European studies; 4. overview of key disciplines in European studies; 5. EU studies texts. In this analysis we focused on books that were in categories 4 and 5 as they capture broader conceptualisation of European studies as a discipline. We obtained a final list of 125 textbooks for which we could obtain a digital copy. Of the 125 textbooks analysed, the majority of textbooks are classified as coming from either politics or law, 46.4% and 34.3% respectively (see breakdown in Figure 2). The remaining books were either international relations (9.6%), economics (6.4%), or security studies (3.2%) textbooks. For all disciplines, the 1 It must be noted that there were no African or Latin American universities included in this list, due to the lack of JMCEs on the African and Latin American continents. Whilst this is an important limitation of our report, it also highlights the geographical profile of where European Studies is considered to exist. For ways in which UACES seeks to break this silo, consider the DIMES project. 14 Figure 2. The number of textbooks in our sample by discipline and by gender of author(s)/editor(s) 15 2.2 The EU presents itself as a proponent of equality, proudly claiming equality as a “core value” (Equinet, 2019), with a particular focus on gender equality as ‘equal pay for equal work’ was a “founding principle” of the EU, included in the 1957 Treaty of Rome in order to ensure fair competition between member states (European Commission, 2016; European Commission 2021). As one of the most developed areas of EU social policy, significant coverage of gender in the canon is expected. Hence this report explores the treatment of gender in greater depth. However, since the adoption of the Amsterdam Treaty, the values of the EU have been widened to include a variety of topics, including race and ethnicity, sexuality, and disability. And whilst race and ethnicity have gained similar protections as gender in EU law, other fields have been included to different degrees. It is for this reason that the report looks beyond gender to understand how the field engages with all diversity issues. 16 17 In our analysis we have made the distinction between Gender, Race or Ethnicity, Sexuality/ LGBTQ+, Disability, and Other as themes. They were included because they encapsulate the main areas of EDI and EU policy, as set out by von der Leyen (2020) in her State of the Union address to the European Parliament. Recognising the ways in which there are more legal protections for Gender and Race/Ethnicity within the European Union institutions and the longer history of these issues within scholarly practice, we have created to additional categories of Gender+ and Race+, which encapsulate instances where there was no explicit discussion of those topics, but of adjacent areas, discussed in a manner clearly related to those areas, for example where there was discussion of a refugee “crisis”, or mention of a “colonial” past, or discussion of “family” or “abortion” without specific mention of the role of women in the economy of a family or maternity/ paternity/pregnancy rights. These categories allow us to also see how some knowledge is already racialised and/or gendered in its construction. 2.3 Through a textual analysis, we have coded the textbooks to capture the degree to which each EDI theme had been included. First we distinguished between four different levels in which EDI topics could be included in textbooks: a dedicated chapter, a dedicated section of a chapter, a brief discussion, and a single-sentence reference. When a topic was included more substantially within textbooks (as a chapter or subsection), we also conducted a thematic and frame analysis to not only understand the extent to which a topic was included, but also the way in which the topic had been included. Finally, we also included a bibliographical analysis to understand which voices are given space to discuss EDI themes. Through the combination of these three types of analysis, we are to discern three different stages of ‘inclusion’ of EDI themes within the canon (See table 1). These different stages represent a hierarchy that is embedded in the structure that governs the knowledge production process and governs the ways through which a topic can exist within or next to the canon. For example, themes that do not challenge the core principles of the canon are more likely to be included within textbooks, whilst those that represent a shift or challenge within the canon become harder to be included. What is at stake here is not a determination of what should and should not be studied within scholarship, but rather the power structures embedded within the canon construction determine the imagination of what is politically representable. We thus follow a matrix analysis of the principle that informs knowledge production and the construction of a canon. We consider this matrix analysis to be multi-layers in which the layers we outline below are embedded within each other like layers within an onion. 18 Type of Inclusion Features Key considerations Visibility and Belonging Most readily included and acknowledged as a research agenda. Citation practice; types of debates included; depth of analysis; co-optation Knowledgeability Recognition of research agenda, mostly tokenistic and superficial Contribution of research agenda to the “established canon” Possibility to existence Lack of recognition as a research agenda that contributes to the field. Silences and omissions in discussion shapes the imagination of researchers and limits the field. Table 1: The different stages of inclusion of Equalities+ topics within the EU studies canon. 