Professor Sarah Childs Inaugural Lecture

Good  evening,  everyone.  For  those  who  don't  know  me, my  name  is  John  Devane, and  I'm  the  head  of  the  School of  Social  and  Political  Science. And  quite  often,  colleagues  say  to  me, You  have  a  really  difficult  job. I  say,  I  have  one  of  the  best  jobs  in  the  university, cause  I  work  with  great  colleagues who  are  doing  fantastic  work. And  tonight's  no  exception  to  that. One  of  the  things  I  really  enjoy  doing  is coming  along  to  inaugural  lectures. I  can  remember  going  along  to Toby  Kelly's  and  others  in the  room  when  I  just  arrived  in the  university  as  a  way  of  trying  to  find  out about  this  rich  school  that  I  joined  and about  the  variety  of  work  that takes  place  in  social  and  political  science. And  our  inaugural  lectures  are essentially  an  opportunity  to  welcome a  new  colleague  to the  university  by  giving  them  an  opportunity  to  talk about  their  work  and  introduce themselves  to  both  colleagues, as  well  as  other  distinguished  guests. But  it's  also  because  it's  a  public  lecture, an  opportunity  to  talk  about  the  relevance  of the  work  that  we  do  in the  university  for  the  outside  world. So  we're  absolutely  delighted. I  know  I  am  at  Sarah, you're  taking  up  the  opportunity  to deliver  an  inaugural  lecture. You  joined  us  in  2022. You  already  a  professor  before  you  joined  us. So  we  were  very  fortunate  to be  able  to  snag  you  and  get  you to  come  and  join  us  here  in  Edinburgh. But  I  think  this  is  your  first  inaugural  lecture. And  so  we're  delighted  that  if  you've  got the  opportunity  to  talk  to  us  about  your  work. I'm  in  the  audience  alongside  various  parents  for  Sarah. We've  also  got  Susan  Duffy  from  the  Scottish  Parliament. We've  also  got  students  who  are here  that  Sarah  teaches and  undergraduate  programs,  and  hopefully, also  at  least  one  future  student who's  got  very  sparkly  red  shoes, which  I  think  sort  of  are  perfect. And  In  terms  of  Sarah's  work, many  of  you  don't  need  an  introduction  to  it, because  not  only  is it  work  which  in  its  own  right  is  important. It's  also  been  work  that's  been seminal  in  terms  of  other  people  using  it  as a  touchstone  and  as a  guide  in  terms  of  how  we  think  about women  in  politics  and  politics  relevance  to  women. And  I  think  sort  of  the  presentation tonight  will  be  a  lovely  sort  of both  a  overarching  commentary  about  sort  of  your  work, Sarah,  and  also  sort  of  the  pathway that  you've  followed  through  all  of  it. Your  research  interests  have  been  around political  representation,  gender  in  parliaments, political  parties,  British  politics, feminism  and  democracy,  and  feminist  institutionalism. And  alongside  that,  you  have a  long  list  of  highlights  in  terms  of  your  work, two  that  we've  picked  out  are the  good  Parliament  report  in  2016, one  of  the  recommendations of  which  led  to  the  introduction  of proxy  voting  for  baby  leave  MPs  in  the  House  of  Commons. And  it's  hard  to  imagine  that  we  got  to  2016, where  that  had  to  be  pointed  out  that  that  would be  an  appropriate  and  right  thing  to  do. And  also,  you've  worked  with  the  Scottish  Parliament  on the  gender  sensitive  audit  jointly with  Fiona  McKay  and  with  Merrill  Kenney, and  it  won  the  political  Studies  Association, WJ  McKenzie  Prize  in  2022, and  this  was  Best  Book  of  the  Year  Prize. Those  are  just  two  examples  of a  long  list  of  significant  achievements, both  in  terms  of  scholarly  work, but  also  in  terms  of sort  of  significant  research  projects that  you've  contributed  to  and  laid  on, including  some  very  recent  notable  awards. And  we're  delighted  that  you  joined  us  at  Edinburgh  and delighted  that  you've  chosen to  deliver  this  lecture  this  evening. Sarah  is  going  to  speak  for  about  45  minutes. At  the  end  of  that,  we  always  ask  the  person  who's delivering  the  inaugural  lecture whether  they  want  to  take  questions. Some  people  do.  Some  people  don't, and  what  they  prefer,  and  in  Sarah's  case, is  to  sort  of  There's old  retire  from  this  lecture  theater across  to  the  foyer  of  the  Christal  McMillan  building, where  not  only  can  you  ask really  hard  questions  of  Sarah, that  you'll  answer  effortlessly, but  also  just  engage  in  a  chat  and an  appreciation  and  acknowledgment  of  our  work,  so  Sarah. I'm  going  to  shut  up  now  and  hand  over  to  you. So  thank  you  very  much.  Can  we  show  appreciation. I  think  I've  turned  the  microphone  on, but  I'm  sure  people  tell  me  if  I  haven't. Thanks,  Helene.  So,  thank  you  all  for  coming. It's  lovely  to  see  this  room full  of  so  many  different  kinds  of  people. As  John,  very  kindly  noted, I  have  been  a  professor  for  quite  some  time, actually  back  to  2009. And  my  Bristol  Inaugural, I  had  to  postpone  for  what  I  thought might  be  better  times.  But  then Other  things  happened,  COVID  hit. I  moved  first  to  Bert  Beck  and  then  to  Royal  Holloway. So  it's  lovely  to  have  the  opportunity here  in  Edinburgh.  So  thank  you  for  that. And  I  want  to  also  draw  attention to  my  head  of  schools  inaugural  just  before  Christmas, when  he  talked  about  this  being  the  fantasy  appointment. And  I  have  to  say,  in  my  mind, it  always  had  that  sort  of  appeal. And  that  that  reminds  me how  lucky  in  lots  of  ways that  they  pointed  both  of  us  been. So  I'm  glad  I  didn't  know  you  were  on the  short  list  at  the  same  time  as  me. But  I'm  glad  that  we're  both  here  together, so  thank  you  for  the  support  as  well. I  think  it's  also  true  that  the  attraction  of Edinburgh  was  about  a  great  university, but  it  was  also  about  a  department  and  with  pioneering, gender  and  politic  scholars, Alice  Brown,  Fiona  MacKay, who  made  this  a  place  that  I  wanted  to  come to  It'll  also  have some  great  British  politics  and  parliamentary  scholars. I  have  to  say  that  too  to  some  of my  other  colleagues  as  well. So  it  was  a  place  that couldn't  have  been  more  attractive. And  for  weeks,  I  told  my  little  brother, when  I  go  running  with  him,  he's  actually  not  that very  little  anymore,  but  I  wouldn't  apply. Right?  I  had  this  great  job  in  London. I  was  very  happy.  COVID  was  over. Everything  was  going  to  open  up  again. But  with  48  hours  to  go, I  just  thought,  if  I  don't  apply,  I  won't  know. And  my  dad  always  said,  you  know, you  turn  down  the  job  when  it's  offered  to  you,  right? Not  beforehand.  And  I  think  that's a  really  useful  way  of  thinking about  the  job  opportunities  that  you  get. I  then  have  to  say,  Professor  Karen  Silas, who  coauthored  the  book  that  again, you  nicely  draw  attention  to,  said  to  me, do  not  let  your  risk  aversness  stop  you  taking  this  job. So,  as  you  can  see, my  topic  tonight  is about  friendship  and  about  the  ways  in  which so  much  of  what  we  do  in academia  is  undergirded  by  support, and  I  want  to  sort  of  thank  everybody  for  that. And  I'll  try  to  do  that  in  a  way  that also  speaks  to  the  politics  of friendship  and  the  politics  of  gender  and politics  and  the  politics  of politics,  if  that  makes  sense. So  Lots  of  people in  London  were  rather  shocked that  I  was  prepared  to  leave  London. There  were  some  tears,  but  I'll  leave  those  in the  audience  who  were  in  tears  to identify  themselves  over  drinks. I've  had  to  learn  to  lean  in  with  coats  that  have  hoods. I  haven't  had  a  coat  with  a  hood  since  I  was  about  13, which  made  the  students  laugh, but  then  I  was  worried  about  their  cold  mid  drifts, and  then  they  said  the  word  midrift  was  only  somebody would  be  say  something  was  my  age  would  say.  