Conference Agenda

The rise of populist right-wing parties in Europe has significantly increased over the past decades and shows no immediate signs of slowing down (Brause & Kinski, 2024). Right-wing populist parties are particularly strong and influential in Eastern Europe, where they often compete with mainstream political parties and have successfully come to power in Hungary (with Fidesz) and Poland (with Pis) (Eiermann et al., 2017). This continued success of populism is reflected in extensive academic literature. Much of this research has focused on defining populism (e.g., Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2008a; Hawkins, 2009), assessing its influence on public policies (e.g., Akkerman, 2012; Destradi et al., 2021), and explaining its rise and sustained popularity (e.g., Mudde, 2007; Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2008b). In this regard, many studies suggest that low levels of trust in or dissatisfaction with democratic institutions, migration, or social changes are factors that foster right-wing populism (Doyle, 2011; Fieschi & Heywood, 2004; Ivarsflaten, 2008; Oesch, 2008). However, one dimension that remains underexplored in populism research is the relationship between gender and populism (Abi-Hassan, 2017).

Since right-wing populist parties often embrace socially conservative values (Snegovaya, 2024), they frequently position themselves in opposition to what they perceive as the threat posed by changing gender norms, such as those promoted by feminists, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans), and other progressive movements (Donà, 2021). In addition, right-wing parties fall short concerning women’s political representation and tend to make more anti-feminist gendered claims (Celis & Childs, 2014). As a result, it is relevant to explore whether voters with more conservative gender attitudes are more likely to support these parties. This article explores this issue in the context of Portugal, focusing on the rise of the right-wing populist party, CHEGA (meaning “Enough”).

Founded in 2019, CHEGA has rapidly gained electoral support by positioning itself as a staunch defender of traditional values (de Jonge et al., 2025). The party, led by André Ventura, has capitalized on voter dissatisfaction with mainstream politics and has grown significantly in terms of militancy, activism, and voter support. In the last national elections (in 2022), CHEGA secured 7% of the vote, elected 12 MPs, and became the third party in Parliament (Marchi, 2023). Given its emphasis on socially conservative values and the agenda on secular issues, particularly in restricting political rights for women (Benitez-Baleato et al., 2024), CHEGA provides a compelling case for exploring how voters’ conservative gender attitudes influence support for right-wing populist parties. Accordingly, this investigation's central research question is: To what extent do electors with conservative gender attitudes influence support for CHEGA in Portugal?

By exploring this question, the study seeks to contribute to our understanding of how gender attitudes shape voting preferences, particularly in the context of a rising populist movement that appeals to voters dissatisfied with social changes, including those related to gender.

To fulfill the study's objectives and test our expectations, we surveyed a representative sample of Portuguese electors, gathering over 1,200 responses. The survey asked respondents about their political gender attitudes to assess whether they are more conservative or progressive regarding gender issues. To measure political gender attitudes, a scale comprising five items related to gender in politics in Portugal was developed. The scale was based on the respondents' assessment of five statements, which they could rate from 1 to 5, with 1 representing "strongly disagree" and 5 representing "strongly agree".

Like Van Der Pas et al. (2022), we departed from the Classical and Modern Sexism scales (Swim et al., 1995; Ekehammar et al., 2000; Dierckx et al., 2017) but adapted the items to refer specifically to gender in politics rather than society in general. Modern sexism consists of three components: denial of continuing discrimination, antagonism toward the demands of women, and resentment about special favors (Swim et al., 1995). Of the five items in our scale, three addressed the components of modern sexism: denial of continuing discrimination (“Portugal has reached the point where women and men have equal opportunities in politics”), antagonism toward demands (“It is not understood why the Government places so much emphasis on the political claims of women”), and resentment about special favors (the reverse of “More measures should be taken to increase the representation of women in politics in Portugal”). In contrast, the other two items addressed classical sexism (the reverse of “I would like to see a woman serving as Prime Minister in Portugal” and “Men are more capable of making political decisions than women”).

Finally, respondents were asked to provide some personal information, as this data could be valuable for identifying patterns of bias against women linked to specific voter characteristics. Accordingly, questions were asked regarding their gender, age, region, and educational level.

Based on the proposed research framework, it is anticipated that the study results will reveal a significant positive relation between conservative gender attitudes and support for CHEGA in Portugal. Specifically, respondents who display higher levels of modern and classical sexism are expected to show higher rates of support for CHEGA. This study may further identify demographic patterns, such as age, gender, and educational level, associated with conservative gender attitudes and populist party support. Moreover, the findings are expected to contribute to the broader academic discourse on the intersection between gender attitudes and right-wing populism in Southern Europe, where populist movements have recently gained momentum.

Some challenges and limitations are anticipated in the present study. First, the reliance on self-reported data may introduce social desirability bias, particularly given the sensitive nature of questions concerning gender attitudes. Respondents may underreport sexist attitudes to align with perceived social norms. Second, the study’s focus on CHEGA as a single case may limit the broader applicability of the results to other populist parties with different ideological profiles. Lastly, potential limitations related to the operationalization of the gender attitudes scale may arise, as the adapted scale may not capture all dimensions of modern sexism relevant to the political context in Portugal. Addressing these challenges will require careful consideration in data analysis and interpretation of the findings.

