by Kevin Guyan, Doris Ruth Eikhof and Amanda Coles
In their recent article on gender equity policy and visibility-politics in the film and television industries, Guyan et al. examine how the politics of visibility shapes gender equity policy across film and television in the UK, Canada and Germany. Drawing on documentary analysis and 34 semi-structured interviews from an international comparative study, the authors show that visibility is mobilised in three distinct imaginaries—as evidence, as solution, and as demonstration of action—each carrying important policy trade-offs.
Visibility as evidence
The authors’ first claim is that counting matters: workforce statistics, on-screen tallies and talent databases produce the visible evidence that makes gender inequities politically actionable. Yet they caution that data production is political. Decisions about what to count, how to classify identities and which metrics to prioritise shape what becomes legible for policy. As a result, an exclusive focus on numerical under-representation risks narrowing attention to on-screen and high-profile roles, while downplaying pay disparities, promotion pathways, funding allocation and the production economies that reproduce exclusion.
Visibility as action
Third, the authors identify a performative register in which visibility operates as proof that organisations are taking action. Policy statements, high-profile initiatives and repeated calls for “more data” can function as signals that appease scrutiny without addressing underlying inequalities. The article demonstrates how this performative visibility can become a stalling mechanism—consuming policy capacity while delaying redistributive measures such as targeted investment, pay transparency and institutional reform.
Implications for policymaking
Guyan et al. offer important guidance for policymakers and sector leaders. Visibility should be deployed diagnostically and always in combination with structural interventions: counting must be coupled with measures that shape commissioning, finance, career progression and workplace culture. Policy design must also consider who becomes visible and with what risks, recognising that visibility can expose marginalised people to harm or tokenisation. Finally, the authors recommend reflexive governance, including routine evaluation of how visibility metrics influence practice and deliberate efforts to connect representation targets to redistributive outcomes.
Why this research is important
For scholars and practitioners working on cultural industries and public policy, this article provides a timely corrective. It reframes visibility as a contested and sometimes limiting policy tool rather than an automatic good. By offering comparative empirical evidence from three national contexts, the authors show how equity strategies can move beyond optics to reshape the power relations that structure film and television production.
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at
Guyan, K., Eikhof, D. R., & Coles, A. (2026). Gender equity policy and visibility politics in the film and television industries. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2026). Retrieved Jan 14, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2025D000000081
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading
Bengtsson Meuller, E., & Evans, E. (2025). Comparing policy responses to incels in Sweden and the UK. Policy & Politics, 53(3), 424-442. Retrieved Jan 14, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000045
Witkowski, K., & Neely, S. R. (2025). Does HIV status affect attitudes on welfare deservingness? A survey experiment on welfare policy in the US. Policy & Politics, 53(4), 641-664. Retrieved Jan 14, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000063
Policy & Politics Journal Blog 