Call for Papers - Dutch Journal of Gender Studies

Call for papers

Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies -   Dutch Journal of Gender Studies (Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies, Amsterdam University Press)

Special Issue: Music, Gender, Inequalities

Special Issue Guest Editors: Pauwke Berkers, Josephine Hoegaerts, Inger Plaisier

Abstract submission deadline: April 1, 2018

Issues of gender in popular music have often made international headlines over the past few years. From pop stars as Beyoncé and Taylor Swift ‘coming out’ as feminists to Spotify’s ‘The Equalizer Project’, from bands calling out audience members for sexual harassment to women artists sharing experiences of everyday sexism, such as unsolicited male advice or being evaluated on appearance. In the Netherlands, online newspaper De Correspondent published a series of articles addressing the underrepresentation of women in terms of radio-airtime and performing at music festivals. Studio Brussel found similar results in Belgium. Music industry conference Eurosonic-Noorderslag hosted a panel ‘Dutch Women in Music: van Popronde tot Ziggo Dome’, in which issues such as the lack of women role models, parental leave, stereotypes and gender music education were discussed.

Building on the seminal work of Frith and McRobbie (1990), research on gender inequality in music has a long tradition of studying these issues. First, outstanding work has been done on the position of women from the perspective of particular music genres, such as rock (Bayton, 1998; Schippers, 2002), metal (Berkers & Schaap, 2018; Hill, 2017), punk (Leblanc, 1999; Reddington, 2000), electronic dance music (Attias, Gavanas & Rietveld, 2013). Yet, most of these studies focus on the United States or the United Kingdom. Therefore, this special issue aims to address to what extent, how and why gender plays a different role in the production, distribution and consumption of music in Belgium and the Netherlands?

Second, excellent academic work has been done on gender and pop music focusing on particular sociological mechanisms and drawing on various traditions in gender studies, such as gender typing of instruments (Wych, 2012), conceptions of femininity and masculinity in music genres (Cohen, 1991), horizontal and vertical sex segregation in music (Berkers et al. 2016; Clawson, 1999), the ways men and women do gender in music (Krenske & McKay, 2000; Wallis, 2011), evaluations of gender performances by the media and industry professionals (Leonard, 2007;


Deadlines and publication timeline:

Send your abstracts (700 words) before April 1, 2018

Notification of invitation for full article before April 15, 2018

Deadline first version articles (max. 6000 words incl. references and bibliography): October 1, 2018

Reviews from external reviewers due: December 1, 2018

Deadline final version (max. 6000 words): January 15, 2019

Publication special issue: April 2019

Abstracts and papers should be submitted to Research articles are subjected to a double-blind peer review process. Articles are to be submitted in either English or Dutch. The Dutch Journal of Gender Studies (Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies) is published by Amsterdam University Press: 

For questions or more information, contact (one of) the guest editors:

Pauwke Berkers
Josephine Hoegaerts
Inger Plaisier i.plaisier@SCP.NL


Previous Special Issue: Contesting whiteness at its intersections: European racial formations

Call for Papers

(closed for submissions)

Guest Editors: Jovita dos Santos Pinto (University of Bern) and Elisa Fiore (Radboud
University), and dr. Katrine Smiet (Radboud University/Utrecht University).

‘Europeanness’ is often uncritically associated with ‘whiteness’. In the rhetoric and imagery of far-right political movements across Europe, the presence of migrants, refugees and communities of Colour is framed as a threat to the (implicitly white) national identity and community. In the 2007 campaigns of the Swiss People’s Party, this is most literally depicted with a white sheep pushing a black sheep off the national flag. However, it is not only in the rhetoric of the far-right that Europeanness is conflated with whiteness. The investment in whiteness as a cornerstone of European national identities is a legacy of colonial epistemology that still persists today. Since the aftermath of WWII, liberal discourse has been entrenched in a discourse of ‘racelessness’, where racial markers are still recognised and producing exclusions, while race is nevertheless regarded as irrelevant or overcome for continental Europe (Goldberg 2009). In most European public discourses, People of Colour figure as outsiders-within: as ‘tolerated guests’ at best, as imminent threat to national security at worst. As critical race scholar Fatima El-Tayeb argued, the ‘inability or rather unwillingness to confront, let alone overcome, the glaring whiteness underlying Europe’s self-image has rather drastic consequences for migrant or minority communities routinely ignored, marginalized, and defined as a threat to the very Europe they are part of’ (El-Tayeb 2011, p. xxv).




Previous Special Issue: Superdiversity. A critical intersectional investigation.