Okay. So  I  now  have  waterproof  trainers,  waterproof  bags, and  I  have  bought  rather  blue  stocking  shoes, and  I'm  leaning  into  that  aesthetic. As  I  I  tried  to  suggest  in  my  abstract  for  this  lecture, mine  isn't  a  typical  academic  journey. My  PhD  was  done  part  time. It  took  seven,  very,  very  long  years. And  four  years  in,  I  really  was  writing that  list  of  Do  you  give  up?  Do  you  not  give  up? And  I  do  want  to  pay  respect  to Professor  Johnny  Lavandusky  and  the  late  Vicki  Randall, whose  interventions  stopped  me  giving  up. Their  words  gave  me  the  confidence  to  later speak  with  Labor's  1997  women  MPs, which  is  where  my  work  on  gender and  politics  really  started. And  I  think  that  also puts  a  responsibility  on  all  of  us  who support  students  to  intervene  and  to  make those  moments  that  might  be  critical  because  otherwise, things  go  in  different  ways.  So  I  didn't  give  up. But  I  wasn't  sure  I  ever  wanted  to  speak well  of  a  part  time  PHD because  those  seven  years  were  really  hard. Rosie  Campbell  told  me  off  and said  that  taking  seven  years  to  get  my  PhD  had never  held  me  back  and  how  dare  I deny  the  opportunity  of a  part  time  degree  to  anybody  else? And  she  was  right,  of  course. And  so  I'm  particularly  proud  that my  House  of  Commons  Feminist in  Residence  is  here  tonight. He's  18  months  into  her  part  time  PhD, so  I  just  want  to  stress that  you  don't  have  to  be  a  certain  age, you  don't  have  to  do  it  a  certain  way. You  can  still  do  these  things,  and  you  should. So  lots  of  my  politics  and  gender  co  authors  and collaborators  are  here  from  academia  and  from  politics, including  Susan  from  the  Scottish  Parliament, who's  been  a  wonderful  person  to get  to  know  in  the  last  couple  of  years, and,  of  course,  Merrill  with whom  I  was  working  very  closely  on  that. I  kind  of  wonder  whether  I've  used  the  word lucky  too  often  already  and  whether that's  not  the  right  way  to  speak  because  that  seems  to suggest  or  can  obscure  or  risk  romanticizing  a  career, the  academic  relationships,  and  the  networks that  you  build  and  you  have  to nurture  and  you  have  to  sustain. And  again,  I  was  talking with  Karen  this  morning  about  this  again. And  to  think  about  how  some  of  the  ways  of operating  as  an  academic  can  can challenge  some  of  the  assumptions about  how  we  should  do  this  job  or  how competitive  this  job  is  or  how individualistic  it  is  and  how  we  need  to deconstruct  that  idea  of  the  heroic  intellectual who  disappears  and  comes  out  with this  beautifully  produced  piece  of  work, and  actually,  so  many  of  us  rely  upon sustenance  from  others  in a  non  exploitative  or  instrumental  fashion. So  in  deciding  to  focus  on  feminism  and  friendship, and  the  study,  as  well  as  the  practice  of  politics, I  do  want  to  draw  attention  to  the  politics  of being  a  politics  and gender  scholar  and  what  that  friendship  means, because  to  give  you  a  very  superficial  example, we  do  gentonics  parties We  go  to  conferences. And  sometimes  people  look  on  and  say,  why  do  you  do  this? This  isn't  how  my  sub  field  is. It's  not  how  we  do  things. And  in  lots  of  ways, that  can  look  superficial, but  it  actually  is  about  developing  the  kind  of relationships  that  lead  to  collaborations, collective  work,  joint  proposals, grant  fundings,  all  of  those  kind  of  things. But  I  also  don't  want  to suggest  that  friendship  is  necessarily  something that's  easy  or  that  it  is  not  something  that  needs  to confront  behaviors  and  power  inequalities, and  gender  hierarchies,  within  the  academy, and  within  the  world  of  politics. Here,  I  would  stress,  yet  again, the  way  in  which  pioneering, the  first  generation  of  gender and  politic  scholars  in  the  UK, really  role  modeled  how  we  should  be. And  I  think,  again,  I  would  stress  that  we  have a  responsibility  to  make  sure  that  happens  too. So  when  we  find  ourselves  in  a  place  again, particularly  post  COVID,  and we're  hugging  and  saying  hi  to  everybody, it's  important  that  we  don't  create  enclaves  or boundaries  and  make  it  look like  we  belong  and  other  people  don't. Feminist  friendship  does  underpin much  of  the  politics  and  gender  field, and  I  think  that  has  bolstered our  abilities  to  critique  and  transform political  science  and  to  make a  feminist  difference  to  the  practice  of  politics. So,  in  many  ways,  this  lecture  is actually  about  a  big  thank  you  to  everybody I've  worked  with  in  order  to  really, say  what  I  think  are  important  things. Obviously,  I  would  think  that  they  are  important, but  good  things  and  to  change  the  practice  of  politics. And  with  that  in  mind, I'd  like  to  draw  attention  to Karena  Mines  illustrator  of  Choice,  Hazel  Makubr. And  this  is  another  of her  illustrations  that  I've  used  in  my  work. And  she  was  a  friend  of  my  little  brothers, and  she's  been  someone  who  I  think  we've  really used  to  try  to  present in  image  form  the  kind  of transformative  politics  that  many  of  us  wish  to  see. But  the  politics  and  gender  field  is obviously  a  very  significant  subfield. Here,  I'm  just  drawing  your  attention to  some  of  the  concerns  in  the more  empirical  or  the  work  that's focused  on  electoral  politics,  formal  politics. But  of  course,  there  is  a  much  bigger  field, and  Edinburgh  yet  again  has  a  lot  of  those, and  I  think  we  can  rightly  claim  to  be the  biggest  concentration  of gender  and  politics  and  gender  and  IR  scholars. And  I  think  that  community  that's  really building  and  building  on  what's  gone  before  is  really, really  important  to  draw  attention  to. And  I  think  Edinburgh  should  be  very,  very  proud  of. So  reflecting  the  growth  of the  sub  field  over  the  last  generation, I  think  the  questions  that  we  ask  have multiplied  as  more  and  more  women are  going  into  politics. We  can  ask  different  kinds  of  questions. We  engage  in  theoretical  and  empirical  research. We  want  to  know  how  to  redress what  Karen  and  I  have  called  the  poverty  of women's  representation  and  to think  about  how  we  can  redesign  and rebuild  feminist  institutions  and  feminist  democracies. Many  of  us  to  embrace the  feminist  imperative  to study  and  change  the  world  of  politics, as  Rosie  and  I  have  termed  it. And  it's  why  we  seek  out collaborations  with  party  actors, parliamentarians,  staff  of  parliaments, international  organizations,  and  women's  civil  society. We  don't  just  want  to  write  about  politics, offer  a  critique,  we  want  to  be  centrally engaged  in  making  politics  more  inclusive. Of  course,  we've  also,  as  we  have  done  this, disturbed  the  discipline  of  political  science, sometimes  they  don't  quite  like  it, but  we  don't  mind  making  them  feel  uncomfortable. We  have  tried  to  regender formal  politics  through  our  network  building, and  which  oftentimes  is  underpinned  by  friendships, the  kind  of  relationships  that  go  beyond a  formal  transactional  or  formal  exchange  model, but  speaks  to  a  sense  of identity  or  affinity  with  others who  both  wish  to  make  the  changes  too, but  can  see  that  you  can  offer  them something  that  they  might  otherwise  not  have. When  I  was  first  made  a  professor, I  was  clear  that  I  wanted  to be  a  professor  of  politics  and  gender. I  didn't  just  want  to  be  a  professor  of  politics. So  when  I  was  offered  the  job  here, I  also  said  I  want  to be  a  professor  of  politics  and  gender. Of  course,  Merrill  will  soon  be  giving  her  inaugural, and  she's  a  professor  of  politics. And,  sorry,  gender  and  politics. So  you  can  see  a  different  kind  of  take. We  never  confuse  us. It's  very,  very  important. So,  what  is  it  about women's  friendships  and  why  are friendships  important  to  both  the  study  of  politics, but  also  the  practice  of  politics? I  think  it's  worth  noting  that  popularly, women's  friendships  are  often  seen  or represented  in  very  critical  or  negative  ways, reinforcing  gender  stereotypes  of  competitiveness  often over  men's  approval  or  in the  marriage  market,  bitchines,  cats. We  are  judging  our  friends. There's  insincerity. Are  we  all  two  faced? Are  we  being  exclusive? Who's  in  with  the  in  crowd?  