19 At the highest level of inclusion we consider “visibility & belonging”. Whilst this often means that a topic is widely considered to be something to be acknowledged in the canon and be made visible, there are still ways in which the belonging of the topic can be conditional. For example, when a topic has achieved this level of inclusion, one should also ponder on who is made to represent the topic (citational practice), and the ways in which the topic is discussed (the degree of engagement within the scholarship and its arguments). The second level of inclusion is what we call the “knowledgeability”. At this level of inclusion, the canon acknowledges that there is a field of study that examines this EDI theme. Whilst there may be references to the existence of these types of analysis and questions, there is little consideration of the content of these debates. One could say that whilst there is some tokenistic inclusion of the theme, they remain at the edges of the canon and are not really included. 3 A first general analysis of the textbook sample by the different disciplines that comprise EU studies, reveals an interesting pattern in the inclusion of equalities+ themes in textbooks. Across the disciplines that constitute EU studies, gender and to some extent race, have been recognised as topics that require lengthy inclusion (longer than one sentence) in textbooks, the other equalities+ themes remain noticeably absent in that they often only briefly discuss them (See figure 3). Finally, there is the level of “possibility to existence”. EDI themes that fall under this category are yet to be recognised by the canon as a theme worthy of academic study. Whereas some themes may be included within the canon through a notional reference to its mere existence, other themes may not (yet) have been recognised by the canon as a subject of study. The possibility of these themes to be part of the canon is yet to be established, determined or sometimes even imagined. The descriptive analysis of the textbook sample has already pointed to the under-representation of women in the creation of the canon as authors or editors of leading textbooks in the field (see figure 2). Whilst understanding the gendered nature of who gets to create textbooks is important to note, it only provides a partial picture. In order to have a better understanding of the descriptive representation of minoritised groups in the field we would need to undertake a different exercise that would allow us to examine the characteristics of our discipline. In terms of this report, we are looking to unpack what belongs to the canon and, in so doing, uncover possible bias and hierarchies in the construction of the discipline. The cascading nature of our matrix in many ways follows the structure of how disciplines evolve: from a descriptive phase, to an analytical phase, to a critical phase. 2 We have not included a discipline based analysis for security studies and economics, as there were not enough textbooks in our sample to guarantee anonymity of textbooks. In the publicly made available database, we have further folded the security subdiscipline into the International relations discipline to ensure anonymity of the textbooks. 20 21 When we look deeper in the three cognate disciplines that comprise EU studies (Law, Politics, and International Relations)2, a differential disciplining effect of the different disciplines in the way they each engage with equalities+ themes (see figures 3-5). too we observe a large amount of textbooks devoting at least a brief discussion to each. The other areas where EU law is weaker are discussed to a lesser extent, much in line with the political relevance of each of these areas within the EU. Contrary to Law, the other two sub-disciplines in our sample, Politics and International Relations, a different picture emerges. Considering these are cognate disciplines, the relative absence of equalities+ themes in textbooks is remarkable (see figure 4 and 5). Such disparities are a reflection of both the position of EU studies within each discipline as well as the way key equalities+ themes have been mainstreamed within wider debates. Figure 3: Overview of the inclusion of equalities+ themes in all disciplines Figure 4: The inclusion of equalities+ themes in the Politics sub-discipline Figure 3: The inclusion of equalities+ themes in the Law sub-discipline In terms of the disciplines that constitute EU studies, law appears to have the greatest coverage of EDI themes in textbooks (see figure 3). This is not entirely surprising as gender equality, both in terms of soft and hard law, makes up a significant part of the social policy provisions at the EU level. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the adoption of the Amsterdam Treaty created a legal basis within the treaties for the EU to work on the other equalities+ agendas. With the creation of such a legal basis, it is not surprising that all issues are nominally discussed in the textbooks. Yet, the co-constructive nature of the EU institutions and the discipline becomes apparent as we look to the length of discussion of equalities+ themes in the law discipline. Just as Gender and Race and Ethnicity are the two areas in which the EU has the most legal provisions, so 22 Figure 5: The inclusion of equalities+ themes in the International Relations sub-discipline 23 3.1 These observations are not surprising given the disciplining effect of the canon. However, they denote some resistance to embrace new forms of knowledge and insights that expand our understanding of the impact of European integration on different groups, as well as hierarchies of power at the national and transnational level. As knowledge production is a political process, the ways in which equalities+ themes are included (or not) are not without the implications for our knowledge bases, but also for the functioning of the EU institutions. We have summarised our key findings and implications in Table 2. Key Finding Implications Lack of engagement with these thematics reproduces hierarchies in policy and politics. In other words, equalities+ themes are constructed as “add ons” rather than integral to the process of European integration. Equalities+ themes remain under-represented within textbooks This approach overlooks the complexity of key debates within each of the fields explored and reproduces the high-low binary in public policy. Treatment of equalities+ reflects the EU’s anti-discrimination approach, rather than a detailed engagement with established and emerging debates. 