Special Issue Guest Editors: Evelien Geerts, Sophie Withaeckx and Nella van den Brandt  

Pdf version CfP Superdiversity 

Abstract submission deadline: July the 15th, 2017


Though the concepts of diversity and inclusion are still widely used in the contexts of organisational design, policy-making and academic research, the notion of superdiversity is becoming more and more prominent. First put on the map by social anthropologist Steven Vertovec (see Vertovec, 2006, 2007 and 2012), superdiversity has been described as a concept and theoretical tool that enables us to more adequately describe our ever-evolving globalised social reality by accentuating the enormous amount of diversity that exists within different groups in societies around the world. Superdiversity is mainly linked to the increasing ethnic and cultural complexity of Western-European societies, and therefore associated with the rise of so-called majority-minority-cities, such as Amsterdam, Brussels, and London, to name a few – all cities in which ethnic minority groups are about to replace (or have already replaced) the ethnic majority group (see e.g. Crul et al, 2013 and 2016; Geldof, 2015).

Superdiversity as such thus focuses on the immense complexity and evolutionary character of contemporary postmodern societies; an endeavour that it to some extent shares with feminist intersectional theories. But whereas intersectionality and superdiversity at first sight seem to overlap, both paradigms also clearly differ from one another: They first have very different theoretical roots and origins – respectively Anglo-American black feminist thought (see e.g. Crenshaw, 1989 and 1991; Collins, 1990) versus Eurocentric migration studies. And, second, differing intentions – with intersectionality theorists offering a feminist political analysis of society that emphasises power relations versus a more descriptive analysis aimed at policy-making. Superdiversity has its conceptual benefits, yet, looked at through an intersectional framework,[1] many contemporary superdiversity theories appear to lack a clear gender focus, and only reluctantly engage in the project of critically deconstructing power relations and structural injustices that mark these ‘superdiverse’ Western-European societies. Other criticisms that are currently being uttered with regards to superdiversity and its uses relate to the apparent lack of situatedness present in various superdiversity theories.[2] Moreover, superdiversity theorists have been blamed for spreading the message of ‘happy diversity’ (Ahmed, 2007 and 2012) by reducing complex realities and unequal power relations to a mere ‘catchy’ slogan and thereby refraining from critically analysing how processes of minoritisation and racialisation are constitutive of ‘superdiverse’ societies.

Reflecting upon these different origins and uses of superdiversity and intersectionality guides us toward the following set of questions: are superdiversity and intersectionality theoretically incompatible, or can there be grounds for fruitful dialogue and collaboration? Does superdiversity need to be gendered and politicised, and if so, what would such an intervention entail to exactly? Could intersectionality benefit from some of the perspectives and methods of superdiversity, and vice versa?

To find an answer to these provocative questions, the guest editors of this special issue would love to welcome article abstracts from both academic scholars and policy-makers who are invested in critically examining the theoretical roots of both paradigms. Contributions from those working in the fields – or on the transdisciplinary crossroads – of feminist and gender studies, queer theory, political science and philosophy, anthropology, sociology, transnational studies, and diversity and critical managerial studies are particularly welcome. We also encourage young scholars to send in an abstract, and would like to include columns based on lived experiences, political opinion-pieces, and policy-analysis essays that focus on practical applications (in Belgium and the Netherlands, but also in other contexts).


Previous thematic issue - Decolonising the University

The point of departure of this special issue for the Dutch Journal of Gender Studies (Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies) is the University of Amsterdam’s student occupation in the spring of 2015 and the banner hanging from the front of its main administrative building, ‘het Maagdenhuis’, stating: ‘No Democratization without Decolonization’. This local call for a decolonisation of education, the curriculum, and the University system connected contemporary voices and struggles in the city of Amsterdam to other voices in the margins of academic institutions both in the Global South and in Europe and the US asking: ‘Why is my curriculum white? Why isn’t my professor black?’ These powerful questions also brought to renewed visibility the long-term social political struggles and intellectual traditions within and outside the Dutch University, which have been critically engaging with racism, discrimination, and exclusion (Loewenthal, 1984; Essed, 1991; Essed & Hoving, 2014, Wekker, 2015). In Belgium, student activism is steadily growing, but remains as yet low profile. Nevertheless, universities and university colleges increasingly underwrite the importance of ‘diversity’ by implementing diversity policies and employing ‘diversity officers’. It remains to be seen how such engagements translate into practice and relate to calls for a radical decolonisation of academic institutions.

