Professor Anne Laure Humbert

This article provides a multilevel intersectional analysis of the prevalence and frequency of gender-based violence within universities and other research organisations in Europe. Results show not only the high prevalence of gender-based violence in this context, but also that in contrast to the prevailing discourse, that gender-based violence is not solely a 'women’s problem', but a structural issue impacting diverse identities. Data on frequency shows that physical and sexual violence usually occur as isolated incidents, whereas psychological violence and harassment are often repeated.

The aim of the paper is to discuss how thinking about gender-based violence intersectionally and in context can not only enrich our understandings but also lead to transformative change in organisations. The paper argues that to better understand gender-based violence in universities and research institutions, analyses need be intersectional and contextual. Such approaches go beyond binary understandings of gender and narrow legalistic definitions of gender-based violence. The paper reflects on how to operationalise this to derive starting points for intersectional categories to consider and contextual factors to measure at micro, meso and macro levels. It concludes that a multi-level intersectional analysis leads to more nuanced knowledge on experiences of gender-based violence, and is therefore better equipped to inform the development of measures to eradicate the problem in an inclusive way.

This study aims to advance the Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy (MAIHDA) approach by addressing two key questions. First, it investigates the impact of using increasingly complex combinations of variables to create intersectional strata on between-stratum variance, measured by the variance partitioning coefficients (VPCs). Second, it examines the stability of coefficients for fixed effects across models with an increasing number of hierarchical levels. The analysis is performed using data from a survey of over 42,000 respondents on the prevalence of gender-based violence in European research organisations conducted in 2022. Results indicate that the number of intersectional strata is not significantly related to the proportion of the total variance attributable to the variance between intersectional strata in the MAIHDA approach. Moreover, the coefficients remain relatively stable and consistent across models with increasing complexity, where levels about organisations and countries are added. The analysis concludes that the MAIHDA approach can be flexibly applied for different research purposes, either to better account for structures of power and inequality; or to provide intersectionality-sensitive estimates. The findings underscore the need for researchers to clarify the specific aims of using MAIHDA, whether descriptive or inferential, and highlight the approach's versatility in addressing intersectionality within quantitative research. The study contributes to the literature by offering empirical evidence on the methodological considerations in applying the MAIHDA approach, thereby aiding in its more effective use for intersectional research.

This paper critically interrogates the usefulness of the concept of violence regimes for social politics, social analysis, and social theory. In the frst case, violence regimes address and inform politics and policy, that is, social politics, both around various forms of violence, such as gender-based violence, violence against women, anti-lesbian, gay and transgender violence, intimate partner violence, and more widely in terms of social and related policies and practices on violence and anti-violence. In the second case, violence regimes assist social analysis of the interconnections of diferent forms and aspects of violence, and relative autonomy from welfare regimes and gender regimes. Third, the violence regime concept engages a wider range of issues in social theory, including the exclusion of the knowledges of the violated, most obviously, but not only, when the voices and experiences of those killed are unheard. The concept directs attention to assumptions made in social theory as incorporating or neglecting violence. More specifcally, it highlights the signifcance of: social efects beyond agency; autotelic ontology, that is, violence as a means and end in itself, and an inequality in itself; the relations of violence, sociality and social relations; violence and power, and the contested boundary between them; and materiality-discursivity in violence and what is to count as violence. These are key issues for both violence studies and social theory more generally.

In the past 2 decades, many Certification and Award schemes (CAS) related to gender equality, diversity and inclusion have emerged in the higher education, research and industry sectors. According to a recent report, there are as many as 113 CAS which have been identified across Europe and beyond. These CAS aim at addressing inequalities in relation to the grounds of sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, and disability among others. The high number of CAS, and their continued growth, has taken place in parallel to the shift of policies and efforts from “fixing individuals” to “fixing the system.” In these schemes, gender equality is often understood as a structural, systemic challenge, with a recognition that advancing gender equality is complex and requires drivers and interventions at micro, meso and macro level. Studies focused on analysing and evaluating gender equality initiatives in higher education have been scarce, and often limited to specific schemes. This paper aims to fill this gap by providing a better understanding of the CAS landscape through comparing two of the main gender equality schemes used by research-performing organisations in Europe Athena SWAN (in the UK) and Total E-Quality Award (in Germany). Based on qualitative interviews with stakeholders across Europe and document analysis, this paper focuses on strengths, challenges faced by and the impact of these CAS. This comparative exercise highlights particular learning points that can inform potential reviews of existing schemes and/or the development of new schemes such as a Europe-wide scheme. The latter is the focus of a Horizon 2020 project entitled CASPER (Certification-Award Systems to Promote Gender Equality in Research), which aims at making recommendations to the European Commission as to the feasibility of a Europe-wide CAS for gender equality in research organisations.

