Moving target: gender equality in science in enlarged Europe 1

Transcription

1 Moving target: gender equality in science in enlarged Europe 1 Marcela Linková 2 In the presentation I examine the initiatives for women and science in Central and Eastern Europe against the backdrop of the state socialist regimes policy of equal treatment and the recent developments at European level and in research and development in general. In the first portion I argue that the effects of the equal treatment initiatives under the state socialist regimes were mixed; while providing new avenues for women s self-fulfilment they also contributed to entrenching the status quo in terms of division of labour in the private sphere. Furthermore, there is a huge variegation in situations facing women scientists in the CEE countries, which should (but does not always) lead to geopolitically specific measures and actions. I also examine some of the feminist concerns as they arise in the specific situation of CEE countries (such as speaking for others, representativity of voices, top-down approaches vs. bottom-up approaches). In the second portion of the paper I concentrate on the implementation of gender mainstreaming throughout the 1990s and the critiques of the strategy against the backdrop of recent developments in science (sometimes conceptualised as Mode 1 and Mode 2 sciences). I argue that the avenues opened by Mode 2 science (accountability, science and society dialogue, reflexivity and situated knowledges) may contribute to pushing the equality agenda in science. Since the end of the 1990s we have seen a proliferation of activities in Europe aimed at supporting women in science. A large portion of these activities is organized by the state administrations or European institutions, such as the European Commission, and gender mainstreaming has become the dominant strategy for promoting gender equality. For the new member countries, including the four countries involved in the Central European Centre for Women and Youth in Science, gender mainstreaming and equal opportunities policies formed one of the packages of the accession negotiations. This may make it sound as if the issue of gender equality were new to the new member states, as if now with the guidance of international institutions we finally could start building in the post-communist region a more just and democratic, gender equal society according to the cookbook delivered by the West. The picture, however, is not quite as simple. The Woman Question was definitely on the agenda of the state socialist regimes of the Soviet Block. Unlike the traditional liberal political theory and the liberal construction of the rational individual, which links women s inequality to biological-natural traits (claiming that reproductive function limits women s rationality), the state socialist regimes saw the gender difference as socially constructed and changeable, a result of underdeveloped true communist consciousness on the part of women (Fodor 2002: 243), which could be changed through education, participation on the labour market whereby women would gain ownership 1 Paper presented at Science Policies Meet Reality: Gender, Women and Youth in Science in Central and Eastern Europe CEC-WYS conference, Prague, 1-2 December Marcela Linková, Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences marcela.linkova@soc.cas.cz 2

2 of their means of production and the fruit of their labour, and through positions of state socialist authority (Fodor 2004: 1). Thus, after World War II the Soviet block countries developed equal treatment measures stemming from the Marxian concern for the improvement of women s position in society. For this purpose, as Eva Fodor shows using the example of Hungary, the state created conditions for women to fully engage on the labour market by introducing childcare facilities and maternity provisions and protection, and ensuring a range of domestic services such as laundry, semi-prepared food and other services. 3 ehind this concern for women s emancipation among party ideologues, there was another concern which necessitated women s participation on the labour market: women s participation in paid labour became a precondition of achieving the crucial economic goals of the new regimes. And as Eva Fodor argues, [A] vast campaign targeting the inclusion of women in the paid labour force and in educational institutions ensued with surprisingly fast results (Fodor 2002: 254). 4 However, it would be reductive to think of the measures introduced merely in terms of the economic conditions of the CEE post-war societies. As Fodor argues, the major discursive work took place between the 1950s and 1970s (Fodor 2002: 246), that is alongside the major effort to get women to the labour market. Discursive negotiations were thus in place over the question of women s position in society as citizens. Such national-level negotiations of the issue were not the only space where they occurred. Another space where equal treatment figured as a matter of political negotiations was that between the West and the Eastern Block. Soviet Block countries could boast of equal treatment as compared to Western countries where the housewife/male breadwinner model held sway longer. The equality agenda under socialism thus had a distinct ideological character; gender equality was not seen necessarily only as a value in and of itself but also as a value in the battle with the imperialist West. As Jitka Maleckova argues: Views on the place of women had become an integral part of the self-perception of the nation and its character and thus survived even in the new situation following the actual emergence of the nation states. [Maleckova 2002: 241 quoted in Enwise report 2004: 21] As the Enwise report shows, such an attitude to the position of women in society remained in place after the introduction of the state socialist regimes after the WWII though now in a different geopolitical space. But due to the political deadlock, the ideological and ideologising gender discourses were not in a position to take dominance over one another. With the crumbling of the communist block at the end of 1980s, however, this discursive impasse was ruptured and the state socialist rhetoric discredited, and together with it the rhetoric of women s emancipation under state socialism both at national and international levels. Indeed, the rhetoric was quickly identified as a mere political ploy used by the regimes for political purposes and economic productivity of the nations. Little attention was paid to the actual impact that what this emancipation had on the actual lives, self-perceptions and values of women in these societies. This situation has resulted in the middle of the 1990s into a critical discussion between Slavenka Drakulic and Nanette Funk (Linkova 2006: 163). 3 This is not to say that under the state socialist regimes the division of labour in the domestic sphere changed. As Fodor argues, there were three basic approaches among party ideologues to the private sphere: to do away with the bourgeois family, to leave things as they are and to place additional burdens on women, which is in fact what actually happened (Fodor 2002: 261, n. 5). 4 Let me point out at this moment, and I will come back to this later, that we are seeing the mobilization of a very similar rhetoric today behind the measures to promote women s participation on the labour market in general and women in science in particular. One of the arguments one that is politically perhaps the most cogent is the use of women s talents (women as the untapped human resource) and their contribution to the economic development of society. 3