For the editors of this special issue, these events not only point at the centrality of addressing colonial pasts of our academic institutions, but also present a broader invitation to ask how knowledge is produced and taught at universities and for whose benefits. This special issue seeks contributions that engage creatively with the various intellectual and/or activist traditions that are addressing these questions. Contributions can address the Dutch and Belgium context, but we also welcome articles from and about other countries and regions.

The question of decolonising the university speaks to debates and research on the politics of knowledge and the analysis of power relations, which have been profoundly shaped by critical feminist agendas. Black, Chicana, ‘First nations’/ Indigenous/communitarian, and decolonial feminisms have been at the forefront of the struggle to decolonise the university and the knowledge structures that remain complicit with intersectional forms of domination. To decolonise a modern/colonial institution such as the University and its curricula requires a politics of coalition building (Lugones, 2003, 2008), and a praxis of intersectionality (Bilge & Collins, 2016). While decolonial thought acknowledges gender as a key analytical category, it has also engaged with its coloniality and the need to develop new ways of embodied thought and praxis (Lugones, 2003, 2008; Icaza & Vázquez, 2016). This raises questions about the decolonisation of gender as an axial reflection for the transformation not only of women´s studies but of our practices of knowledge and the university as a whole. Furthermore, this encourages reflection on the invisible norms shaping universities as institutional spaces that assume certain bodies (white/male) as the norm, making the ‘others’ into ‘space invaders’, bodies out of place (Ahmed, 2012; Puwar, 2004).

This special issue seeks contributions that speak to one or more of the following agendas:

-          reflect on/with movements and initiatives both in the Global South and in the Global North that are seeking to decolonise the University

-          consider interventions across the world to decolonise learning and the University and their interconnections

-          examine the specificities of local autonomous practices to decolonise knowledge and learning

-          share pedagogical experiences with decolonising the curriculum, in gender studies and beyond

-          develop conceptual and ethical articulations of decolonisation of learning and the University

-          discuss the challenges of building political coalitions supporting the decolonisation of learning and the University

-          trace the historical precedents and  the local/national/international impulses moving these struggles forward

-          reflect on the relevance of the decolonisation of gender as a turning point for the transformation of the University


Research articles are subjected to a double blind peer review process. Articles can be submitted in English or in Dutch.

As well as research articles, the journal welcomes essays, columns (short topical and polemical articles), interviews, and visual essays.

The Dutch Journal of Gender Studies (Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies) is published by Amsterdam University Press:




Previous thematic issues:  

Themanummer: Gender in het curriculum: marginaal of integraal?

Gastredactie: Conny Roggeband, Saskia Bonjour, Liza Mügge

Nederland was één van de pioniers in het ontwikkelen van vrouwenstudies in het universitair onderwijs. Midden jaren zeventig pleitten feministische studenten met succes voor de invoering van vrouwenstudies. In 1976 creëerden een aantal Nederlandse universiteiten tijdelijke academische posities om vakken en onderzoeksgroepen op te zetten voor de wetenschappelijke studie van vrouwen en gender in de sociale wetenschappen en letteren. In die beginjaren was vrouwenstudies interdisciplinair, inhakend op feministisch bewustzijn onder studenten. In de loop der tijd verwierf vrouwenstudies een positie op de universiteit en werd het werkterrein uitgebreid naar andere disciplines. Sinds de verschuiving van vrouwen studies naar gender studies hebben zich belangrijke veranderingen voorgedaan. In sommige gevallen werd gender studies een aparte richting binnen de verschillende disciplines (met name in de sociale wetenschappen en letteren, maar ook in de levenswetenschappen), in andere gevallen verdween het simpelweg.

Veertig jaar na de succesvolle introductie van gender op de Nederlandse academische agenda, evalueert dit themanummer de opbrengst van die inspanningen. Hoewel gender een relevante categorie   is   in   kennisproductie   en   disciplinaire   grenzen   overschrijdt,   lijkt   het   succesvoller geïntegreerd in de sociale wetenschappen en letteren. In dit themanummer onderzoeken we de positie  van  vrouwen/gender  studies  in  verschillende  disciplines.  Zijn  verworvenheden  verloren gegaan en zo ja, hoe kwam dat? Hoe is gender op dit moment geïntegreerd in het kerncurriculum van de discipline? Is gender geïntegreerd in het verplichte deel van het curriculum of alleen in keuzevakken? Wordt er een minor gender studies aangeboden? Wat zijn de centrale thema’s in gender vakken? Overschrijden gender vakken disciplinaire grenzen? Welk gender ‘profiel’ wordt gepromoot binnen een specifieke discipline? Vinden er discussies plaats over hoe het gender perspectief binnen de discipline kan worden bevorderd en hoe meer studenten kunnen worden aangetrokken? Welke individuele of collectieve strategieën worden er ontwikkeld om gender in het onderwijs te behouden of uit te breiden, en wat bepaalt of die strategieën succesvol zijn? Hoeveel gender specialisten hebben een min of meer vaste positie verworven? Hoe zijn zij geïntegreerd in de bredere discipline en over welke onderwerpen geven zij les? Welke hindernissen en kansen zijn er om een gender perspectief te integreren in het onderwijs in de discipline?