The purpose of this paper is to establish the extent to which prospective students can see a visible commitment to study gender in the UK business/management school curriculum prior to enrolment.
A content analysis of the descriptions of modules offered as part of business and management degrees offered by 112 UK universities was conducted. The analysis was restricted to the publicly available information on the websites visible to prospective students. Descriptive statistics re the distribution of gender topics across programmes and HEIs are presented in addition to university group affiliation (e.g. Russell Group), and accreditation in respect of variables.
The analysis reveals significant gaps in the undergraduate and taught postgraduate offerings of UK business schools that we suggest are reflective of subject silos, and institutional risk reduction strategies.
We conclude by arguing that accreditation bodies can use their influence to leverage change and to ensure gender content becomes core to curriculum design and its visibility as part of the practice of management to prospective students.
This study provides a benchmark for the visibility of gender as an issue and perspective within UK business/management school offerings.

Measuring violence against women raises methodological questions, as well as the wider question of how to understand violence and locate it in relation to a societal context. This is all the more relevant given that measurement of violence against women in the EU has made an interesting phenomenon apparent, the so-called ‘Nordic Paradox’, whereby prevalence is higher in more gender equal countries. This article examines this phenomenon by exploring a range of factors – methodological, demographic and societal – to contextualise disclosed levels of violence. The analyses makes use of a multilevel analytic approach to take into account how macro and micro levels contribute to the prevalence of violence. The intercepts are then used to illustrate how taking these into account might provide an alternative ranking of levels of violence against women in EU countries. The results show that the ‘Nordic Paradox’ disappears, and can be undone, when factors at individual and country levels are considered. We conclude that the ‘Nordic Paradox’ cannot be understood independently from a wider pattern of violence in society, and should be seen as connected and co-constituted in specific formations, domains or regimes of violence. Our results show that the use of multi-level models can provide new insights into the factors that may be related to disclosed prevalence of violence against women. This can generate a better understanding of how violence against women functions as a system, and in turn inform better policy responses.

This article proposes a new composite measure of gender diversity for research teams that goes beyond simply ‘counting heads’. This measure adopts a more elaborated understanding of gender diversity than merely relying on the proportion of women and men, by taking into account the outcomes of gendered processes along seven grounds of diversity (age, care responsibilities, marital status, education, tenure, seniority, contractual position). Rather than focus on the individuals or the organisations, this measure is computed at the level of teams. This is because teams constitute a unit of analysis highly relevant to the context of higher education research but are often neglected. Illustrations of the results for STEM research teams are provided to show the potential uses of the Gender Diversity Index as a diagnostic tool (e.g. in certification schemes such as Athena SWAN in the UK and elsewhere), or to measure and report on the progress of gender change within higher education institutions. 

What happens when we focus primarily on violence as a central question – either within the gender regime approach or by making violence regime an approach in itself? The paper first interrogates gender regimes theoretically and empirically through a focus on violence, and then develops violence regimes as a fruitful approach, conceptualizing violence as inequality in its own right, and a means to deepen analysis of gender relations, gender domination, and policy. The article is a contribution to ongoing debate, which specifically and critically engages with the gender regime framework, as developed by Walby (2009).

Wearable sensors are becoming increasingly popular in organizational research. Although
validation studies that examine sensor data in conjunction with established social and
psychological constructs are becoming more frequent, they are usually limited for two reasons:
first, most validation studies are carried out under laboratory settings. Only a handful of studies have been carried out in real-world organizational environments. Second, for those studies carried out in field settings, reported findings are derived from a single case only, thus seriously limiting the possibility of studying the influence of contextual factors on sensor-based measurements. This article presents a validation study of expressive and instrumental ties across 9 relatively small R&D teams. The convergent validity of Bluetooth (BT) detections is reported for friendship and adviceseeking ties under three organizational contexts: research labs, private companies and universitybased teams. Results show that, in general, BT detections correlated strongly with self-reported measurements. However, the organizational context affects both the strength of the observed correlation and its direction. Whereas advice-seeking ties generally occur in close spatial proximity and are best identified in university environments, friendship relationships occur at a greater spatial distance, especially in research labs. We conclude with recommendations for fine-tuning the validity of sensor measurements by carefully examining the opportunities for organizational embedding in relation to the research question and collecting complementary data through mixedmethod research designs. 