3 What followed this sudden discursive void was quickly filled with a rhetoric of deficiency as is clearly visible in the catching up rhetoric (Blagojevic 2004) or in the EU conditioning (Kabele, Linek 2005). Both the catching up rhetoric and the EU conditioning argument point to a deficient East having to catch up with the developed west as a condition for EU membership. As Marina Blagojevic argues (2004:141), the result was policy-making without substantial knowledge about semi-peripheral societies and their capacity for change. This approach pushed to the back the impact of the forced emancipation under the state-socialist regimes on women and how it is played out in contemporary post-socialist societies. And it is through this lens that actions that we are concerned with, those aimed at supporting women in science have to be designed and implemented. But this very broad East-West dividing line should not be the last stop in our considerations of different positionings on the European map. In my view, it is necessary to be also aware of differences in geopolitical spaces which may be constructed as similar or same. If I just briefly consider the conditions facing the partner countries of the Central European Centre for Women and Youth in Science project regarding the issue of women in science, we see a huge variegation in circumstances. We have different capacity to mobilise other actors in support of the issue, and all those working in the project have different embodiments of the issue. The post-socialist region has also experienced different developments in terms of the influence of the Church, social clashes and war as well as different histories of gender studies development. All these aspects factor into what can be achieved and how. In some countries the issue was triggered by the Enwise (Enlarge Women in Science to East) project of the European Commission and the establishment of the Helsinki Group in 1999 which opened space to even consider these issues at political and institutional level. The activities in those countries concentrate primarily on the objectives arising from participation in international research and goals of the European Commission for gender equality in R&D. In other countries the situation differs because of a previous existence of an institution dealing with the issue of women in science, which allowed the developments in the women in science area to be directly linked to national circumstances. In the Western Balkans the situation gets complicated even further with a strong history of gender research and stronger orientation to the West which was then severely ruptured by the ethnic wars and re-emergence of very traditional approaches to viewing women s position in society and disintegration of the research sector among other things. In our consortium specifically, this made it necessary to negotiate how we understand feminism, what the priorities are and the dominant approach. These negotiations resulted after about 18 months after the beginning of the project into a strategic framework that the whole project endorsed: this strategic framework revolves around the understanding of itself as addressing a region-specific social-historical context and situation. Secondly, the project looks to the long-term transformation of the practice of science and scientific institutions; we believe that this transformation of scientific and institutional culture is the only way to achieve gender equality, and thus scientific excellence. We do not think that a simple increase in the number of women in science is the solution. This is not to say that we do not consider the appallingly small numbers of women in decision-making to be a problem; it is just to say that increasing the number of women in R&D is not enough. 5 And lastly, we think that without policy support, individual actions cannot change institutional cultures. But equally, without the identification of individuals with policies, policies remain on paper only. 5 And I am of course aware that for some women scientists, it is precisely this question of action (how to change things, how to get women there) rather than understanding the situation (the why) that matters. I however think that one cannot be successful without the other. 4

