The logic behind calling out “manels”
By Sylvia Mishra, Rajeshwari Pillai Rajagopalan
Observer Research Foundation
The global pandemic and the lockdown that followed have transformed our way of life and the way we conduct our work. ‘Work from home’ (WFH) has gained salience and the concept has precipitated debate about its benefits and challenges. One of the important changes has been panel discussions, roundtables and seminars that are all now conducted online via different digital media platforms. Web-based discussions bring several benefits, but they also have severe limitations — the lack of opportunities to build interpersonal relations being one. But it has also afforded a chance for those interested to digitally participate and attend lectures and discussions (sometimes several webinars a day) anywhere in the world from the comforts of their homes. Webinars have also brought into sharper focus the composition of panels and has broadened the discussions on who and which experts get a seat at the table.
Web-based discussions bring several benefits, but they also have severe limitations — the lack of opportunities to build interpersonal relations being one.
During the last three months, for instance, in several of the conferences and webinars, it is increasingly evident that the composition of the panelists is heavily skewed and mostly consists of men. “Manel” is a term that is often used to refer a panel which consists entirely of men. The idea of manels is not new. Nor are the efforts to call out manels. Repeated efforts to engage organisers and convey the message of making panels more diverse has met with scant success. The absence of women means that significant expertise is lost simply because of gender bias. Manels also suffer from absence of balance and inclusiveness. Diversity, balance and inclusiveness are critical for more nuanced debates and discussions on any subject.
The authors of this article have been at the forefront of initiatives to make foreign policy and security studies diverse and balanced mainly because the absence of women is a loss of expertise in important debates but also because it short-changes some experts simply because they are women. This is particular true in foreign policy and security studies, a field dominated by men around the world. But it’s time for change.
Repeated efforts to engage organisers and convey the message of making panels more diverse has met with scant success.
First, conference organisers who decide whom to call as experts need to be aware that there are a number of women experts who are equally, if not better qualified, to engage in discussions on these issues. Of course, the situation is actually worse because this often happens despite awareness of women experts. Organisers tend to consciously or unconsciously pass over them despite their acknowledged expertise. Highlighting the works of women experts and promoting visibility via conferences and panels is essential because these habits are unlikely to be broken unless consciously exposed.
Second, by leaving women out of the conversation, there is a two-fold disservice – first, unfairness: a lack of acknowledgement of women’ work including their publications and two, limiting new ideas and creative thinking on foreign policy and security challenges. This is a widespread problem, reflected, for example, in the citation bias that exist in IR and security studies (and quite likely in other fields too). A simple question is how often one would recommend a woman scholar’s work unless it was to do with a specific theme like feminism. Commenting on citation bias, Prof. David Lake, a well-known scholar, co-editor of the journal International Organization, explained how it works: because it is hard to keep up with the writings on a given subject, he is more inclined to read those articles and books written by people he is personally familiar with. As he put it: “For a book or article to get onto one of my reference lists, I’ve usually had to absorb the work in some deep way — and this takes time. Personal connections lead to deeper readings, which lead to more citations and, likely, more personal connections.” Yet again, this highlights what women scholars already know, that it is not just the quality of expertise that matters.
We insist there is no need for such tokenism of “wanels” or creating a “quota-system” for women in IR and security studies. Unbalanced “wanels” are unwarranted as much as manels, perhaps worse because of the implicit tokenism.
Third, organisers have often responded to queries of a lack of gender-balanced panels with statements that we have had previously hosted “wanels” (all women panels). These kinds of responses highlight the troubling belief in tokenism, that women need to be compensated by giving them a seat at the table. We insist there is no need for such tokenism of “wanels” or creating a “quota-system” for women in IR and security studies. Unbalanced “wanels” are unwarranted as much as manels, perhaps worse because of the implicit tokenism. Organisers of panel discussions can find sufficient representation of men and women who have a diverse set of expert opinions. The ideas of “manels” and “wanels” are diametrically opposite to the structures that we are trying to build. Problem-solving needs collaboration and casting the net wide rather than limiting it to opinions from either a group of men or women experts.
What is disturbing is the continuing lack of awareness about this issue. In one case, organisers behind a manel told one of the authors that there are several women working behind the scenes in the two organisations that were putting together the manel. It was astounding that they did not see what would have been obvious to most: why are there women behind the scenes and but not in the discussion? This reflects that the cliched mindsets about women and their roles have been neatly passed on to the next generation as well.
The aim of this article is to highlight that need for sustained efforts to ensure appropriate recognition of expertise that is not clouded by gender-bias in academic networks, panels, boards, et.al. It is thus anything but opposing men. Especially in India, policing manels and “marticle” (articles and papers where only men are cited) is critical if we wish to nurture an Indian ecosystem of professionals and leaders effectively partnering and competing at the global stage to enhance cooperation, improve outcomes and bolster India’s place in the world.