24 Gender is the most visible equalities+ theme followed by race and ethnicity. Such an approach creates a hierarchy in the treatment of different characteristics and EDI themes. It overlooks the intersecting and interconnected nature of inequalities. It can pit one group against another as they struggle to achieve visibility in the canon, thus maintaining their position on the margins. When gender appears in the textbooks it is often conflated with women’s rights or equality. Conflating women’s rights and gender equality also reflects the EU’s treatment of gender as a binary. When “gender” and “women” are used interchangeably it limits the scope of gender sensitive analysis. Specifically, it blinds the analysis from engaging with a more nuanced discussion of gender as a social structure. This erasure ultimately helps to reproduce hierarchical and gendered power structures that underpin and shape social, economic and political institutions. When race and ethnicity are included, they are often subsumed within the wider theme of migration. This approach locates race and ethnicity in a silo, thus avoiding a critical engagement with the complexity of race relations in Europe. It reifies European whiteness in the context of the idea of Europe and contributes to the continued othering of racialised people. 25 Key Finding Implications When LGBT+ themes are included they are subsumed within the broader gender+ category This kind of approach also reflects the treatment of gender as a category. The complexity of this theme is overlooked in favour of a focus on anti-discrimination provisions that does not capture the richness of key debates in this space. It is interesting to note the almost complete absence of disability in Politics and IR. As a characteristic, disability is most readily linked to issues of access, inclusion and care. Disability almost altogether absent Lack of attention to these particular issues and consideration denotes an intrinsic bias of the canon in favour of maintaining the status quo in terms of who belongs and participates in the social, political and economic life of the Union. Only 12% of the sample (or 15 out of a total of 125 textbooks) explicitly mention intersectionality. Again this omission is indicative of the approach to the equalities+ themes highlighted in this report. Intersectionality as the missing link By treating them as “stand alone concerns” that can be added to the canon as currently defined. Specifically, it reproduces the idea that inclusion of EDI themes can help us to understand the role of the EU as an equality actor. This is akin to an “add equalities and stir” approach. What is missing is an understanding of how they help our disciplines to uncover the multiple and complex ways in which as singular issues as well as intersection and overlapping structures of power they underpin the very processes we seek to study. Table 2: Key findings and their implications for the discipline and the EU 26 3.2 Of the equalities+ themes covered in this report, gender was by far the best represented and most visible in the textbooks included in our sample. Overall 84% of the sample contained some reference to gender. However, the coverage is mostly superficial and all too often tokenistic. In the sample, we found 11 textbooks included chapters dedicated to the discussion of gender issues, 22 (17.6%) had sub-sections as the highest level of mention of the topic and 45 (36%) included a brief discussion or mention of gender. It is interesting to note that in the context of security studies, all the books sampled included a mention of gender issues. Although the sample here is very small (4) it illustrates the range of engagement with this particular theme whereby one included a chapter, and one included a brief discussion, while two of the books contained only a single-sentence reference to gender. This pattern is reflected across our sample, whereby we can find references to gender across the canon, very few engage with the body of literature that has emerged in this field in the last thirty years. Interestingly, twenty-seven books in the sample include gender as a theme across multiple sections, thus starting to mainstream gender as a thematic. The analysis of the index is also revealing, whereby only thirty-four books include the term “gender” in the index. 