4 Therefore, we have adopted a twin approach: to work at grassroots level and at policy level. We anticipate that the impact on individuals will be mirrored in a shift in the research culture as individuals will play a part in bringing about such a transformation while the project partners push for changes at policy level toward equality. In this relation, we have to bear in mind the poor mobilisation potential of women scientists or women in general. The reason that is most often alluded to is the obligatory association under state socialism with the accompanying distaste for such organising. Secondly, civil society was decimated after WWII in the state socialist regimes and public engagement is slow in coming. Consequently, we have to consider our position in terms of these limitations. Large scale mobilisation of women scientists in civil associations is hardly to be expected unlike in some western countries where women in science started organising in the 1970s; promotion of gender equality in R&D thus depends not on membership fees or in fact any membership in an organisation but on the availability of public funding for such actions, and the identification of a few individuals in such organisations to push the issue. From a feminist perspective 6 this raises a number of issues. If women scientists in the CEE region will not organise and put forth their demands for action, who will? How will those in the organisations speak for the women scientists? How will they ascertain the needs and wishes of women scientists? Feminist literature amply shows the limits of speaking for marginalised groups and the disempowering effect of doing so (Stone-Mediatore 2003). On the other hand, there is the risk that activist organisations in this position may be subject to the pressures of the funding bodies to synchronise their activities and comply with a general policy outlook which may, in fact, be contrary to what the organisation strives for. 7 It is this position of organisations working in gender equality in R&D in the CEE region that we must consider when designing policy measures and funding priorities. To take the example of the National Contact Centre for Women in Science and more broadly of the CEC-WYS project, the politics of representation is of a concern to us. We strive to create platforms for exchanging opinions where we actually do the listening rather than talking. Thus, for example, although we take a fairly critical approach to the work-life balance the way it is argued today, we push for changes that go along those lines with which we disagree because they come out as strong priorities for individual women scientists. We also devise ways in which to communicate our areas of concern to individual women scientists in order to make them more open or even sensitive to certain issues (this would concern issues such as the gendered nature of measuring excellence, gender aspects in knowledge production or the social embedment of science). That this is effective comes out of exchanges with individual women scientists and the support of some senior researchers in the CR for our project. There is another concern to us: in the Czech National Contact Centre we take a 6 By a feminist perspective, I very generally mean one that revolves around a reflection of the unequal positionings of gendered individuals on symbolic, institutional and embodied levels which strives to achieve change in the organisation in society. 7 Research in the Czech Republic shows that this is indeed the case; women s and feminist NGOs have been tailoring their mission statements and organization objectives to the objectives of funding bodies, most importantly the structural funds, in order to ensure their survival. Since other funds, such as national funding of NGOs or membership fees are very limited, structural funds form a dominant financial source for these NGOs. This has resulted in the marginalization of organizations that are on the margin of policy concern (anarchofeminists, environmental feminists, natural birth movement, sexual identity organizations). Organisations that concentrate on the labour market and perhaps domestic violence, which are at the centre of policy concern, have access to large funds (Kapusta-Pofahl, Haskova, Kolarova 2005, Haskova, Krizkova 2006). These authors identify three major developments: managerialism or professionalisation, project orientation and reform or output orientation. Authors writing on R&D identify similar aspects in R&D: commercialisation, managerialism and contract research culture related to project oriented funding. 5

5 constructivist view of gender and sexual identity; nevertheless, in our negotiations and lobbying with research institutions and the state we adopt a homogenising stance we act as if there were one group of women scientists with the same concerns in order to push an issue. The gradual institutionalisation of the project has allowed us to become the voice that represents. In order for us to be able to speak to various people at various positions of power we adopt different approaches. And rather then speaking for we are opting for a constant reflection of what our speaking to (Spivak in Alcoff 1991: 23) means. To do the speaking to, though, one in fact has become linguistically very apt. It is necessary to learn the lingo that is not really ours to get the funding; it is necessary to navigate the use of the dominant policy rhetoric at national level because, as we will show later in the presentation of our Enwise follow-up exercise, we are faced with reservations about and distrust at policy level of the EU. Consequently, we cannot simply rely at policy level on using the dominant discourses aimed at improving the position of women in R&D (e.g., women in decision-making or the gendered nature of excellence assessment) but need to be nitpicky in what we can actually drum up. And with individual women scientists caution and distrust mingle with the sort of gossipy complaints about men and seeking alliances with other women along these lines, without an actual drive to go out and change things, to put oneself in the spotlight feministically, so to speak. To conclude this section, I will introduce very briefly the objectives of the CEC-WYS project as they evolved during the project s implementation. We started with a very broad objective: to empower women and young scientists in Central Europe and to contribute to achieving gender equality in R&D. More specifically we concentrated on three areas of action: 1. empowerment a. to increase the participation of women in decision-making and evaluation procedures of Framework Programme funding and national level decisionmaking bodies b. by making actions to mobilise and network women scientists, we aim to increase their visibility and participation in national, European and international research and their invitation to advisory boards and scientific committees 2. excellence a. to foster reflective practices by raising awareness of the implications of gender dimension of scientific research b. to develop scientists skills in incorporating this practice into their research ideas and methodologies c. to prepare young researchers to take ownership of their research projects, and develop their skills in communication and responsible conduct of research, and provide them with the skills and reflection to develop into effective supervisors and mentors 3. policy development a. to encourage policy developments at national level concerning the issue of women in science 6