Het Tijdschrift voor Gender Studies nodigt auteurs uit om korte empirische artikelen van 3000-4000 woorden bij voorkeur in het Nederlands te schrijven, waarin zij in kaart brengen hoe het er voor staat met de positie van gender studies binnen een specifieke discipline in Nederland. De reikwijdte van dit themanummer is breed en omvat zowel de sociale- als geesteswetenschappen als de bèta wetenschappen, zoals geneeskunde en technische studies. Twee vragen staan centraal: 1) Wat zijn de voordelen en valkuilen van gender mainstreaming in het curriculum? 2) Welke instrumenten heeft academische staf nodig om gender succesvol in te brengen of te behouden in het onderwijs?



Special Issue : Gender sensitivity in health: current debates, politics, and practices

SI editors: Marleen van der Haar, Fleur van Leeuwen, Janneke van Mens - Verhulst

The relevance of gender sensitivity is recognised more than ever before. This also holds true for the area of health and healthcare. Throughout the years concerns about this issue have been increasingly institutionalised. Over forty years ago a grass roots initiative in the USA enabled women to talk about how they experienced their bodies, sickness and the contact with doctors. Nowadays, also the professional and academic expertise of women is unquestioned and the relationship between gender and health is on the agenda of the World Health Organisation, national governments, health sector organisations and research institutes. The most recent expression of the institutionalised attention to gender and health is the two-year program ‘Alliance Gender and Health’: a cooperation between research, politics and practice that intends to invest in knowledge building, education and conscious raising.

The Dutch Journal of Gender Studies invites papers that study the contemporary interpretation of the relationship between gender and health. We welcome both empirical as well as theoretical work. We suggest the following foci, but potential contributors to the Special Issue are free to submit abstract for papers that take a different perspective on the matter.

• How do terms like ‘sex’, ‘gender’, ‘masculinity’, ‘femininity’, ‘gender regime’ and ‘course of life’ get conceptualised and operationalised? (Does taking a gender perspective in healthcare studies merely mean that the biological sex of patients is taken into account?).

• What are the reasons for the difficult implementation of available sex/gender-specific knowledge in everyday health practice? Which actors play a role in the implementation, and which actors obstruct or hinder that process? One can think in this respect of actors on macro as well as micro level, like: European and national policymakers, monitoring bodies, education institutes, research institutes, health providers, health financiers, scientific and professional journals, emancipatory networks, patient associations and individual patients, professionals (medical and otherwise), teachers and students.

• How do feminist health professionals and - researchers adapt to new technologies and innovation like egg freezing and personalised medicine’, and new perspectives such as the intersectional paradigm?



Special Issue Gender and (Post)Colonialism: Locating Marginalised Voices

Dutch Journal for Gender Studies
SI Editors: Maaike Derksen and Margriet Fokken

The argument made by literary critic and theorist Gayatri Chakravorti Spivak in the 1980s (Spivak 1988), that the recovery of subaltern female voices is virtually impossible has not been without its critics. Different scholars have stated in response to Spivak that a full recovery of the female perspectives might not be possible, but that there is fractured evidence of her voice that offers the possibility for unsettling colonial master narratives (Mani 1998, Joseph 2004, Chaudhuri 2010). This raises questions about how scholars could go about finding marginalised voices and what these voices would add. The Dutch Journal for Gender Studies will dedicate a special issue to the subject of locating voices of gendered marginalised ‘others’, and invites academic articles that reflect on issues of methodology and interpretation involved in researching marginalised voices in colonial and postcolonial contexts.

