Läsnäolosta vaikutuksiin? : tutkimus sukupuolen vaikutuksesta eduskunnan valiokuntien asiantuntijavalintoihin

Authors

• Anne Maria Holli

Abstract

Re-reading the work of Kanter and Dahlerup against newer contributions on the substantive representation of women, the paper suggests that feminist analysis should be more attentive on several points. Firstly, the recruitment hypothesis (more women are bound to recruit more women) is often applied inconsistently in empirical research. Secondly, there are problems and paradoxes in the conceptualisation of women’s substantive representation, which become visible when testing the recruitment hypothesis. Finally, a contextualised application of the recruitment hypothesis might work better to test some of the earlier assumptions. The empirical part of the study presents a dual test of the recruitment hypothesis in a specific political context utilising logistic regression analysis. The results show that, indeed, the more women MPs there there are in parliamentary standing committees, the more often they recruit female experts, regardless of other variables affecting the outcome. By contrast, more women in decision-making positions in the committees do not increase the procedural inclusion of women’s collective group interests (inclusion of women’s NGOs, gender equality agencies and gender scholars) in the expert pool. The results testify to the fact that the operationalisation of variables is crucial for analyses concerning the effects of women’s increased political presence. In addition, they pose new queries concerning the motivations of the actors as well as defining the recruitment of more women as a ’critical act’ or women’s substantive representation per se.