6 b. to make actions to mobilise and network young scientists in order to advocate their interests in a policy debate particularly from a regional and gender perspective Our approach then has not been aimed simply at increasing the number of women in the sciences or in decision-making but more broadly we have been concerned with issues of excellence and its relation to the changing research culture vis-à-vis the strategy of gender mainstreaming. And I will get back to this at the end of my presentation. Now I would like to go back to the notion of gender mainstreaming and larger considerations of what this strategy allows, how it has developed and how it ties in with what I just said about the twin approach of working at grass roots and top down level we adopted in the CEC- WYS project. I will also situate gender mainstreaming within the larger developments in R&D over the last two decades to examine the potential strengths but also underlie the weaknesses of the concept in use, and link it to general developments in R&D in terms of accountability and governance. Gender mainstreaming As the prevailing definition of gender mainstreaming makes it clear, gender mainstreaming aims to reorganise, improve, develop and asses conceptual processes by integrating considerations of the role played by and impact on men and women at all levels, in all stages of policy implementation and by all actors (Cervinkova 2003: 2). Gender mainstreaming is thus concerned with the public space, with the policy level. The gender mainstreaming strategy is largely framed in terms of equality on the labour market and the stress on increasing competitiveness of individual countries. What does this integration of gender dimension at all levels mean though? We can argue that not infrequently gender mainstreaming at policy level means a mere inclusion of women. Women are, particularly in science, seen as a resource to tap in order to increase the competitiveness and use the talents available. In this sense, it is tied to the dominant discourse of economic profit, growing competitiveness and commercialisation of research which some authors describe as Mode 2 science (Gibbons et al. 1994) or post-academic science (Ziman 2000). This understanding of gender mainstreaming is embedded in the neo-liberal philosophy of western capitalist societies, and the goal is to create conditions for women to be able to behave in the dominant ways in public space. Sylvia Walby (2005) and others refer to this as the integration approach. The integration approach remains within the boundaries set by the neo-liberal philosophy. Actions aimed at improving the situation of women scientists in this approach work with the idea of research workplace as given as something that does not need to change. In this view, what needs changing are women scientists and not the existing policy and the organisational paradigm. In a way, it is a sort of add-on approach where without a change but with a few additional props the stage is set for women s presence. 8 An alternative approach to gender mainstreaming is agenda setting (Jahan 1995) with the corresponding frame extension (Ferree 2004) which are aimed at the transformation and reorientation of existing policy paradigms, changing decision-making processes and rethinking policy objectives. It is more inclusive of other actors, values other than the neo-liberal framework and is aimed at taking different types of actions. 9 8 This, however, does nothing explicitly for other gendered domains such as caring responsibilities, sexual domain and others. This version of gender mainstreaming does not treat the private as political. 9 Let me mention only in passing, because I do not have the space to discuss this issue here, that both the agenda setting and integration approaches need to address the issue of gender difference and sameness. The concern for 7