27 Given the recognition of gender as a theme in the canon (it has achieved both visibility and some level of belonging), we also examined citation practices in the sections/chapters in the examined textbooks. We do so, because in the wider disciplines, it has been observed that while gender scholars are expected to cite the ‘mainstream’ literatures, contribution of gender scholars remains often ignored (see e.g. Duriesmith 2020). We developed a list of citations and references used in the texts. This is an important exercise in so far as it allows us to see who is allowed “speak” and therefore frame the scope and impact of this research agenda in the canon. We were particularly interested to establish how much of the existing literature on gender and EU was included in the canon itself. The process of establishing the contribution of each source/ reference to the gender and EU studies literature included the following steps: 1. A list of key authors/references was compiled; 2. Authors were included in the list if cited by three or more different textbooks; 3. Field of expertise was established by looking at individual biographies on their official university website. 4. Whether or not they were a gender scholar was determined from google searches and reading their university bio pages. If there was mention of gender or feminist in their research interests, they were counted as a gender scholar. Doing such an analysis revealed important omissions in who gets to speak about gender issues. Whilst we did observe that some of the core foundational books on Gender issues within European Studies (Hoskyns’ 1996 Integrating Gender – Women, Law and Politics in the European Union) was cited in 8 textbooks, we found a noticeable absence of other key contributions of gender scholars to European Studies. Whereas the absence of women and gender experts is worrying in and of itself, our findings also showed that in the discussion of gender(+) themes, non-gender scholars were cited at much greater frequency than the experts in gender. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, the spaces where women and gender scholars were given space to talk about gender(+) issues, were those textbooks where gender was discussed in detail. This is a significant finding because it raises important questions about who gets to speak about equalities+ issues. Whilst perhaps not intentional, this omission leads to a silencing of marginalised voices within the canon, as even in books that are engaging with gender, feminist perspectives and gender scholars are not necessarily included in the conversation they began, thus limiting students’ access to key debates and theoretical developments within this body of literature. Whereas the position and role of the EU as a gender equality actor has long been part of the mythologisation of the EU as a normative power. Equality, democracy and human rights being key pillars of this narrative (MacRae, 2010; European Commission, 2021a). Equal pay is often cited by European officials as a founding principle of European integration, however, the absence of meaningful discussion of how this core principle in the canon of EU studies reflects the historic reluctance of member states to engage with this agenda. 28 3.3 Race equality is part of the second wave of equality provisions to be integrated in the constitutional foundations of the EU. The Treaty of Amsterdam added racial and ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation, religion and age to the EU equality acquis. The 2000 Race Equality Directive being the most substantial piece of legislation to date under this theme (European Commission, 2016; Loutridou and Butt, 2000; de Groot, 2022). Race equality also features in the work of the Union of Equality work pillar launched by von der Leyen (2019, 2020, 2021). Race and ethnicity appear in the sample as the second most widely mentioned EDI theme with 68.8% of the books examined including some coverage. This is a reflection of the increased recognition of race and ethnicity as matters of concern for European institutions (Beaman, 2021). However, this does not entail deep engagement with this thematic area as only one book in the sample includes 29 a full chapter whereas 41.9% of the sample included only a single sentence reference. If we include “Race+” as a distinct category it is possible to see how the canon treats issues around race and ethnicity as exogenous to Europe and the EU’s identity. “Race+” is therefore used as an umbrella frame that includes adjacent policy areas, e.g. migration and asylum. In this context the treatment of race is implicit in the discussion through the construction of Europe’s “other”. The language of crisis accompanies discussions of migration flows and refugees. The association of race and ethnicity with these policy domains overlooks the way race and ethnicity, like gender, are cross-cutting issues and building blocks upon which economic and political institutions are built (Beaman, 2021). Thirty-six books in our sample included chapters on migration and refugees indicating these issues are now part of the canon and help to frame constructions of a racialised other within EU studies. 3.4 This thematic also remains largely under-explored in the canon, which is something to note given the increased prominence of LGBTQ+ issues as a faultline in European politics. Where issues around gender identities, sexuality and more broadly LGBTQ+ issues are included it is predominantly within the field of law and in relation to texts focusing on human rights, fundamental rights and case law. The thematic appears most often alongside discussions of gender and other EDI thematics with a focus on individual rights, yet, as LGBTQ+ scholars have noted these issues cannot be reduced to legal and institutional changes as they do not always lead to improved lived experiences (Slootmaeckers, 2023). It is notable that the theme has not been included as a “stand alone” subject/ issue but is subsumed within other EDI thematics as an “add on”. There is evidence in our sample of some degree of knowledgeability, but it has not cascaded into visibility and belonging. This is significant because of the traction LGBTQ+ issues and themes are receiving within wider public debate. Lack of engagement with the work in this field has the unintended consequence of reproducing dominant gender norms and “ideals”. LGBTQ+ issues and concerns are thus presented as minority issues and relegated to the margins of the field. 