Who's  excluded? And  I  think  it's  important  to critique  those  representations  and  to  recognize that  feminist  friendships  must realize  a  higher  ethical  and  political  ideal. And  in  this,  I  have  drawn  on  work  by  my  friend  and co  author  Jennifer  Curtin  from New  Zealand  and  a  piece  of work  she's  written  with  Heather  Devi, where  friendship  promises  equality, justice,  and  democracy. And  that  notion  of  a  promise  begs, enactment  and  realization  and  how  we  actually  bring about  those  principles  to  realize  feminist  friendship. It  cannot  be  confined  to sameness  implied  by  the  simple  notions  of  sisterhood, but  instead  looks  towards a  claim  and  a  political  commitment  of mutuality  solidarity  and  alliances. Differences  and  conflict  are  to  be  worked through  rather  than  denied  or  glossed  over, however  uncomfortable  this  might  be,  Merrill. You  can  address  that  in  your  lecture. We  are  obliged  in a  positive  responsibility  sense to  act  with  and  for  others. Okay,  so  feminist  friendship  is  a  good  thing. Collaborations  are  a  good  thing. I  was  a  terribly  competitive  child. So  all  of  this  collaboration  and coauthoring  would  have  surprised  me  as  a  schoolgirl. I  was  the  first  girl  to learn  her  times  tables  in  my  year, but  I  was  only  the  second  person, which  is  why  I  guess  I'm  auditing  quants  yet  again. Thank  you,  Jess  and  Joe  for  that. But  I'd  put  my  arm  around  my  work  so  nobody  could  copy. But  I  have  learned  to  love  collaborations, and  I  think  for  the  reasons  that  it  makes  you  more  risky, so  you  can  take  risks when  you  have  somebody  else  to  rely  on. I  think  it  can  make  our  work  more  dynamic. It  makes  commitment  much easier  when  you  know  you've  got  somebody  waiting for  something  at  the  end  of a  e  mail  or  on  the  other  side  of some  document  that  you're  trying to  write  together  over  the  Internet, and  none  of  you  knows  how  to  save it  or  where  it  is  and  where  it's  gone  to. It  is  an  accountability  instilled  by  collaborative  work, and  intellectual  accountability,  but  also an  accountability  of  caring  for  that  other  person. It's  also  hard  work.  I  don't  want  to make  it  think  that  this  is  an  easy  way  to  do  work. Oftentimes  it  can  make  work  harder. By  working  as  friends,  we  are  trying to  do  academia  in  a  different  way, challenging  ideas  of  how  it  should  be  done. Bending  on  each  other's  shoulders  or  carrying each  other  upwards  rather  than  on  each  other's  necks, is  why  Johnny  Lovendusky  once  put  it, and  is  worth  reminding  yet  again. But  it  is  also  about  the  hanging  out,  the  running. Karen  and  I  were  at the  personal  trainer  at  6:30  this  morning, I  have  to  tell  you. It's  about  the  dancing,  but  not  karaoke. No  doing  that  ever  again.  The  spars, the  window  shopping,  the  gin, the  bubbles,  and  it  was,  as  I've  said, Jen  Curtin,  who  introduced  the  gin  and  tonic  parties. Now,  in  lots  of  ways, this  makes  me  sound  superficial, and  it  might  risk  my  sub  field  being  regarded, so  We  should  query  any  reaction  like  that. Because  again,  it's  reproducing ideas  of  what  an  academic  is  or  has  to  be. Is  it  also  risking  reproducing  gender  binaries  of reason  and  emotion,  seriousness,  and  superficiality? I've  always  loved  telling  my  students, and  I  started  doing  this  when  I  was  at  Bristol  that Mucha  Prada  has  a  PhD  in  political  science, and  if  she  can  do  fashion  and political  science,  so  can  the  rest  of  us. I.  Some  members  of  my  department. Actually  not  here.  I  would  say Bristol  needed  to  have  done  something  about  that. Anyway,  It's  also  about querying  and  perhaps  advocating  for, again,  you're  going  to  see  that  I'm  repeating certain  people's  words  because they've  been  so  influential. Johnny's  statement  about the  discipline  of  political  science, absent  the  interrogation  of  gender  power, political  science  can  only  ever  be partial  and  poor  political  science. And  I  hold  that  very, very  dear.  Okay,  some  friends. I'm  really  proud  of  this  book  and  I  don't think  I  would  often  have thought  that  I  would  say  such  a  thing, but  again,  it's  co  authored, so  I  can  say  that  because  it  means  I'm  proud  of  Karen. And  again,  Hazel  did  the  rather  lovely  yellow  dress. I  did  expect  Karen  to  wear  yellow  tonight, so  I'm  rather  disappointed  in  her. But  I'm  much  more  happy that  she  didn't  buy  me  a  yellow  dress. Okay,  this  book  was  supposed  to  have  been  quick. It  was  published  in  2020. It  took  a  long  time. It's  birth  was  in  South  Queens  Ferry. Fueled  by  the  delights  and the  dangers  of  Dave  Snack  cupboard. If  anybody  needs  a  writer's  retreat, Dave  Snack  cupboard  is  how  you  get  work  done. It  was  a  very,  very  hard book  to  write.  It  took  us  a  long  time. We  were  returning  to  big  theoretical  questions  that had  informed  both  of our  PhDs  and  Philips  Iris  Maron  Young's  work, and  we  theorized  representation  as  it  should  be. And  we  realized  over  time that  we  were  becoming  something  that  we  now  call institutional  designers  of  sorts.  It  was  a  risk. We  ignored  general  elections. We  didn't  write  any  other  articles, we  missed  conferences. We  had  to  hope  this  book  would  fill  the  gap. If  it  all  went  wrong,  the  CVs  would  have looked  very,  very  empty. We  also  learned  and  Karen tells  me  when  she  talks  about  the  way  we  work, which  is  literally,  we  sit  next  to each  other  and  write  it  together. There's  no  way  I  can  say,  Karen, those  are  Karen  sentences. These  are  mine,  right?  Doesn't  work  like  that. But  we  had  to  learn  to  trust  that  however perfect  that  one  sentence you  thought  you  were  writing  was, if  the  other  one  didn't  get  it, didn't  like  it,  you  started  again. And  I  think  that's absolutely  fundamental  to  collaborations. We  would  stop,  we'd  rewrite and  make  ourselves  even  more  tired. I  want  to  add,  however, that  we  were  hugely  advantaged  in  writing  this  book. We  had  departmental  funding  for  the  Eurostar  quite  a  lot. Was  one  time  that  she  came  just  for a  day  return  because  we  just couldn't  get  our  heads  around  saying. So,  those  of  you  doing  your  undergraduate  dissertations, just  keep  at  it,  right? We  did  that  kind  of  stuff. We  had  to  go  back,  rewrite,  edit,  rewrite,  edit. Our  departments  helped  us. They  funded  our  trains,  the  COVID  test, where  you  actually  had  to  go  to some  weird  establishment  in  the  middle  of the  countryside  with  all  of this  ID  that  they  never  tested, so  Karen  could  have  actually  taken  the  test  for  me, and  then  we  could  have  not  bothered. By  partners  and  lifestyles  that  enabled  us  to  decamp  to this  wonderful  Italian  city  of Bergamo  or  Bergamo,  as  Si  calls  it. We  wrote  for  weeks, two  summers  in  a  row, Collaborations  are  not  cost  free. That's  another  message  I  want  to  make  tonight. She  says,  looking  at  at  the  dean,  right? You  need  the  funding,  right? You  need  sabbaticals  for  writing books  in  my  opinion,  governments,  too. They've  got  to  support  European  as well  as  international  collaboration. The  grant  with  Rosie  that  I  will  come  onto. You  know,  Hizon,  what  was  this  government doing  pulling  us  out that  anyway.  