7 Clearly, gender mainstreaming is a contested term, a fluid term that can be mobilised by various actors to push their various goals or, on the contrary, maintain the status quo by making no fundamental changes. These two approaches to gender mainstreaming are not an either / or choice. The experience of projects, associations and actions aimed in achieving gender equality in science shows a variety of approaches that are employed in different contexts differently. Gender mainstreaming thus becomes a complexly contested term, a moving target as I term it in the title of my presentation. A majority of approaches we are seeing today build explicitly on the integration approach. This is perhaps most clearly visible in actions aimed at the work-life balance issue as this is, in our societies, perhaps the one with the clearest and strongest gender dimension. These actions are generally aimed at developing measures that would allow women (with caring responsibilities) to fully engage in research. Thus, for example, one of the presenters at the Women in Science and Technology conference held in Vienna in May this year presented a work-life balance project at their enterprise, illustrating its success with a quote from a woman scientist who said: Now [with the onsite kindergarten] I don t have to worry if a meeting goes until nine in the evening. Such measures do nothing to transform the current working environment and prevalent values; rather, they create conditions in which women scientists can behave research-wise according to the dominant masculine paradigm such as the late hours culture. As such, they may help individual women scientists to achieve a better sense of work-life balance in their life but do not offer alternative approaches such as to question the value of long hours culture. Consequently, it is possible to maintain the existing status quo, which for me was perhaps best enunciated at an Early Stage Researcher conference in Lisbon in 2003 where the president of the Gulbenkian Foundation described a Portuguese scheme of postdoctoral fellowships in the following terms: The programme is intended for young motivated people who are able to leave within 24 hours, are willing to work long hours for little money and not to have any vacation for at least 2 years. These the conditions are tailored to a traditional perception of a linear scientific career based on the long hours culture. The little money may apply to women scientists, particularly in the Central and Eastern European region, bearing in mind the continuing gender pay gap. Thus it can be argued that the integration approach does not help in changing the gendered conditions with their gendered outcomes in research, and reinforces the values that have traditionally driven science. From a feminist perspective, the agenda setting approach seems a more viable option as it contests the traditional values and analyses their gendered nature that creates inequalities in research. Employing this approach means the introduction of other values that will result in re-consideration of the status quo. As I said above, however, these approaches are not mutually exclusive but complement one another. Various stakeholders mobilise them in different situations in order to achieve particular goals as should be clear from my description of our own rhetorical negotiations. Thus, it may be useful to consider the implementation of gender mainstreaming as a complex adaptive system (Walby 2005). In this approach, the systems in question (R&D, industry, higher education, civil organising and the gender regime) would be seen as co-evolving within changing R&D landscapes, continually and complexly changing each other. If gender mainstreaming is how to recognize difference, while avoiding the trap of essentialism and taking into account the global horizon (Walby 2005: 326). 8

8 considered in these terms, gender mainstreaming can allow for a more nuanced and local enactments of gender equality measures assessed not in terms of a simple impact but in terms of various positions of the actors involved, different socio-economic and historical backgrounds and variously defined needs. Such an approach may prove useful when considering the implementation of gender equality in the enlarged Europe. Gender mainstreaming can also be considered as part of the processes in R&D that give rise to the recent interest in research processes. Let me know briefly outline the changes in R&D and then I will discuss the place of gender mainstreaming in these processes. Simply put, science is changing. There is a host of new actors that are claiming to have a say in R&D from civil organisations, to media, industry, politicians, including gender or feminist organisations in science. It is increasingly more difficult to act as if science were apart from society, going about its business of discovering nature s and society s secrets without any external, social influences. Feminism and women s activism in science have been crucial for these developments along other critical approaches. Feminist research into knowledge production highlights the gendered nature of the basic values in science such as rationality, objectivity or the impartial knowing subject. This notion of science as knowledge seeking is being reconceptualised. Nowotny and her colleagues have published extensively on how science is changing, and contrast Mode 1 science (the one based on the traditional values as outlined above and Mode 2 science. They analyse Mode 2 in terms of notions such as accountability, science-society communication, commercialisation of research, and the stress on the economic aspects of research. Obviously, Mode 2 has not replaced Mode 1; they co-exist and in different contexts they are differently mobilised. Gender and feminism have no place in Mode 1 science that would be bringing politics and social issues into science which is, of course, forbidden because then knowledge would not be pure. And we have probably all heard arguments to this effect in our feminist engagements. Mode 2 science can be more receptive it stresses economic performance and need of human resources, utilisation of talents, science as a social activity, applicability. In fact, economic performance is the mantra that is now guiding R&D policies. We are seeing increasing number of benchmarks and indexes that measure the well-being of society and are based on R&D expenditures and HE statistics. R&D is becoming the playground of global competitiveness. This one understanding of Mode 2 science offers a very limited understanding of gender mainstreaming, one that is in synch with the integration approach introduced by Walby. This vision of R&D, however, pushes aside and to the background other values that R&D and HE could be mobilising solidarity, critical thinking, passion for knowledge, meritocracy etc. Paradoxically, it s this economic paradigm that has made it possible to speak about the issue of women in science on a political level. And it is Mode 2 science in general that is making it possible to politically legitimate the issue. Because of the social embedment of science in Mode 2, it is possible to talk about women in science and gender in research as political issues that need to be addressed in terms of accountability of science vis-à-vis its own processes and vis-à-vis society at large. It is crucial though to note that Mode 2 science does not allow only for the economic rhetoric mobilized in science policies. Like other aspects of Mode 2 science it can be interpreted in several ways, ways that allow for a more critical approach. Accountability thus does not have to be understood merely in terms of investments, funding and competitiveness to which the female human resources contribute on the research side but also in terms of social values, democratic decision-making and social responsibility. 9

