Intersectional policy advocacy? The case of Finnish parliamentary committee hearings

The proposed paper will investigate marginalized groups’ intersectionality claims in a seldom studied, but important arena of policy advocacy: parliamentary committee hearings, in the context of the Finnish ‘working parliament’. A pioneering study (Holli, forthcoming) points out the scarcity of committee consultations with (intersectionally) disadvantaged groups over timeiIn this Nordic country, despite its rhetorical proclamations for equality, diversity and inclusion. The aim is to shed light on which factors contribute to marginalized groups’ policy advocacy and influence in this policy-making arena. Drawing from feminist studies on intersectionality, group advocacy and new institutionalism ,the paper poses two sets of questions: 1. Do single-axis disadvantaged groups voice any intersectional concerns in parliamentary committee hearings, and if so, when and how? How does their advocacy in this respect differ from multi-axis groups’ advocacy (which are bound to articulate such intersectional concerns)? 2. What are the institutional opportunities and obstacles for such groups to influence policy-making in this venue? Christoffersen and Siouw (2024) emphasize the need to centre studies on intersectionality normatively and analytically on those ‘on the bottom’, that is, intersectionally (most) oppressed groups. In this project, the targeted groups comprise of NGOs organized on the basis of ethnic, racialized or immigrant status as well as LGBTQIA+ groups, with a special emphasis placed on multicultural women’s associations and transpersons’ NGOs. The study will utilize as its data the targeted groups’ written statements to parliamentary committees between 2005-2025, as well as NGOs’ internal documents and interviews with their leadership. The data will be analyzed with qualitative text analysis methods. The paper contributes to studies on policy advocacy and parliamentary institutions, with the particular aim of shedding light on alternative channels of policy influence in contexts where the parliament tends to be very homogeneous e.g. in terms of ethnicity, ‘race’, or sexual orientation.