That's  a  bit  of  politics. Okay.  Okay,  I'm  not going  to  just  go  through  all  of my  friends  who  are  sitting  in  this  bunch, and  that's  but  I am  going  to  talk  about  Professor  Rose  Campbell. Director  of  the  Global  Institute for  Women's  Leadership  at  Kings. She  was  my  first  politics  and  gender  friend. Introduced  well,  I  was  this  poor, isolated  skinny  because  the  stress  was  so much  a  Lost  two  stone,  PhD  students. As  of  last  year,  she  is  my  synergy  grant  rep,  CPI, I  think  how  they  call  it  anyway, originally  a  Horizon  grant, but  now  funded  by  UK  RI. Again,  we  would  not  have  got  this  grant without  support  from  our  institutions. I'm  especially  grateful  to  Edinburgh  colleagues. I  can  see  Toby  in  the  audience, who  had  to  witness  Rosie  and  I  doing  some  kind  of rather  crappy  presentations  as  we  got better  before  we  got  to  Brussels. People  here  supported  my  application,  our  application. Before  they'd  even  known  me. I  hadn't  actually  joined  officially, but  people  were  supporting  me. They  then  gave  up  some  of their  summer  to  read  this  paperwork  and  to  prepare  us. Particularly,  I  want  to  thank Caroline  Laffi  and  colleagues  in  professional  services, because  without  them,  this would  not  have  got  off  the  ground. Also  at  Kings,  I  need  to  thank  David  Newsome. Who  came  with  us  to  Brussels. But  the  first  thing  he  did  was  to  convince us  we  should  go  for  this  rather  strange  grant, where  you  kind  of  adopting a  natural  science  model  of  bringing  two  labs  together. We  were  so  nervous. One  of  the  wonderful  things  about  David  was  that  as we  exited  this  interview, he  had  bars  of  chocolate  ready  for  us. So  he  had  got  to  know  exactly  what  we  needed. If  anyone's  interested  in  the  story  of how  you  get  to  Brussels  from the  north  east  of  Scotland,  It's  quite  a  long  way. Charlie's  taxes  took  quite  a  long  time to  get  me  back  to  Inverness. And  yes,  it  was  quite  something. Okay.  For  any  early  career  academics  in  the  audience, I'm  really  happy  to  talk  about  you  blame, you  may  have  heard  already  recycling  your  grants. This  grant  was  on  the  reserve  list.  Believe  you. Believe  people  when  they  say, you  can  sometimes  get  grants. You  don't  think  you're  going  to  get. You  know,  it  was  tough, but  it's  worth  it,  and  you  just  need  to  keep  going, and  people  will  help  you. Colleagues  will  read,  critique,  support. Qual  rep  is  in  its  very,  very  early  stages. So  we've  got  five  years  to test  our  claim  that  the  silos  of quantitative  and  qualitative  research  into  the  quality of  political  representation  can  be  forever  smashed. The  final  question  I  think  they  asked  is, what's  the  risk,  and  it's  like,  we  can't  do  it. But  maybe  the  risk,  and  this  is  what  I  wanted  to  say and  said  then  was  that  actually we  work  it  out  and  things  change, and  wouldn't  that  be  quite  a  powerful  outcome. But  interestingly,  we  had  to downplay  our  friendship  as  we  applied  for  this  grant. We  didn't  want  people.  We  were  advised not  to  let  people  know  how  friendly  we  were. We  were  supposed  to  be  different  labs  who  didn't  really work  together  coming  together  in  this  new  funded  project. I  mean,  Rosie  does  have  a  tendency  to  finish  my  sentences sometimes  when  she's  not absolutely  happy  with  what  I'm  saying, so  you'll  see  it  later if  she  feels  that  I'm  not  representing  this  properly. As  I've  reflected  on  that  now,  it's  made  me  think About  whether  yet  again, this  doesn't  reproduce  the  idea  of a  scientific  model  of  the individual  isolated  heroic  research. I've  said  that  before,  but  I'm trying  to  really  emphasize  this. Instead  of  really  recognizing the  embedded  connected  community  that  I think  is  constitutive  of  research  excellence. As  we  prepared  our  bid, we  really  wanted  to  make  sure  that  we were  supporting  a  next  generation  of  scholars, supporting  job  share  and  hybrid  working. And  it  was  a  political  decision  for us  to  open  up  our  PhDs  to  those who  are  high  quality  newly  graduated  undergraduates and  not  just  those  with  masters. This  rather  estacy  picture  is  some  of  them  team. Our  new  PhDs,  Alyssa  and  Yana. Unfortunately,  Yana  got  stuck  at  Grantham  and  is on  her  way  home  because  the  train  broke  down. So  one  of  our  PhDs  isn't  here, but  Alyssa  is  here,  so thank  you  for  coming  and  joining  our  team. And  of  course,  this  team  also includes  Mero  Kenny  and  Sara  Lou. So  we  are  building, and  this  project  should  be  fantastic. Hold  us  to  that.  I  guess  somebody  will. Anyway,  enough  of  that,  my  friends. Let  me  move  on  to  women's  friendship. So  my  research  into women's  Parliamentary  friendship  started as  part  of  a  very  large  grant on  ceremony  and  rituals  in  Parliament, funded  by  the  Lea  Hume  Trust, a  grant  for  which  you  did not  need  all  of  that  cross  referencing and  a  massive  plan  and a  very  detailed  set  of  work  packages. It  was  one  of  those  blue  skies. We  didn't  have  a  clue  what  we  were  doing ceremonies  and  rituals  in  Parliament. And  what  I  wanted  to  explore was  the  ways  in  which  women's  parliamentary  friendships, amongst  Labor's  1997  women  MPs  operated, and  it  was  prompted  by a  few  comments  in  her  earlier historical  works  on  women  MPs, which  talked  about  women  periodically  coming together  and  trying  to  achieve  policy  change, not  really  been  studied  systematically. But  he  was  also  Something  prompted  by  some  work, a  small  piece  of  work  I  did  on  the  reduction  of VAT  on  sanitary  products  at  the  time of  the  Brown  chancellorship. And  a  claim  by  a  woman  MP  Chris  McCafferty, that  she  had  mobilized labor  women  MPs  to  sign  early  day  motions. And  let  me  have a  little  sort  of  rummage around  a  small  archive  in  her  office. And  there  was  this  piece  of  bgo,  which  had  written  on  it. Got  to  get  all  the  women  MPs  to  sign. And  I  rather  love  this  little  piece  of  work. It's  not  one  that's  highly  cited. It's  sort  of  disappeared. But  if  you  ask  me,  is  it  a  good  piece  of  research? I  think  it  is  because  it  takes  a  question, it  takes  a  claim  from  an  interview. And  it  made  me  do  some  quantitative  research to  find  out  whether  this  claim  was  actually  true. Did  labor  women  MPs disproportionately  sign  this  early  day  motion? And  if  so,  how  do  we  explain  that and  what  wider  implications does  it  have?  Actually  it  is  true,  right? Labor  women  MPs  were  more  likely  to  sign  women's  EDMs, and  more  likely  still to  sign  feminist  women's  early  day  motions? It  was  also  said  to  be  in  play. Women's  friendship  was  said  to  be  in  play. When  women  MPs  were  under  attack  in  the  chamber, when  there  were  some  of  the  ministerial  resignations under  the  Blair  Brown  premiership. People  said,  Actually,  did  we  do  enough to  support  these  women  at  the  time? You  see  it  sometimes  when  there's the  dough  nutting  of  women  MPs in  the  House  of  Commons  in  the  chamber  where you  can  see  women  MPs  sitting  around  each  other. Now,  of  course,  you're  absolutely, if  anyone's  thinking,  well,  how  do  we know  if  men  friends  are  sitting  next  to  men? There's  so  many  more  men.  