Discretion is a key concept in child protection social work, where frontline professionals make consequential decisions affecting children's lives. This paper explores how discretion is understood, shaped, and exercised in child protection contexts, where social workers must navigate complex, ethically charged situations. Although discretion has long been discussed in public administration, particularly in relation to Michael Lipsky’s (1980) seminal theory of street-level bureaucracy, the child protection field presents specific challenges that demand deeper investigation. Unlike other welfare domains, child protection involves interventions that often conflict with families' preferences and profoundly affect fundamental rights, including the right to family life. This study seeks to address this research gap by reviewing empirical studies that examine discretion in child protection social work.

Adopting a scoping review methodology, this research synthesizes findings from 42 peer-reviewed articles published since 2010. These studies cover various national and organizational contexts, including Nordic countries, the United Kingdom, continental Europe, North America and Israel. By integrating perspectives from public administration, social work, and policy studies, this review highlights discretion as a multidimensional and context-dependent phenomenon.

The findings are organized around three interrelated thematic domains. First, organizational and regulatory structures frame discretion in significant ways. Although legislation and organizational guidelines provide formal boundaries, social workers often retain considerable space for professional judgement. Structural factors such as austerity policies, limited resources, time pressures, and increasing reliance on standardized assessment tools and digital information systems shape and sometimes constrain discretion. These structural pressures create tensions between efficiency, uniformity and the flexibility needed to respond to individual children's circumstances.

Second, discretion is enacted through everyday practices that are situational, collective, and relational. Research shows that social workers do not apply rules mechanistically. Rather, they draw on professional knowledge, ethical considerations, intuition, and collegial support to navigate uncertain and ambiguous situations. Discretion is influenced by workers’ values, personal experiences and emotional responses. Furthermore, child protection decisions are rarely made in isolation. They involve interactions with families, colleagues, supervisors and multidisciplinary teams. These interactions shape how discretion is used and negotiated in practice. Studies indicate that organizational culture and leadership play crucial roles in fostering or restricting discretion. Supportive managerial approaches encourage social workers to use discretion creatively and in child-centered ways, whereas risk-averse cultures may promote rigid rule-following and defensiveness.

Third, the review identifies tensions and ethical dilemmas associated with discretion. While professional judgement enables tailored and context-sensitive decisions, it also raises concerns about inconsistency, fairness and accountability. Research highlights variations in decision-making that depend on individual workers’ attitudes, interpretations and organizational settings. Such variation may result in unequal treatment of families and undermine the legitimacy of child protection interventions. Furthermore, discretion can become entwined with power dynamics. Studies reveal that social workers sometimes prioritize cases perceived as easier to manage or more compliant, raising questions about equity and children's rights. At the same time, overly strict limitations on discretion — such as rigid adherence to rules or heavy reliance on algorithmic decision-support tools — can lead to procedural justice without substantive justice, where formal compliance overshadows children's best interests.

Importantly, discretion is experienced as morally and emotionally demanding by practitioners. Studies document how social workers face ethical dilemmas, moral stress, and role conflicts when balancing legal requirements, organizational demands, and child-centered practice ideals. They often operate under conditions of uncertainty, where "right" answers are elusive and decisions have significant and lasting consequences. Discretion thus emerges not only as a technical or procedural issue but as a deeply human and value-laden practice.

In addition to synthesizing empirical findings, the review identifies important gaps in existing research. Notably, the impact of digitalization and new public management reforms on discretion in child protection requires further exploration. Emerging studies suggest that automated decision-making systems and intensified performance monitoring reshape frontline discretion, but evidence remains fragmented and context-specific. Moreover, little is known about how discretion is exercised in collaboration with children themselves. Finally, comparative research on cross-national differences in discretionary practices is limited, despite policy and cultural variations are likely to influence decision-making in child protection.

By offering a comprehensive synthesis of research on discretion in child protection social work, this study contributes to theoretical and practical debates in public administration and social work. It challenges binary views of discretion as either good (enabling responsiveness) or bad (causing inconsistency) and instead presents discretion as inherently ambivalent and contextually shaped. Furthermore, the findings underscore the need to support social workers' professional judgement through organizational cultures that recognize discretion's ethical complexity and provide spaces for reflection and deliberation.

In sum, this paper advances the understanding of discretion as a dynamic and contested phenomenon central to public service delivery in sensitive areas. It highlights how discretion mediates between policy and practice, structure and agency, standardization and individualization, and legal mandates and ethical imperatives. These insights are not only relevant for child protection but also for broader discussions about the role of street-level bureaucrats in contemporary public administration. As such, the paper offers valuable implications for research, policy, and practice aimed at ensuring that discretionary decisions in child protection promote fairness, accountability, and above all, the well-being of children.