Bosnia and Herzegovina is ranked 73rd in the Global Gender Gap Index 2022. A questionable democratisation process, ethnonationalism, and changes in the political culture strongly affected gender equality, participation, and representation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This article tackles the impact of preferential voting on the representation of women in the local councils following the last Local Elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The effect of gender quotas and placement mandates are examined across the following determinants: electoral unit magnitude, local community urbanisation rate, ethnic composition of municipalities, and ideological foundation of political parties. To test the main objectives and research questions, this paper examines the impact of preferential voting on gender political representation. A complete dataset for all candidates and municipalities of the 2020 Local Elections, officially released by the State Election Commission, was used. The descriptive analysis indicates that 19.86% of women candidates have been elected to the local councils. With regards to the residence, female candidates from rural areas have a lower tendency of being elected than candidates from highly urban municipalities. Regarding ethnicity, the number of seats won by female candidates was the largest for candidates with a Serb majority, followed by the Bosniak and the Croat ones. When considering political orientation, female candidates from parties with centrist political orientation have a higher tendency of being elected, closely followed by female candidates from parties with a leftist orientation.  Keywords: Gender Gap; Preferential Voting; Representation; Electoral Systems; 2020 Local Elections; Bosnia and Herzegovina

Moving beyond notions of cosmopolitanism as a form of elitism, a condition of globalization, or a predominantly transnational orientation (to the exclusion of local affiliations), the volume draws on international survey data to posit an alternative view of cosmopolitanism, characterized by interlinkages and tensions between cosmopolitan and local identities and forms of belonging. Elaborating on what is termed ‘‘the cosmopolitan spirit,’’ Part II identifies four equally significant types of cosmopolitan expression, reflecting divergent processes of cosmopolitan socialization. A key argument here is that individuals can both be and become cosmopolitan in specific ways. The four forms of cosmopolitan orientation correspond to the aesthetic, cultural, ethical, and political dimensions of the cosmopolitan spirit and encompass different sets of cosmopolitan capabilities and virtues. The volume cogently explains and then illustrates the various cosmopolitan expressions with effective, sufficiently detailed international case studies and empirical work. Part II thus vitally provides sociologists and other academics with conceptual tools and typologies to examine and understand cosmopolitanism as it takes shape through people’s specific, situated relationships to the world. For this reader, however, the volume made less of how to apply these tools in conducting research ‘‘on the ground’’ and with regard to potential, tangible research sites. As such, the book’s main contribution is largely conceptual, in that it represents a valuable attempt to rework well-established sociological ideas (rather than relegate them to the theoretical dustbin) within a cosmopolitan sociology and to reassert their relevance in a cosmopolitan world. More than this, however, it commendably extends such ideas by advancing a typology of the cosmopolitan spirit’s different manifestations, providing new directions for research in the vein of a cosmopolitan sociology. Well-written and insightful, the book achieves its stated primary objective, which is ‘‘to locate cosmopolitan theories amidst social actors’ experiences of a shared and plural world, moving away from cosmopolitanism as a theoretical and normative perspective in order to examine the tangible, ordinary mechanisms of global society that are shaping the cultural imaginaries and the lives of individuals today’’ (p. xviii). In particular, it provides a nuanced understanding of contemporary cosmopolitanism, considering its different dimensions, contradictions, and ambivalent character, particularly as it unfolds and is grounded in quotidian processes of socialization. The volume is an important read for scholars and advanced students interested in cosmopolitanism in terms of its relationship to globalization, its key characteristics, and contemporary expressions. It may be less accessible to those without an introductory understanding of cosmopolitanism and the pivotal debates in cosmopolitan thought. Nonetheless, the book would be a valuable, welcome addition to the required readings for graduate seminars on the sociology of globalization and the sociology of cosmopolitanism, as well as seminars on socialization and identity formation, which now occur in a plural and shared global society.

This paper aims to introduce readers to the changes and transformations of gender political equality in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their impact on the legal and institutional framework. A brief survey of major changes and transformation will demonstrate to what extent the position of women’s political participation and representation has improved in the past two decades? That is why the goal of this paper is to examine and analyze the participation and election of women to the executive and legislative bodies at the state, entity and cantonal level in the last two parliamentary and presidential elections held in 2014 and 2018 respectively. Then, the comparative analysis of the elections will clearly show statistical gaps between male and female electoral lists nominees and obtained mandates among male and female nominees and mandates across parliamentary, state and entities levels. Thus, the research will analyze gender quotas based on electoral law and obtained mandates among female candidates. Such analysis will demonstrate to what extent female candidates have moved from mere participation in the elections to the level of political representation by obtaining mandates across different governance levels. For testing the main research objectives on the degree of women’s political participation and representation, the researchers used the data from the Central Election Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina (www. izbori.ba). Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to present the data regarding women’s political participation and representation in General Elections 2014 and 2018.