You  just  can't see  the  boundaries  in  the  same  way,  right? So  they  may  have  their  friends sitting  around  them  to  support  them. And  I  guess  when  we  know  the  sort  of naughty  corner  of  the  House  of  Commons, you  can  see  these  friendship  groups  in  operation. But  what  I  did  was  I  took  some  I  undertook interviews  with  a  large  number  of  what  I like  to  call  my  women  MPs,  my  labor  women  MPs. There's  not  very  many  left,  actually,  I  have  to  say. I  was  looking  at  how  many  of  them  were  standing  down and  there's  just  not  very  many  left  now. So  I  undertook  new  interviews. But  I  also  looked  at  media  representations, print  media  representation  of women's  friendships  to  see  the  ways in  which  friendship  was  responded  to  as  an  idea, as  a  practice  within  politics. And  I  worked  with  this  idea  that women's  political  friendships  constituted a  personal  and  a  political  resource, and  it  was  located  in  a  shared  gender  consciousness. And  it  supported  women  MPs  to  work  in  the very  masculinized  and  male dominated  institution  that  is  Westminster, and  if  anybody  disagrees, Chloe  Challenger  is  here  and can  give  you  any  account  of  Westminster, probably  off  the  record  of  what it's  like  to  exist  in  such  a  place. It  enabled  these  women  MPs  to rework  masculinized  rules  to destabilize  them  if  they  couldn't  overturn  them and  to  be  better  and  more  effective  representatives. At  the  same  time,  women's  friendship, if  you  think  back  to  what  I  said  about those  popular  representations  of  women's  friendship, also  invited  critical  comment and  at  times  over  resistance. Querying,  questioning,  decrying  the  privileging  of gender  over  party  identity  and  adversarial  politics. So  women's  friendships  got  in  the  way of  the  usual  way  of  doing  politics. They  were  deemed  inappropriate  to the  ways  that  things  should  be  done  in  Westminster. They  were  threatening  men's  preferences  and  power. They  were  seemingly  these  women  always  plotting. Doesn't  women  to  be perceived  to  be  plotting  in  the  House  of  Commons. About  four  is  probably  enough. And  even  if  there's  one  man  and  four  women, it's  still  enough  for  it  to  be  a  plot. Though  sitting  together  on  the  commons  benches  does represent  a  challenge  to the  maculinized  nature  of  the  house. There's  a  few  of  them  having  dinner, then  it's  definitely  definitely something  serious  going  on. But  they  also  exchange  and  rely  upon  WSAp  groups, particularly  mother  WhatsApp  groups as  a  way  of  trying  to  successfully, I  guess,  survive  in  some  ways,  the  House  of  Commons. Oh,  sorry.  To  many  screens. So  I  now  want  to  talk  a  little  bit. So  switching  from  that  initial  period  under one  particular  project  to some  of  that  more  impactful  research, when  I  invited  myself  into the  House  of  Commons  in  2015,  2016, preparing  the  good  Parliament  report  and  then advising  thereafter  until  2018, a  new  group  of  MPs  who  would take  forward  those  recommendations, the  Commons  reference  group. Why  did  I  invite  myself  into the  House  of  Commons  and  why  did  they  let  me  in? So  the  invitation  bit  is  easy. It  was  a  certain  academic  arrogance. Gender  and  politics,  literature has  told  us  what's  wrong  with  it. We  knew  what  needed  to  change. But  I  was  my  access  was facilitated  by  knowing  parliamentary  carts, knowing  women  MPs  back  to  the  1997  election, having  worked  with  the  speaker  previously. And  those  relationships  enabled an  informal  access  that  meant  I  could hang  around  parliament  for  a  considerable  period  of  time. I  mean,  initially, the  grant  application  gave  me  one  semester, but  that  wasn't  really  long  enough. I  took  a  lot  longer  than  that.  But  self  invitation, informal  access,  eased  by  relationships. The  kind  of  relationships  that  enable  you to  be  more  skeptical  when you're  told  how  something  has  to  be for  tradition  or  for  reasons  of  convention, or  for  reasons  of  effectiveness. What  actually  what  you're  being  told  is  about people's  preferences  for  doing politics  in  this  kind  of  way. This  slide,  which  I  don't  expect  you  to  read, but  you'll  hopefully  pull  out  some  of  the  aspects. I  wrote  a  40,000  word  report. And  then  I  got  to  this  group, they  said,  Oh,  what  does  a  good  parliament  look  like? And  being  a  good  academic, I  didn't  just  say,  Well,  read 40,000  words.  It's  all  there. I've  spent  a  long  time  doing  this. They  wanted  a  paragraph. It  was  very  hard  to  distill. I  had  to  write  three  pages first  and  then  get  it  down  to  a  paragraph. But  translating  academic  work  for public  parliamentary  audiences  is another  skill  we  all  need to  learn  if  we're  going  to  have  an  impact on  those  who  will  not  read  40,000  words,  right? They're  just  not  going  to  read  it. Anyway,  there  was  that  lovely  single  paragraph. Just  to  give  you  a  plase, because  I  need  to  give  you  some  of the  background  before  I  can  talk  a  little  bit  more. So,  in  drafting,  First,  the  report, and  then  a  new  book  that  I'm hopefully  very  close  to  finishing, designing  and  building  feminist  institutions, the  making  of  the  Good  Parliament. I've  reviewed  what  I  did  at  the  time, I've  reconsidered  what  I  might  have  done, perhaps  should  have  done, analyze  the  actors,  the  institutions, and  the  political  dynamics  in  play. And  this  chart  just  is a  very  brief  representation  of  the  insensitivitie, the  diversity  insensitivities  in  2015, and  what  it  looked  like  post  the  Good  Parliament  report. Rag  just  means  red  Amber  green. That's  another  Chloe  Callender, and  others  advise  that  MPs  need  to  have information  visually  because  you  don't  want  to  open  up. Can  I  debate  this?  You  need  to  tell  them, this  is  the  situation? This  is  the  stat  of  play.  How  do  we then  move  to  solutions? So  highlighting  to  MPs, and  I  think  some  officials  and  clerks, let's  not  let  all  officials  and  clerks  off  the  hook  here, being  able  to  present  to  them  in  a  way  that  you hope  close  down  contestation about  the  diversity  insensitivity. So  in  that  2015  column, a  single  green,  and  that was  probably  a  bit  generous,  right? The  women  that  refers  to  the  establishment of  the  Women  In  equalities  Committee, and  it  was  only  temporary  them. But  I  thought  they  needed  one  green,  right? So  again,  thinking  about  how  you  have  to  engage  in a  double  performance  as an  impactful  researcher  doing  the  research, but  also  persuading  people. And  so  a  single  green  seemed  to  be  rather  a  good  idea. Look,  your  institution  has  changed, and  you  can  therefore  change  more, even  somewhere  as  traditional  and  venerated, whatever  the  House  of  Commons  might  be. The  addition  of  the  second  column shows  some  improvements. So  the  report  did  give  rise  to  I  mean, 18  of  the  43  numbered, have  been  introduced,  adopted, implemented  in  part  or  in  full. But  that  dark  green  in  that  bottom  corner, Acknowledges  what  I  think  we  have to  understand  in  this  country, and  I  guess,  more  widely, the  era  of  increasingly  polarized  politics,  Brexit, politics  in  the  House  of  Commons,  the  commons,  bullying, harassment  and  sexual  violence, incidences  that  have  been  revealed. And  so  questioning,  making clear  that  that  upward  trajectory  to  a  more  inclusive, more  diversity,  sensitive  parliament cannot  be  taken  for  granted. And  we  need  to  think  about  the  context within  which  the  efforts  that  we undertake  actually  to  what  extent  are  they  realizable? To  what  extent  are  they  to  use Merrill's  phrase  and  others  sticking  or  sticky,  right? We  need  to  think  about  what  we  can  achieve. That  becomes  important  in  an  era  of impactful  academic  evaluations,  governance  regimes. Can  we  produce  that  four  star  impact  case  study without  being  able  to  control  all  of  the  other  factors? As  I  reconsidered, particularly  when  I  was  rewriting  the  draft, remember  that  point  about  students  editing, rewriting,  re  reading,  rewriting, editing,  doing  all  over  again. C  you  get  it.  