Despite its generally critical nature, gender has been largely absent from “mainstream” literature on EU external relations. While EU external relation literature has made major strides in terms of critical analytical and methodological development, it has largely ignored gender studies and feminist literature on the topic. In this paper we analyse the contributions made by feminist scholars to the field and the ways in which they could advance research on EU external relations. Feminist scholarship has shown how seemingly gender-neutral institutions and policies are gendered and gendering, both reflecting as well as producing (unequal) gender relations. Its scholarship has also investigated gender imbalances and male work cultures in EU development and external policy-making, demonstrating that ‘who decides what matters’ is a highly gendered matter, with real life consequences for men and women across the world. We conclude that a feminist lens has much to offer to EU external relations scholars. Its focus on analysing power relations and privilege is indispensable to understand the EU’s role as a global actor as it poses key questions such as “who has a say”? “who is not represented?” “Who speaks for womxn?”. Furthermore it is a useful lens to scrutinize the artificial division between private and public issues, and between high and low politics and to probe questions such as “who and what is not there and why is this the case?”. We argue that to explain, understand and judge the EU in global politics it is necessary to rethink the nature of power from a feminist and intersectional perspective.

In undertaking a gender-based analysis, this research dissects policy narratives pertaining to the intersection between migration management and development adopted by the EU. Focusing on the regional and global developments in the aftermath of the European ‘refugee crisis’, the research looks at EU-level discourses that build on the so-called ‘migration and development nexus’ to legitimise contemporary migration policy practices. In doing so, the research builds on the existing public policy literature to advance the understanding of EU migration management policies from the prism of gender-based analysis.

“What gets measured gets done” – this phrase was used by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, at the Porto Summit where the European Union's social policy objectives for the next decade were discussed amidst the uncertainty surrounding the long-term negative effects of the COViD-19 pandemic. She was emphasising the importance of metrics as tools to ensure that the priorities set for this policy area are met. Yet, achieving objectives in EU social policy is far more complex because the EU institutions have very limited instruments of influence at their disposal– most of the legal prerogatives are in the hands of the Member States and the EU institutions - above all the European Commission - are forced into a constant struggle for recognition of their mandate. As I will show, metrics such as indicators, indices and scoreboards are at the heart of these processes.

By referring to the European Union anti-poverty policy forged in times of multiple crises, from the 2008 financial crisis to the most recent Covid-19 pandemic crisis, I will illustrate how metrics have been used to negotiate the boundaries in this policy area and strengthen its supranational dimension. This is well reflected in the process of agreeing on quantitative measures, where a compromise is forged between the EC and the Member States, but at the same time a trade-off is made between the cognitive value and the political value of these measures. Such “commonly agreed” metrics are then institutionalised as a key element of EU anti-poverty policy legitimizing it as a common European concern, regardless of the fact that Member States may measure and prioritize poverty differently at the national level. I will also take a closer look at the EC as a key actor at EU level often seeking to push the boundaries in anti-poverty policy and strengthen its position. Based on the assumption that organisations use knowledge not only instrumentally to exercise power over their area of interest, but also as a means of legitimising themselves or justifying their policy priorities, I will shed light on how metrics are used 1) to expand its sphere of influence in anti-poverty policy; 2) to strengthen its position and argue for and against specific policy; 3) to build an image of the organisation as competent and using hard 'evidence'.

In a world facing various challenges and flux, academia must reinvestigate the necessity and possibility of paradigm shifts between Eurocentric European studies and European Studies with a more globalised view. This paper argues that interpretivism methodology while being marginalised during times of relative peace, contributes to understanding the incompatibilities of the world’s values and cultures when threats are going on.

The interpretivist methodology offers a platform for international academic thoughts to be included in global European studies through studying discourse evolvement and their interpretations. The interpretivism methodology provides academics in non-privileged groups in European Studies to participate without converting their ideologies and arguments into mainstream European values so that diversity and resilience of international relations and international peace can be improved.

The research and study of methodology were not usually the pillar in traditional disciplines as it was regarded as a “tool” that could also fit other disciplines. However, the methodology offers people of different backgrounds a chance to participate and cooperate in cross-cultural cooperation without hard-core clashes in value, which have led to failure and avoidance of cooperation due to the practicalities of regions and area differences in the world. In the context of EU-China relations, for example, since China and Europe were affected by the “delinking” policy due to a combination of the international pandemic situation and the US policy, the dynamics and accessibility of Global European Studies and Global Area Studies have been impacted. Although academic voices and petitions were reflected in the EU’s funding projects to re-link China, it is still crucial to think about how to make the re-link sustainable and flexible without repeating the history where the link is fragile and impacted by US influence and US-China relations.

The interpretivist methodology also offers a link for improving transferability between social science and humanities and between quantitative and qualitative methods. In addition, global area studies can be mutually complementary and mutually constructive. For example, Chinese and global China studies in and beyond China could offer valuable experience for global European studies in and beyond Europe. In this sense, interpretivism methodology, as well as a non-Eurocentric perspective with the discussion of European counterparts, are helpful for the inclusive dynamics and resilience of European Studies as a major, a subject, a discipline, and a career trajectory for European and global citizens.