9 Thus, Mode 2 allows us to talk about development of human resources and has offered a rhetoric that can be used to promote the issue. On the other hand it runs the risk of preempting it and reducing it to only some issues such as work-life balance or women in decision-making. What is the danger if we stay only with the business case? Though important is it really the goal to create a working environment where women will be able to work as much as men? And what will happen when there are many more women in decisionmaking? Does that mean that science will change automatically, unquestionably, for the better? Such a framing also leaves aside issues such as: what are the values on which science operates? What are the criteria of scientific excellence? How skewed are they? Critical reflection on Mode 2 science highlights the social embedment of science and the ideology of science. It makes it possible to argue that cognitive aspects of knowledge production cannot be separated from social aspects. Such critical thinking also creates space to consider gender and feminist issues in science next to other interests in science, such as for example the economic competitiveness interests. Viewed from this perspective, feminism and gender issues in science are one of many interests that inform the processes of knowledge production (among them also those of other marginalized groups such as the Roma in the CEE region, those others who do not have the educational capital etc). If we accept that apolitical science does not exist, that science is always informed by values, then we do not have to be apologetic about raising feminist concerns. And since this negotiation of what science should be in contemporary societies, it is important to create spaces for such critical examination of interests in science and unmask the neo-liberal notions that inform much research policy today as what they are, one of many though a very powerful interest. I hope that this conference will serve as one of such spaces where we will over today and tomorrow engage in a critical reflection on the processes of science policy implementation in terms of gender equality, and the gap between the rhetoric and action and knowledge production as informed by feminist and other critical values. This conference should be one of events aimed at contributing to the debate on governance of R&D, accountability and science society dialogues in a changing Europe. For this purpose, we strove to bring together a wide range of actors from diverse cultural backgrounds in Europe, including policy makers, researchers, gender experts and activists in R&D to discuss what needs to be done for a successful policy implementation of gender equality measures. Bibliography: Alcoff, L The Problem of Speaking for Others. Cultural Critique, No. 20, winter , pp Downey, G. L., Dumit, J., & Traweek, S. (1997). Corridor talk. In G. I. Downey and J. Dumit, (Eds.), Cyborgs and Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies. Fodor, Eva The state socialist emancipation project: gender inequality in workplace authority in Hungary and Austria. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp Fodor, Eva Smiling women and fighting men. Gender and Society, Vol. 16, No. 2, April 2002, pp Gender and Excellence in the Making Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 10

10 %22gender%20and%20excellence%20in%20the%20making%22 Gibbons et al The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Hašková, H. and A. Křížková Referees and players: the impact of socio-economic transformation and European integration on women s groups. Pp In: Mnohohlasem: vyjednávání ženských prostorů po roce Sociologický ústav AV ČR: Praha. Kapusta-Pofahl, K., Haskova, H., Kolarova, M 'Only a Dead Fish Flows with the Stream:' NGO Formalization, Anarchofeminism, and the Power of Informal Associations. Anthropology of East Europe Review, Vol. 23, No. 1. Linkova, M What you don t get done alone, you don t get at all, or women s activism, production of knowledge and gender. Pp In: Mnohohlasem: vyjednávání ženských prostorů po roce Sociologický ústav AV ČR: Praha. Nowotny, Helga/ Scott, Peter/ Gibbons, Michael Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press. Shari Stone-Mediatore Reading Across Borders: Storytelling and Knowledges of Resistence. Palgrave. Walby, Sylvia Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Tensions in Theory and Practice. Social Politics, Vol 12, No. 3, pp Walby, Sylvia The European Union and Gender Equality: Emergent Varieties of Gender Regime. Social Politics, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp Ziman, J Real Science. What it Is and What it Means. Cambridge University Press. 11