You've  only  got  four  more  weeks. You'll  get  there,  right?  The  Feminist  friendship became  a  lens  for understanding  institutional  change  and  resistance, and  that's  what  I  want  to  move  on  to. So  classic  understandings  of  how change  functions  in  institutions like  Westminster  would  not  see  what  I  think  I  could  see. Okay?  So  I  was  seconded,  but  I  was  independent. The  secondment  was  the  name  of  the  grant. Chris  Grayling  was  very  upset with  me  for  using  the  term  Sc. Chris  Grayling,  for  those  of  you  don't know  is  Rosie  is  actually  MP. And  he's  I  have  to  be  really  careful. I  say  this  is  a  public  lecture. I  once  spent  an  hour  in  his  office, and  he  explained  to  me  very  carefully  that Parliament  was  already  women  friendly,  family  friendly. And  I,  clearly,  as  a  good  academic, sat  there  and  listened  and  smiled and  thought  lots  of  thoughts  that  remain  in  my  head. Anyway,  I  asked  him  if  I  could  speak  to  him  recently 'cause  I'm  writing  this  book.  Dimm  child. Since  I  don't  use  my  title  very  often, but  seriously,  you  can  use  it,  Chris  Grayling. Anyway,  he  didn't  want  to  speak  to  me,  and  that's  fine. I  don't  mind.  I  know,  I  know. But  then  I  worry  about  who  he's  going  to get  replaced  with,  but  let's  not  open  that. I  told  you  she  answers  my  question. Okay,  so  what  I want  to  suggest  in  the  book  that  I'm  finalizing  is  that actually  bringing  a  feminist  lens  to understanding  power  within  our  political  institutions enables  us  to  see  dynamics in  play  that  others  would  not  see. And  I  identify  these  three  new  dynamics  that operate  and  sometimes  become sort  of  really  significant  in  critical  moments, gender  parliamentarianism,  the  gendered  executive, and  this  gendered  administrative  political  coalescence. Now,  none  of  these  are  guaranteed,  right? I'm  not  suggesting  that  these will  always  be  present  either  in the  House  of  Commons  or  are present  in  any  other  particular  institutions, but  it's  worth  looking  for  them. Right?  They're  not  necessarily  permanent  features. I've  already  alluded  to the  changing  political  context  backdrop, although  it's  not  a  backdrop. We  use  backdrop,  don't  we  as  if  it's  a  passive  way  of understanding  the  context  within  which  change  happens. The  The  effects  of  these  three  dynamics  are  not certain  on  political  actors  or relationships  or  the  established  rules and  norms  or  structures. That's  the  empirical  question. To  what  extent  are  these  dynamics operating  to  bring  about  institutional  change. So  gender  parliamentarianism  is a  phenomenon  that  recast and  is  a  critique  of  the  concept  of  parliamentarianism, referring  to  when  women  MPs come  together  as  members  of  the  legislature, act  collectively  across  party  and  work  for  gendered  ends. So  they  are  rejecting the  traditional  understanding  of the  executive  legislative  divide. So  to  what  extent  are  we  able  to evidence  this  in  operation? And  how  is  that  helping  bring  about  gender  change? Gendered  executive,  again,  looking  at  relations  between women  MPs  on  the  backbenches  of different  parties  and  women  members  of  the  government. Can  we  see  indicators  of  shared  affinity,  actions, relationships  that  support  the  realization of  more  gender  equal  Ns  in  some  way. Administrative  political  coalescence might  be  a  bit  of  an  ugly  term, but  no  one's  come  up  with  anything  better when  they've  helped  me  review  this. Why  is  this  important? It's  important,  I  think,  for  me, because  it  gives  voice  to  staff whose  voices  are  not  always heard  when  we  study  parliaments. It  recognizes  that, at  least  in  the  House  of  Commons  when  I  was  there, that  there  were  particularly  in mid  ranking  positions  on  the  administrative  side. Women  who  were  experiencing  witnessing, knowing  about  gendered  inequalities in  their  workplace  and coming  to  appreciate  that working  with  MPs  who  had  similar  experiences, if  not  similar,  but  you  know  what  I  mean, the  sense  of  recognizes these  gendered  structural  and cultural  inequalities  within  the  institution. So  it's  women  clerks  and  officials, predominantly  who  speak  out  about  and  act on  gender  insensitivities  in  their  parliament  and working  across  what  at  least at  Westminster  is  a  very  deferential  service  culture. Failed  miserably  in  my  time  in  parliament  to  try  to  get the  idea  of  co  professionals introduced  and  becoming  a  language. The  electoral  mandate,  the  primacy of  the  elected  MP  was  very  resistant  to any  ideas  that  the  people  around them  who  work  with  them  to support  their  parliamentary  work  could be  considered  co  professionals. This  kind  of  coalescence  of  the  coming  together  of critical  clerks  and  officials  with  women  MPs, shouldn't  be  overstated,  I  don't  think, but  it  also  maps  onto  the  era  of  the  establishment  of staff  equality  networks  and  the  ability  of the  institution  to  put  some  kind  of  resources, by  no  means  sufficient, but  to  put  some  resources  into supporting  members  of  staff  critiquing  their  workplaces, but  also  critiquing  the  work  of  parliament. I  think  that's  really  important,  too. In  so  doing,  there  was  a  challenge  to more  senior  clerks  who disproportionately  back  in  2015  and  16, and  I'm  sure,  disproportionately  out, but  nonetheless,  much  more  visible  then. Those  clerks  at  the  top  of  the  administration, who  are  overwhelmingly  men  to recognize  that  this  ideal  of Clarke  professionalism  impartiality  is  not  the same  as  rejecting  a  feminist  critique  of  the  institution. So  to  put  another  way, that  Clarkley  traditionalism  around  conventions, precedents,  reproduces rather  than  redresses  gender  inequalities. And  that  was  the  challenge  to  senior  clarks  was  that  if they  want  to  hold  onto  those  ideas  of carkley  professionalism  and  impartiality, that  is  not  the  same  as  suggesting  that a  gender  and  diversity  in sensitive  parliament  should  be  permitted  in  that  way. John  mentioned  proxy  voting  for  baby  leave, arguably  the  most  significant of  the  recommendations  that's  been  taken  up. And  what  this  little  case  study in  the  book  does  is  really explore  those  gender  dynamics  that  were  in  play, but  also  reveal  some  of the  critical  actors  that  were  also  really  significant, necessary  to  bring  about  some  of  these  changes. It  took  four  years  to  actually  get  the  change. So  you're  right  in  2016, how  weird  that  it  took  that  long for  people  to  talk  about  it, but  even  longer  to  actually  bring  it  about. Permanent  change  for  standing  orders  was  in  2020, the  trial  in  2019. But  analyzing  that  campaign for  formal  rule  change  really, I  think  illuminates  that  process of  bringing  about  gendered  institutional  change. There  was  the  creation  of  a  shared  agenda, taking  up  recommendation  12  of the  Good  Parliament  report  that  accepted a  critique  of  informal  ways  of  dealing with  those  MPs  who  had  children. The  ideas  of  pairing  and  nodding. These  informal  ways  of  dealing  with  bodies, right,  were  no  longer  sufficient. They  were  insecure.  