The question of how to write history ‘from the bottom up’ has been on the minds of social, feminist, and postcolonial historians since the 1960s. Strategies for studying textual sources held in institutional archives were developed in order to read colonial sources ‘against the grain’, looking for contradictions, disruptions and meaningful silences. In response, Ann Laura Stoler has highlighted the importance of reading colonial archives ‘along the grain’ before examining the voices of ‘others’ represented in these archives, because researchers who have an understanding of how these records came to be, can pick up on uncertainties, doubts, and personal concerns of the author (Stoler 2009). Ricardo Roque and Kim Wagner propose a third distinct reading strategy, which derives from historical anthropology and is concerned with the actual cross-cultural encounters and material practices in which colonial knowledge is embedded. In this reading strategy, colonial accounts, like reports or testimonies, on the encounter between Europeans and non-Europeans, are considered intercultural objects, which can themselves be used as avenues to gaining access to these historical encounters (Roque and Wagner 2012). These three reading strategies, alternative or complementary as they might be, indicate the directions in which we can engage with (post-)colonial materials. Whereas reading strategies are conceptualised in application to textual sources, the analysis of visual and material culture provides an opportunity to critically engage with other realms of knowledge. Ludmilla Jordanova emphasizes the idea of ‘reading’ a visual or material source for its message is too limited, and researchers should be attentive to the multiple meanings objects or images might have dependent on the context and interpreter (Jordanova 2012).

This special issue of the Dutch Journal for Gender Studies, entitled Gender and (Post)Colonialism: Locating Marginalised Voices, will collect contributions reflecting on strategies for retrieving marginalised voices in (post)colonial textual, visual and material sources. We welcome contributions which focus on a (post)colonial context or use (post)colonial sources – not restricted to the Low Countries – and read or engage with (post)colonial archives/sources from a postcolonial feminist perspective

This themed issue ‘Gender and (Post)Colonialism: Locating Marginalised Voices’ will provide a platform for contributions of the international workshop: Locating Voices of Marginalised Others (29 August 2014), but is also interested in contributions from other scholars working on this theme.


Special Issue: Sexuality in Movement: Beyond the ‘Sexual Revolution’

Dutch Journal for Gender Studies
SI Editors: Jantine Oldersma and Robert Davidson

The so-called Sexual Revolution and the social movements that were a part of it have recently received renewed attention through several academic publications, such as those by Hekma & Giami, 2014 and Buijs et al., 2014. Importantly, however, social movements struggling to extend (or remove) the boundaries of sexuality, as well as those attempting to shore up or further constrict sexual norms, are not unique to the short period now known as ‘the Sexual Revolution’. The Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies will dedicate a special issue to research in this field and invites articles contributing to academic reflection on movements, specifically focused on contemporary and historic movements that engage with sexuality.

A short history of contested issues in The Netherlands may illustrate how wide-ranging sexuality as a site of political struggle is. Long before the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, Jacob Schorer began the Dutch Scientific Humanitarian Committee (NWHK) in 1912 to fight the social and legal discrimination of homosexuals. The NWHK was sandwiched between conservative movements, such as the discriminatory legislation 248bis from 1911 and the rise of Fascism in the 1930s.

After the ‘Sexual Revolution’, the 1980s and 1990s were witness to large-scale movements for changes around the issue of sexuality. Gay/lesbian liberation was in full swing, but certainly not unchallenged. Many groups of activists were busy on both sides of the abortion debate, respectively fighting for ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ legislation. AIDS activists were advocating for more open discussions of sexuality, safe-sex education, and medical funding and research, while many Christian groups were campaigning for abstinence and abstinence-only education. In the Netherlands, for instance, the 2000s witnessed the legalization of prostitution and movements to stigmatize those who engage in it.

This special issue of the Dutch Journal for Gender Studies, entitled Sexuality in Movement, will therefore focus on movements – not restricted to the Low Countries – preoccupied with issues of sexuality defined broadly. This themed issue will provide a platform for contributions on ‘movements’ in a broader sense that have engaged with sexuality, both with ‘progressive’ or ‘conservative’ inclinations.

The Dutch Journal for Gender Studies welcomes abstracts and manuscripts on ‘Sexuality in Movement’, potentially including – but not limited to – the following aspects:

• Organizational aspects: How are organizations and groups formed? What is the role of the internet and new media? What is the influence of (collective) identity on group formation? How does the psychology of leaders play a role in an organization and its advocacy? How has an organization survived and evolved over time, or not? What strategies of dramaturgy are enacted in acts of protest, manifestation, and occupation?

• Goal-oriented aspects: What kinds of goals are strived for by activists? Which discourses are challenged by movement organizations? How do organizations frame their arguments and those of opponents? How and in what ways are organizations successful in shifting discourses? Which successes have specific organizations achieved, and through which means? When have organizations failed to reach their goals, and what are potential explanations for those failures?

• Institutional aspects: Which organizations were able to gain access to (governmental) institutions? In which ways were organizations institutionalized? In which ways were movement groups able to exert policy influence? Were particular ‘insiders’ sympathetic to an organization’s cause? In what ways did movement groups simultaneously function as ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’?