30 3.5 Disability was least represented of the equalities+ themes, with only 44.8% of the sample including any kind of discussion of issues relating to access and disability. Moreover, most of the mentions occur within legal textbooks. This suggests that disability has yet to gain the possibility to exist within the wider European Studies canon. Indeed, disability, access and inclusion remains the “Cinderella” of the equalities+ thematic areas, despite its inclusion within the Treaty of Amsterdam (de Groot, 2022). The discussion of disability and access is also highly commodified with a focus on issues around pensions, social security and unemployment rights. The 2021 Union of equality: Strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities 2021-2030 (European Commission, 2021b) slightly shifts the attention to discrimination, but also here the strategy predominantly seems to focus on inclusion within employability and the freedom of movement. The limited attention to disability is reflected in the wider political debate, in so far as it was disability was not mentioned in von der Leyen’s 2020 State of the Union speech setting out the EU’s priorities for a Union of Equality. 31 3.6 The analysis presented here highlights some significant gaps and structural challenges in the way the EU studies canon is constructed. This matters because it has an impact on the way we think about the subject of our study and reproduce key assumptions about EU politics, policy and law. The silence around established and emerging debates around the role of the EU as an equality actor is a missed opportunity for us as scholars to draw attention to the all-encompassing nature of social hierarchies and their influence on institutional politics and policies, the pursuit of the “common” interest and the many different interpretations of equality as a principle. Additionally, centring one theme (gender) in the coverage produces a hierarchy in the equalities agenda, whereby one theme becomes more salient than the others. What is notable is that even in the context of gender what we observe is a conditioned inclusion, meaning that it is given space as long as it adheres to the hierarchical norms of the canon. Sticking with gender, as the most widely discussed equalities+ theme, it is interesting to note that EU studies’ approach to mainstreaming gender, and equalities+ themes within the canon, is not dissimilar from the EU’s own approach to gender mainstreaming which is often treated as an “empty signifier” (Lombardo, 2005), rather than a tool for transformative change (Lombardo and Meier, 2006; Squires, 2005). 32 Without meaningful engagement with the core issues and debates within each thematic area, the inclusion of this particular topic in the canon is edging between “visibility and belonging” and “knowledgeability”. What is important to note here is that inclusion, and therefore recognition through “visibility and belonging” is conditional upon adherence to the boundaries of the canon. Just like in the case of gender mainstreaming within EU policy making, mainstreaming equalities+ comes with acceptance and engagement with core thematics of the canon. This allows for each thematic area to “demonstrate” its value to the canon. However, it highlights that equalities+ entry into the canon is one of conditioned belonging as it has 33 to become canonical. For real belonging to occur the canon has to embrace the challenge of continuous self-reflection that is offered by engaging with the critical and intersectional politics of equalities+ agendas. The canon needs to acknowledge its own position in reproducing hierarchies of power within our field and the subject of our study. This continuous struggle and tension ultimately highlights the limitations of inclusion as a practice in the first place, because building inclusion and belonging is a never-ending project. Type of Inclu- Visibility and sion Belonging Gender+ Race+ Knowledgeability Possibility to Existence Type of Inclu- Visibility and sion Belonging Equality between women and men has reached recognition as a core thematic, though not quite fully mainstreamed as part of the canon. Only superficial enFeminist critiques of gagement with the gender hierarchies are cross-cutting nature of largely missing from gender hierarchies. the discussion. Lack of detailed engagement Gender all too often with intersectional used interchangeably critiques constructs Discussions largely with women, thus gender into a single, reflect the EU’s trans- reproducing binary homogeneous cateactional use of gender thinking. gory. equality as a foundational myth. The discussion of this theme in textbooks is often superficial and There is growing tokenistic. The comvisibility of race and plexity of this subject ethnicity in function of area, especially in discussion of migration. relation to the internal Security and securitisa- politics of the EU is tion are often included often overlooked. as analytical frames, meaning that it is The way race issues constructing a form have thus become of conditioned and knowledgeable is only racialised belonging. in so much they help to frame constructions of a racialised other within EU studies. 