They  had  been  failed  pairs. Some  of  you  might  remember  Joe  Swinson, the  liberal  Democrat  MP, who  understood  that  if  she  was  not  going  to  vote, somebody  else  would  not  vote,  right? That's  the  idea  of  pairing, but  the  pair  was  broken. Doesn't  cover  all  parties, the  SMP,  for  example. Also,  in  the  heightened  times  of  Brexit, Tulip  Sadik,  the  MP  for  Hampstead, and  Highgate  was  not prepared  to  not  have  her  vote  counted. She  was  a  woman  of  color, who  felt  it  was  very  important  that people  could  see  how  she  had  voted. And  so  she  delays  her  Cesarean. There's  a  fantastic  picture, but  I  haven't  used  it  because  Helene would  tell  me  off  for  copyright, so  I  took  it  off  a  slide, but  just  Google  it  in  your  own  time. Seeing  the  pregnant,  heavily pregnant  woman  in  a  wheelchair  in the  chamber  of  the  House  of  Commons  really  revealed the  extent  to  which  these  practices were  just  simply  inadequate. Gender  Parliamentarianism  was  most  definitely  in  play. There  were  conversations  amongst  women  MPs, whether  that  was  in  the  tea  rooms, via  WhatsApp,  coming  together  in  debates, asking  her  questions, significant  about  parliamentary  activity  going  on. But  there's  also  something  about the  a  gendered  executive  here. The  leader  of  the  House, I  mean,  she  had  a  battle  on  her  hands,  right? It  wasn't  easy  for  her  to  bring  this  about, but  she  was  someone  who  is  known  for her  work  around  the  attachment  theory. The  Prime  Minister,  obviously,  it's  time. I  mean,  I  say  obviously,  some  of  you  it's  obvious to  me  because  I've  been  stuck  in this  book  for  a  couple  of  years. Theresa  May,  I  Tresa  May  had  not  been prepared  to  support  this over  the  period,  it  could  have  died. So  people  would  argue that  that  combination  of  a  leader  of  a  house, the  Prime  Minister,  and  then  the  mother of  the  house,  Harriet  Harmon. This  new  institution  that  emerges  as the  longest  sitting  woman  MP  takes  on  the  mantle. This  didn't  exist.  We  have  a  father  of  the  house. It's  not  called  that  in  standing  orders, but  there  is  a  role  for  the  longest serving,  continuously  serving  MP. But  Harry  Harmon  makes that  institution,  through  repetition, through  having  it  on  her  headed  notepaper, by  taking  on  the  claim  to  be  the  authoritative, most  senior  voice  for  women  in  parliament. And  so  that  combination  of those  very  senior  women  in the  executive  and  leadership  positions, work  with  other  women  MPs. And  with  the  support  of  staff  who  were enabling  by  determining  how  best  to  have  a  motion, have  a  debate,  working  out, scribbling,  the  actual  motion  itself  in  a  meeting. Of  course,  we  were,  as, I  think,  it's  quite  fair  to  say, reliant  in  many  of  the  reforms  that  were  adopted by  senior  men  in  significant  positions  of  power,  right? Because  in  order  to  bring  about  change, if  you  are  not  in  those  positions  of  power, it  can  be  quite  hard  to  bring  about  those  changes. So  critical  male  allies  should  not  be  underestimated. I  sometimes  like  the  idea  that men  who  have  the  ability  to incur  the  costs  of  gendered  political  change, whether  that's  in  parliaments  or  universities, should  be  doing  the  work,  right because  it's  less  costly  for  them. I'm  not  looking  at  anybody  in  particular  I  promise, but  you  can  take  on  that  mantle  as  you  might  like. So  the  speaker,  the  reference  group and  the  chair  of  the  Procedure  Committee  are  important. Of  course,  we  used  extra  parliamentary  supporters, including  some  men  and women  in  the  media  to  support  this. So  these  dynamics  were  very  much  in  play. But  I  also  want  to  introduce the  idea  of  the  feminist  academic  critical  actor. As  an  example  of  how  we  might  theorize  or conceptualize  the  impactful  academic who  is  doing  something  a  little  bit  different. So  as  I  tried  to  write  this  book  about  my  time  pon, when  I  was  doing  the  work,  I  was  doing  impact. I  needed  that  impact  four  style  case  study, I  wasn't  thinking  necessarily  like  a  researcher. But  people  kept  asking  me  about how  I  was  going  about  this  work. I've  talked  about  persuasion  work, can  think  about  the  double  performance, getting  the  information, developing  the  politically  credible  reforms, but  also  needing  them  to  be  technically  accurate, so  working  with  clocks  and other  MPs  to  get  the  right  kind  of  recommendations. But  as  I  thought  back  and  reflected  on  what  I  did, both  in  drafting  the  Good  Parliament  report, but  also  in  advising  the  reference  group, so  that  group  of  MPs  that  we  set  up  after the  Good  Parliament  report  was  published  and was  in  operation  2016-2018. This  new  character  began  to  form. And  the  feminist  academic  critical  actor  builds on  my  earlier  work  with Mona  Lena  Crook  on  critical  actors, but  also  engages  with  Fiona  Makai  and Louise  Chapells  ideas  around the  concept  of  feminist  critical  friends. And  I  do  want  to  add  here, I  know  Fiona  can't  be  here  tonight, but  she  has  been  hugely  generous in  helping  me  to  tighten  up  the  concept. So  I  think  that  again  is  about  intellectual  generosity, academic  generosity, and  something  we  should  all  be  practicing. So  the  feminist  academic  critical  actor  is  not the  elected  representative  envisaged by  the  original  and  arguably  narrow, perhaps  under  theorized  concept  at  the  time that  Lona  Crook  and  I advanced  it  as  a  critique  of  critical  mass  theory. Let's  not  go  there,  but  anyway,  it's  rubbish. It  recognizes  the  impactful  aca  not  our  concept. Critical  mass  is  slightly  rubbish. Recognizes  the  impactful  academic  researcher as  a  change  agent. Undertaking  institutional  redesign  and  rebuilding  works. You'll  see  how  some  of  this  work, in  this  book,  which  is  about my  time  being  an  impactful  researcher, could  not  have  emerged  without the  work  that  I've  done  with  Karen  on feminist  Democratic  representation  and Democratic  listening  and  democratic  design. Though,  the  feminist  academic critical  actor  is  critical  in the  sense  of  being  essential  to instigating  and  institutional  change. She's  not  just  a  friend of  whoever  else  is  trying  to  bring  about  change. The  distinction  here  between Fiona  and  Louisa's  gender  expert or  advocate  feminist  critical  friend and  the  feminist  academic  critical  actor is  or  lies  in the  substantial  and intentional  institutional  redesign  and building  work  envisaged  for this  aspirant  feminist  academic  critical  actor. So  it's  not  just  how  much  advocacy  work  she  undertakes, but  the  fact  of  her  being  essential  to driving  and  at  times  leading  institutional  change. Again,  this  matters  because  I've  already  alluded  to  this, we  are  evaluated  for  how  impactful  we  are. We  need  to  think  about  the  potential  for feminist  academic  critical  actors to  be  so  named  because  otherwise, some  of  their  work  will  not  be  seen. And  that  will  have  implications  when  we  go  for  promotion, when  we  go  for  increment  point. I'm  not  looking  at  anybody  again. It's  very  hard.  No  to. Sorry.  But  it  is  something  I  think  we  need  to  talk  about. There  are  rewards  and  costs  of  doing  impact  work,  right? Costs  to  do  with  your  other  work to  light  work  life  balance, to  producing  outputs  that  will  also  be  judged. Costs  also  to  do  with  the  risks  of being  a  woman  in  the  public  realm, being  a  feminist  in  the  public  realm, the  violence  we  might  incur, whether  that's  social  media  or  physically  the  case,  too. The  Feminist  academic  critical  actor is  also  agent  and  analyst. Both  use  Karen  one  of  Karen's  phrases  Encore  de  route. Doctor  he  said  very  well because  I  don't  speak  French  very  well. But  she's  also  an  analyst.  Doing  both  of  these  things. You're  acting  and  trying  to  analyze the  effects  of  what  you're  doing  at  the  time, as  well  as  after  the  intervention. That's  why  it's  so  exhausting. That's  why  I  spent  months,  I  will  say, dribbling  into  my  pillow  at  9:00 A.M.  And  that's  in  a  context  where  I didn't  need  to  clean  my  house  because  it  didn't  matter if  it  was  really  dirty  because  it  was  kind  of  me  there. And  I  didn't  need  to  cook  because  I  had a  partner  who  was  more  than  happy  to  cook. I  didn't  have  children. All  of  these,  the  political  economy  of doing  this  work  is  also  really  important. And  we  have  to  think  about  the  resistance  to  our  efforts. Okay.  