Different cultures, religions and traditions and hence multiculturalism represented in demographic diversity was strongly engraved in Bosnian cities, towns and villages. Different groups of people in Bosnia and Herzegovina shared diverse demographic space that ensured continuation of peace, equal opportunities, mutual tolerance, civil rights and multiethnic coexistence. This paper aims to articulate historical developments of Bosnian demographic diversity by especially taking into consideration the multicultural model and the developments during the 1990s. Then, it is significant to analyze the ethnic cleansing and genocide and how they have changed the demographic structure of the country, especially with regards to the existence of multiethnic cities, towns and villages. This paper explores ethnic cleansing and genocide as tools within the context of demographic changes, especially in the Serb controlled territories. How the ethnic cleansing and genocide were organized and carried out? What are the root-causes of ethnic cleansing and genocide that were deeply rooted in radical nationalist ideologies and projects? Why radical ethno-cultural national ideology was systematically used for cleansing the territories from the “other” “alien” ethnicities, nations and people? In-depth analysis of the demographic changes as a result of ethnic cleansing and genocide will be based on Bosnian population censuses of 1991 and of 2013. A comparative analysis will clearly demonstrate to what extent ethnic cleansing and genocide affected centuries old demographic diversity of Bosnian cities, towns and villages.

This paper aims to evaluate the trilateral relations between Turkey, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the course of a proper evaluation of the growing dynamics of diplomatic relations between these three countries, it is important to assess relations at the presidential and ministerial levels. The research analyzes official statements, declarations, and agreements that envision the tripartite mechanism. Besides putting these official statements, declarations, and agreements into perspective, the research aims to assess the major implications, activities, and results of trilateral relations. It is significant to determine to what extent trilateral relations affect diplomatic relations, regional stability, regional cooperation, tourism, trade, and economic relations. This paper also aims to put the trilateral relations into perspective by explaining constructive and proactive Turkish foreign policy in the Balkans.

Although sociology is a modern discipline, sociologists in Bosnia and Herzegovina must consider distant past and present to tackle the questions of identity, nationality, ethnicity, language and religion. Sociological prominence had gained its focus in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina because of conflict resolution, peace building and overall social transformations and emerging challenges and issues. Such transformation of post-war Bosnian society coupled with a socio-political and economic crisis had opened the door for sociological and anthropological studies and research. Post-war society that eventually aims at a just peace, as Bosnia and Herzegovina where genocide had taken place, cannot without addressing sociological dimensions of war, justice, law and morality. Sociology as a discipline, within the institutional context, has also undergone significant changes and transformations. Using a survey approach, this paper aims to analyze why sociology is significant discipline in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, it is significant to analyze sociological and institutional transformations and their influence on the creation of new social models related to identity, nationality, religion, language, ethnicity, conflict resolution, war and justice.

As academics, what can we do to influence the future of humanities, education and creative industries? One way is to empower and equip our brightest students to value their own imaginative potential and take greater responsibility for their own outcomes. Demystifying the Thesis (DTT) is a strategic framework that provides research students with the knowledge and skills to take charge of their own researcher development. Students from more than a third of all Australian universities have taken part in DDT programs—and customised versions of the programs have been run for students and staff from more than thirty universities in Latin America, Oman, Indonesia, Thailand, Hong Kong, Nepal, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and East Timor. Evaluation and feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, and confirms the profound impact DTT is having on researcher development, supervisory practice and institutional capacity-building. In recognition of its contribution, in 2004 DDT was awarded the Victoria University Vice-Chancellor’s Medal for Excellence in Research Training, and in 2010 the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Award for Programs that Enhance Learning: Postgraduate Education.DTT comprises four programs: the flagship Demystify Your Thesis for PhD candidates, Beginning a Thesisfor new international students, Demystifying Thesis Supervision for supervisors and intending supervisors, and the six-day Performing the Word Writing Retreat for students keen to explore and experiment with making their writing even more engaging. In addition, DTT strategies inform other Victoria University programs, including the compulsory coursework programs for newly-enrolled PhD students, and a work-based unit for intending supervisors completing the (mandatory) Graduate Certificate of Tertiary Education. All these programs share the commitment to empowering and equipping PhD students to take primary responsibility for their own researcher development and research outputs—and in this way not accept the future as a given, but take greater control over making the future.