34 Recent political events and the rise of global social movements, e.g. BLM, have highlighted the urgency of engaging with decolonial and post-colonial approaches to EU studies. The growth in scholarship in this field, offers the beginning of a crucial reflection about the whiteness embedded in the idea of Europe. LGBTQ+ Disability Knowledgeability Possibility to Existence LGBTQ+ issues are considered knowlHighly visible in public edgeable in the sense and political discourse that they are referred (the practice of EU to in some textbooks, and its member states) but such inclusion but largely ignored is often tokenistic, or absent from the limiting the way in canon of EU studies. which we understand It remains considered LGBTQ+ issues as a niche issue and has within a human rights not achieved a sense framework. There is litof belonging within tle to no engagement the canon. with sexual politics as a space of knowledge building This thematic remains on the margins of EU studies and thus the canon constituting this a minority and niche issue. It functions more as an example of a wider issue, than a topic in its own right. Invisible in public Legal implications of discourse and acaanti-discrimination demic imaginary of EU approaches studies. Belonging and inclusion remain a long-term objective, but there is little engagement with the complex nature of disability either within the academy or EU policy. The absence of disabilities across the board, suggests a wider issue with the descriptive representation of disabilities within the academy and EU studies. 35 4 What is important to stress here, as the field is becoming more sensitive to equalities+ issues, is the need to be aware of how these themes are included and whose work is presented as defining the key conceptual frames for each theme, which debates are given space for discussion, and how are students encouraged to engage with the work all too often considered too critical to be canonical. This report only starts to scratch the surface of the complexity included within the equalities+ agenda, in so far as we have only included those areas that appear as part of the equality acquis. We acknowledge that in the process of selecting which areas to focus on, and which one were granted more coverage here (e.g. gender), we are also excluding others and, in so doing, also reproducing the hierarchies we are critiquing as part of the canon. 36 37 This Report is thus intended as a starting point for UACES and EU studies scholars to engage in reflexive practice in relation to what we teach, research, and include as part of our canon. Inclusion of different themes needs to be purposeful and mindful in order to open a space for better understanding of the processes and institutions we seek to study, and their impact on different groups within Europe and beyond. The focus on textbooks is a call on all the members of our community to reflect on our role as gatekeepers and the construction of the boundaries of our field. Building an inclusive discipline is an ongoing process that requires reflection, humility, care and empathy. We acknowledge that the process is not complete with the publication of this report, but this is part of an iterative process that helps us to build better knowledge and understanding of ourselves, our discipline and the subject of our study. Key themes Sensitising questions Key themes What do we need to know in order to understand the EU? Why do we need to know those topics? Be aware of omissions and biases What have other disciplines already written about the topics covered? Include and engage with interdisciplinary approaches Which issues are included in the description of those topics/issues/policy areas? How can different methodological approaches be used as tools for inclusion? Who is excluded in the process of data collection and analysis? What are the implications of this exclusion for the construction of the canon and the field? Where are they located? Consider citation practices Who is missing from your citation practice? What are the implications for this practice on the construction of the canon and the field? 38 What insights can be translated from one discipline to another? Whose stories are included in the methodology supporting a study or research project? What/which issues are excluded? Who is included in your citation practice? Sensitising questions Embed methodological pluralism How do the rules of methodology limit what can be studied? What is left “unseen” through this methodological approach? Can we have a more holistic understanding by diversifying the perspectives and voices through which the EU can be understood? Who is left behind by our current approaches? 39 7 Agger, B. (1989). Do Books Write Authors? A Study of Disciplinary Hegemony. Teaching Sociology, 17(3), pp.365–369. Ayoub, P.M. (2022). Not that niche: making room for the study of LGBTIQ people in political science, European Journal of Politics and Gender, 5(2), 154-172. Beaman, J. (2021). Towards a Reading of Black Lives Matter in Europe. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(S1), 103–114. Bhambra, G.K. (2022). A Decolonial Project for Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies 60(2): 229–244. Bleiker, R. (2023). Un-Disciplining the International. Alternatives: Global, Local Political. (Online First). Briscoe-Palmer S., Mattocks K. (2020). Diversity in European Political Science. In: Boncourt T, Engeli I, Garzia D (eds) Political Science in Europe: Achievements, Challenges, Prospects. London: ECPR Press/Rowman & Littlefield International, pp.199–219. 