That  clock  is really  disturbing  me  'cause  it's  completely  wrong, but  I  think  I  make  it  just  about  6:10. Okay.  Where  do  we  go  from  here? There's  so  much  more  I  could  say, but  I'm  not  going  to  because I  know  it  could  get  too  much. In  making  very  initial  defense of  my  concept  to  the  Feminist  Academic  critical  act, probably  just  introducing  her  rather  than  defending  her. And  she  might  not  just  be  a  her,  by  the  way, and  offering  up  something of  my  sconment  in  the  House  of  Commons. I  really  wanted  to  reveal the  feminist  friendships  that  underpin the  gender  dynamics  that  marked the  House  of  Commons  at  the  time  of the  good  Parliament  Report, but  also  to  explicitly speak  to  those  political  and  personal  friendship  that support  the  academic  and  the  impactful  academic. I  hope  I've  really  acknowledged the  intellectual  and  personal  debt to  what  is  an  international  politics  and gender  community  that  has  sustained  me, sustained  me,  and  will  do  in  the  future, I  hope,  as  I've  offended  them  tonight. Particularly  those  who  I've  co  authored, these  are  most  of  my  co  authors. You  can  see  the  aging  going  on  here  as  well, which  is  something  to  be  observed,  I  have  to  say. I  couldn't  have  done  all  of this  without  them  intellectually, but  I  couldn't  have  done  it  if  they  hadn't  been quite  as  much  fun  because  we  denigrate  what  we  do. I  once  didn't  get  a  job. I  had  gone  to  a  mainstream  political  scientist. I  had  rather  wonderful  chat  with a  senior  male  academic  who  was  on  the  panel. And  I  said,  Oh,  do  you  think  I  need  to write  something  that  doesn't  have  gender  in  the  title, to  make  myself  look  like  I can  do  proper  political  science. He  said  for  God's  sake,  hey, he  says,  Hey,  they're  not  going  to  believe  you,  right? On  piece  is  not  going  to  make  the  difference. And  then  he  said,  life, academic  life  is  hard  enough  as  it is  without  doing  the  work  that  you  love. So  you  would  hate  it,  and  it  would  be  rubbish. He  didn't  say  the  rubbish  bit, but  I  knew  that  it  wouldn't  be  very  good. So,  we  shouldn't  underestimate how  important  those  personal  friendships, those  political  friendships  are  for How  we  develop  our  research  agendas, how  we  do  our  research, and  how  we  do  try  to  make a  difference  in  the  world  that  we  study. Peter  Allan  and  I  don't  have  a  selfie. I'd  messaged  him  and  I  said,  Oh  God, please  don't  tell  me  the  only  picture  we  have  is jogging  at  PSA  in  Liverpool  last  year, 'cause  I  really  don't  want  to have  a  picture  of  us  on  that. Johnny,  I  think,  deserves  her  own  picture. Some  of  the  reports  that  I've  been involved  with  with  co  authors, Sonia  Palmieri,  on  the  UN, Merrill,  and  others  on  Parliament  for  all. Johnny  and  Rosie  on  the  Hansard  society. That  Hansard  Society  report originally  had  the  most  terrible  cover. It  was  Barbie  Pink  before  Barbie  was  trendy, and  it  had  It  had  a  tape  measure. It  looked  like  a  diet  product. And  I  remember  ringing  up  the  hands  society  and  saying, I'm  looking  forward  to  seeing  the  cover. I  said,  and  they  saw.  I  said, I'll  be  any  color  but  pink, and  there  was  this  massive  silence. And  then  when  I  saw  it,  I  just  said,  This  cannot. This  has  to  go.  This  has  to  go. And  for  those  of  you  know, that's  Julie's  pink  skirt  that  is  the  most, I  believe,  retweeted  tweet that  I've  ever  done.  Is  that  still  the  case? So,  whatever  you  write, you  wear  a  skirt  because  somebody says  you  have  to  wear  pink, and  I  decided  they  would  all  think  I  would  have, like,  a  little  bit  of  pink nail  varnish  or  a  little  pink  ag. And  I  thought  I'm  going  to  go  full  out  in  pink. And  if  you  like,  that's  my  intellectual  legacy, one  Pink  sku  in  Amsterdam. Don't  Google  it.  Anyway,  I  trust  I  really have  thanked  everybody  who  needs  to  be  thanked, couldn't  have  done  it  without  all  of  you. The  wine  awakes,  so  thank  you  very  much. Sara,  I  know  that  there's  not  gonna  be  any  questions, but  I  sort  of  am  allowed  to  have a  few  closing  remarks  in  the  midst  of  all  of  this, so  don't  escape  quite  so  easily. That's  a  fantastic  talk.  Thank  you  very  much. When  you  were  appointed  back  in  May  2022, as  maybe  just  me  that  does  this, I  sort  of  contacted some  colleagues  down  in  Royal  Holloway  and  said, I  hear  that  we're  sealing  one  of  your  colleagues. Any  Jen  that  you  have. And  I  said,  sort  of, you  were  a  fantastic  colleague, a  wonderful  human  being. And  an  outstanding  academic, that  is  a  role  model  for  others. And  actually,  having  gotten  to  know you  slightly  over  the  past  two  years, I  can  really  understand  where  they  were  coming  from, and  I  think  that  comes  through  from  your  work. Also  think,  and  it's  a  personal  thing  that  you know  the  measure  of  someone by  the  company  that  they  keep. And  haven't  haven't  had  the  wine  yet. Yeah,  that's  right.  I'll  get more  of  an  assessment  later  on  today. But  I  saw  on  your  CV  that  sort  of  one  of  your  referees  is von  Galligan  who  had the  great  pleasure  of  working  with  at Queens  University  in  Belfast. And  was  always  somebody  who  was  one  of those  people  who  was  a  touchstone in  terms  of  trying  to  think about  what's  the  right  thing  to  do  here? Not  just  about  politics  or  issues  around  equality, but  just  about  virtually  everything. And  so,  yeah,  that  sort  of  made me  smile  when  I  saw  her  name  there. I  think  what  comes  across  in  terms of  the  value  and  importance  of your  work  is  not  only  this  idea  of  trying to  think  about  women  in  politics, because  that's  a  whole  spectrum  from  those who  have  done  tremendous  things, both  good  and  not  so  good. I  put  down  some  names  here, but  it  wouldn't  be  fair  to mention  this  trust's  name  at  this  stage. But  this  idea  about  feminist  institutions as  well  and  what  that  can teach  other  institutions  about how  we  go  about  the  business  that  we're  engaged  in. And  it's  not  purely  or  solely about  women  in  positions  of authority  or  power  or  leadership. But  it's  about  how  we  think  about  the  world  around  us  and about  the  place  of  equality  and  about  representation, and  about  how  we  create  a  much  more  thoughtful caring  and  constructive  institution that  delivers  on  its  aims, which  are  quite  often  for  the  public  good, but  can  do  them  in  some  ways that  are  terrible  and  destructive. And  I  think  your  work  starts  to  disentangle  some  of  that, T  throws  up  challenges for  us  all  to  engage  with,  but  doesn't  away, which  is  very  constructive  and  is about  sort  of  the  sense of  in  all  of  what  we're  trying  to  do, systems  and  processes  are  important, but  let's  not  also  forget  about  the  importance  of relationships  as  well  to  make  that  all  work. I  think,  since  you  talked  about the  powerhouse  that  is  Edinburgh, and  it's  very  clear  look  around  the  room  and C  so  many  colleagues  from  PIR. And  not  only  do  we  have  this  large  group  that you've  joined  in  terms  of  gender  scholars, but  you've  also  taken  that in  exciting  and  important  new  directions  as  well. So  you're  not  just  adding, you're  also  sort  of  helping  to  grow the  work  that  we  do  here  collectively. And  so  on  behalf  of  everyone, I  would  like  to  thank  you  for  your  presentation  today. I'd  like  to  thank  you  for  all  that you  contribute  to  the  school, and  we  look  forward  to  seeing  where  things  go  to  next. So  can  we  show  our  appreciation  once  again?