This study suggests that it is critical for executives to develop transnational social capital (TSC), or professional relationships and ties that span national borders. We first provide a  conceptual framework and careful operationalization of TSC that differentiates between bonding and bridging forms of social capital. We then examine the effect of three key determinants—opportunity, investment, and ability—on the TSC of executives. Using detailed survey data on 227 executives, our analysis suggests that international experience, investment in communicating with cross-border ties, and cosmopolitan ability have direct effects on overall TSC. We further demonstrate that international experience and cosmopolitan ability affect both bridging and bonding, but that investment in cross-border communication only affects bridging social capital. The study proposes that social capital is becoming more and more transnational as connections, interactions, and transactions increasingly span national borders, which has implications for international business and human resource management (HRM). Given our findings, it would make sense for global organizations to pay more attention to these, if they would like their members to develop this resource. We point out benefits to organizations and individuals.

This article examines whether progress in women’s access to decision-making positions is best achieved through increased levels of development or targeted actions. Drawing on European data for the period 2006–2018, the article examines the association between how gender equal a country is and legislated measures such as board quotas with women’s representation on boards. The analysis then explores how this can be nuanced by differentiating between hard sanctions, soft sanctions and codes of governance. It shows that board quotas cannot be relied upon as instruments of progress independently of a contextual environment that is more gender equal. Furthermore, board quotas with hard sanctions work best, followed by codes of governance, particularly when associated with higher gender equality. However, board quotas with soft sanctions are associated with results that are only marginally better than not having any measure in place. The article concludes that for further and faster progress to be made, introducing legislated board quotas shows great potential, though only in combination with striving for a gender equal society and using hard sanctions. The results call for organizations not to lose focus on ‘rights’ at the expense of the more palatable ‘business case’ for board quotas when striving for equality on corporate boards.

In response to the increasing discourse on academic careers and knowledge creation, we develop and test a model predicting research performance in the field of management outside the Anglo-Saxon countries. Based on comprehensive data of French academics, we examine various factors – career-related and demographic factors like gender – that play a role in determining academic research performance in an increasingly global academia. The role of the English language is positively related to citations but not to the volume of papers or their global/national recognition. Higher institutional reputations were positively associated to number of papers, citations, and national recognition. Strikingly, there was no relationship with global recognition, suggesting that the reputation of institutions plays a role, but only insofar as the national context and without spillover into the global academic scene. Finally, men were over-performing in both publications’ quality and quantity. Career experience had a positive effect, although this reduced gradually over time. Our findings can help individuals’ career decision-making and institutional investment in human-capital. We offer an original contribution to facilitate the understanding of factors that may influence research performance outside the Anglo-Saxon academia by opening of the black box of knowledge development, exposing the role of academic publications and recognition.

While a gendered perspective on organisations has become more prominent, the experiences of non-binary people – a minoritised group within a minoritised group – remains largely invisible and unspoken about. With limited knowledge and evidence, putting in place diversity management policies and practices is challenging. Our findings advance understandings of the experiences of non-binary people at work by providing empirical evidence from a survey conducted in 15 countries across Europe with nearly 18,000 staff at universities and other research organisations. Our results suggest that non-binary people are more likely than other gender identity groups to feel socially excluded and unsafe at work, and are more likely to experience psychological violence and sexual harassment at work. The analysis shows that experiences of gender-based violence partially mediate the relationship between gender identity and feeling either socially excluded or unsafe, and that confidence in organisational responses in case of incidents of gender-based violence, on the whole, are associated with feeling less socially excluded, unsafe or unwell. We contribute to diversity management scholarship and practice by showing the importance of integrating (gender-based) violence in diversity management interventions. This would recognise that diversity management is not only about people being accepted, but also being safe.