6 We would like to thank Poppy Moncaster Bridgeman for research assistance in the production of this report. We also want to express our gratitude to UCL for including us in their UCL BASc Arts and Sciences Student Consultancy Project to provide us with a group of students that wrote an initial analysis that formed the basis for this report. We would also like to thank Jess Pilgrim-Brown from the EQUAL In-Sight project at the University of Bristol. Finally, we want to reflect on the key role played by Emily Linnemann and UACES in offering us the space and resources to carry out this project. This reflects the organisation’s commitment to diversifying and making European Studies more inclusive, open and reflexive. Cooper, S., Slootmaeckers, K. (2020). Welcome to the ‘Family’: Integration, Identity, and Inclusivity in European Studies. in E. Jones (Ed), European Studies: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 32-35). Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing Limited. David M., Garcia M., Haastrup T., Mattheis F.(2023). Disrupting and Re-imagining European Studies: towards a More Diverse and Inclusive Discipline. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 19(2): 151-162. de Groot, D. (2022). EU legislation and policies to address racial and ethnic discrimination. In EPRS Briefings. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ BRIE/2021/690525/EPRS_BRI(2021)690525_EN.pdf(Accessed 26 July 2022) Duriesmith, D. (2020). Friends don't let friends cite the malestream: a case for strategic silence in feminist international relations. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 22(1), 26-32. Emejulu A. (2019). Can Political Science Decolonise? A Response to Neema Begum and Rima Saini. Political Studies Review 17(2): 202–206. 40 41 European Commission, (2016) Strategic engagement for gender equality 20162019. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/454429 (Accessed 25 July 2022) European Commission (2021a). EU action on equal pay. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/equal-pay/ eu-action-equal-pay_en (Accessed 25 July 2022) European Commission (2021b). Union of equality : strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities 2021-2030, Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/ doi/10.2767/31633 Guerrina, R. (2005). Mothering the union: gender politics in the EU. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Guerrina, R., Haastrup, T., Wright, K. A., Masselot, A., MacRae, H., & Cavaghan, R. (2018). Does European Union studies have a gender problem? Experiences from researching Brexit. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 20(2), 252-257. Haastrup, T., Milner, R., & Whitman, R. G. (2022). Who creates the “common market”? The gendered practices of knowledge production in a “European studies” journal. European Political Science, 21(3), 417-429. Hanretty, C. (2021). Career trajectories in UK departments of politics and international relations: A report for the British International Studies Association and the Political Studies Association. London: Political Studies Association & BISA. Available at: https://www.bisa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-05/PSA_BISA_Career_Trajectories_Report.pdf Kantola, J. (2010). Gender and the European Union. London: Red Globe Press. Kronsell, A. (2005) Gendered practices in institutions of hegemonic masculinity, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(2), pp.280-298. Kronsell, A. (2012). Gender, Sex, and the Postnational Defense: Militarism and Peacekeeping, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lombardo, E. (2005). Integrating or Setting the Agenda? Gender Mainstreaming in the European Constitution-Making Process. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3), 412–432. Mazey, S. (2001). Gender mainstreaming in the EU: principles and practice. Kogan Page Limited. MacRae, H. (2010). The EU as a Gender Equal Polity: Myths and Realities. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(1), 155–174. Oloruntoba, S.O., Nshimbi, C.C., and Ajisafe, D. (2021). ‘Turning the Tide in Curriculum Development in Teaching European Studies in Africa’. In A. Visvizi, M. Field and M. Pachocka (eds.), Teaching the EU: Fostering Knowledge and Understanding in the Brexit Age. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited: 179-192. Pringle, J.K. and Ryan, I. (2015), "Understanding context in diversity management: a multi-level analysis", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 34(6), pp. 470-482. Slootmaekers, K. (2023) Coming In: Sexual politics and EU Accession in Serbia. Manchester University Press. Squires, J. (2005). Is Mainstreaming Transformative? Theorizing Mainstreaming in the Context of Diversity and Deliberation. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3), 366–388. Stern, R. H. (1976). Review Article Sexism in Foreign Language Textbooks. Foreign language annals, 9(4), 294-299. von der Leyen, U. (2019). A Union that strives for more. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en_0.pdf von der Leyen, U. (2020). State of the Union Address by President von der Leyen at the European Parliament Plenary. 16 September, Brussels. Available at: https:// ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_20_1655(Accessed 25 July 2022) von der Leyen, U. (2021). 2021 State of the Union Address by President von der Leyen. 15 September, Strasbourg. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/ presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_21_4701 Wachholz, S. and Mullaly, B. (2001). The Politics of the Textbook, Journal of Progressive Human Services,11(2), pp.51-76. Lombardo, E., & Meier, P. (2006). Gender Mainstreaming in the EU. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(2), 151–166. Loutridou, M. and Butt, M.E. (2000). Prospects for an anti-discrimination policy. Luxembourg: European Parliament. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ workingpapers/soci/105_en.htm#info (Accessed 26 July 2022) 42 43