AATnnls

Call for Papers

Paper are invited  on the following sub-themes:

1. Efficacy of Affirmative Action in Achieving Gender Equality and Goal 5 of the SDGs

The central question of the conference is whether AA policies lead to gender equality. This question is particularly pressing, given that States which have AA policies often continue to perform poorly on global indicators of gender equality. The argument supporting AA’s potential to bring in sustainable social change has, until now, suffered from a lack of reliable time-series data. Debates on the issue have thus focused more on rhetoric and possibilities, rather than evidence. We therefore

invite papers which bring to the foreground, evidence that either supports or negates the link between AA and Goal 5. Submissions that investigate the claim that AA policies lead to an increase in numerical representation of women without leading to transformative and sustainable gender justice are encouraged. We are particularly interested in empirical studies on the efficacy of AA policies, which includes quantitative studies that aggregate existing survey data as well as case-studies based on ethnographic work. All such papers will inevitably have to adopt or develop indicators which measure progress towards Goal 5, and we thus encourage papers that create reliable empirical indices measuring Goal 5 targets for other scholars to use.

2. Affirmative Action for Women and Human Rights Law

AA policies are often challenged on the grounds of violating one or more tenets of human rights law. In India, for example, caste-based AA policies were placed under judicial scrutiny as they allegedly violated the “equality before law” provision within the Indian Constitution. We therefore invite papers which answer the question: How do we resolve conflicts between AA policies for women and human rights law? More specifically, we encourage papers that look at comparative and theoretical analysis of AA and as well as submissions that locate AAs place within the larger domain of anti-discrimination law. We are also interested in papers which explore the relationship between AA and other gender-specific approaches, with protective legislation on the one hand, and maternity/parental leave, child-care facilities, social security etc. on the other. Papers may address whether these approaches compliment or are in conflict with each other, or explore the comparative efficacies of the two in achieving Goal 5. We also encourage submissions which seek to locate AA within the wider framework of CEDAW and other relevant international human rights instruments, as well as comparative law and social science.

3. Affirmative Action through Reservation Policies vs. Affirmative Action through Preference Policies

While most AA policies focus on reservation, there exist other methods of positive discrimination in favour of women. AA is also possible through preference-based policies such as, inter alia, lowering minimum eligibility standards, adding additional selection points in a point-based selection system or creating work environments favourable to the preferred class. Despite its widespread use, especially in admissions to educational institutions, preference-based AA policies have not received enough academic attention. We thus invite papers which answer the question - How do preference based AA policies compare with those based on reservation?

4. Intersectionality in Affirmative Action: Situating Caste, Class And Race in the Affirmative Action Dialogue

Class, caste and race continue to define the hierarchical domains in which AA policies for women might be situated. Consequently, AA policies are often criticised as benefiting the rich, upper-caste, white woman. Poor, lower-caste, coloured women continue to face multiple fronts of discrimination, in addition to discrimination due to gender. We invite papers which look into this

relationship between gender and other forms of discrimination, as well as those which address how AA should take this relationship into account. One method of taking into account intersectionality is “double dip” AA policies - positive discrimination in favour of certain groups within seats reserved for women. We encourage papers which favour or critique such policies, as well as those which are aimed at understanding the difference between gender-based AA and AA policies for race, caste and class.

5. Affirmative Action in Non-Political Institutions

Scholarship on AA for women has largely been restricted to political representation. AA has however often been suggested as a policy to break the glass-ceiling in all leadership positions, including in the private sector. We thus invite papers which investigate the possibility of AA policies in non-political contexts such as courts, tribunals, civil services, companies and academia. We are particularly interested in submissions which address whether the contextual differences in institutions affect the application of AA policies in favour of women.

6. Affirmative Action: Strategies for Mobilisation

The issue of AA for women has faced significant opposition despite extensive mobilization in its favour. AA policies that favour women have thus seldom found their way into legislation, possibly because men in these institutions want to maintain status quo. There is thus a need to understand the deeper structural dynamics that influence legislative processes which crystallize AA. We invite papers which attempt to understand and critique the strategies used by AA advocates to garner support for AA. Is there a need to reframe the AA debate in new and innovative ways? How can we integrate AA into the wider debate for gender equality, Goal 5 and the SDGs? What can we learn from strategies used in different States, by different actors in favour of AA? We encourage submissions which attempt to answer these questions. 

The themes are intended to be suggestive and we remain open to other novel approaches which study the link between affirmative action and gender justice.