scholarly journals Gender and Status in American Political Science: Who Determines Whether a Scholar Is Noteworthy?

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1048-1067 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen J. Alter ◽  
Jean Clipperton ◽  
Emily Schraudenbach ◽  
Laura Rozier
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Gender Disparities ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Gender Parity ◽  
Selection Processes ◽  
Lower Status ◽  
American Political Science ◽  
Honor Societies

We investigate gender disparities in status construction in American political science, focusing on three questions: 1) Do institutions within the discipline of political science—including departments, APSA, editorial boards, and academic honor societies–reflect or remedy gender disparities that exist in many forms of recognition, including appointments to top leadership and citations? 2) Are institutions with centralized and accountable appointment mechanisms less gender skewed compared to networked and decentralized selection processes where implicit bias may go unchecked? 3) Does leaning in help? Does the effort of women to publish and to claim a seat at leadership tables increase the likelihood that higher-level status positions will follow? We find that the distribution of highest-status positions is still gender skewed, that women are over-represented in positions that involve more service than prestige, that “leaning in” by serving as section chair, on editorial boards, or on academic councils is not necessarily a gateway to higher-status appointments, and that accountability promotes greater gender parity. The study raises questions about the goal of gender parity when it comes to lower-status service, and about the types of contributions our discipline rewards.

scholarly journals Women Also Know Stuff: Meta-Level Mentoring to Battle Gender Bias in Political Science

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (03) ◽  
pp. 779-783 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Beaulieu ◽  
Amber E. Boydstun ◽  
Nadia E. Brown ◽  
Kim Yi Dionne ◽  
Andra Gillespie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Meta Level ◽  
Personal Reflections

ABSTRACT Women know stuff. Yet, all too often, they are underrepresented in political science meetings, syllabi, and editorial boards. To counter the implicit bias that leads to women’s underrepresentation, to ensure that women’s expertise is included and shared, and to improve the visibility of women in political science, in February 2016 we launched the “Women Also Know Stuff” initiative, which features a crowd-sourced website and an active Twitter feed. In this article, we share the origins of our project, the effect we are already having on media utilization of women experts, and plans for how to expand that success within the discipline of political science. We also share our personal reflections on the project.

scholarly journals Gender Blindness in Latin American Political Science

2018 ◽  
pp. 50-66
Author(s):  
Flavia D. Freidenberg
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Gender Gap ◽  
Beliefs And Practices ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
The Status ◽  
American Political Science ◽  
Status Of Women

This article reflects about the weight women have had in the field of Political Science in and about Latin America during the last decade. This text not only describes and analyzes the existing gender gap in compared research about Latin America, but also it focuses the attention in how the discipline as a profession is exercised. The main objective of this paper is to generate initial reflections about of the status of women in the discipline in Latin America as well as how we do research, what we teach and what we publish (and with whom) in the discipline. The women are underrepresented in Political Science meetings, syllabi, and editorial boards. This is done under the premise that Political Science is a gendered discipline that reproduces exclusionary views, beliefs, and practices and also operates under a certain level of “gender blindness”

Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Political Science Association

1974 ◽  
Vol 7 (04) ◽  
pp. 382-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Mann
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Executive Director ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
Full Time ◽  
National Office ◽  
Final Questionnaire ◽  
American Political Science ◽  
Number Of Individuals ◽  
Science Association

In conjunction with a discussion of the FY 1974–75 Budget at its April, 1974, meeting, the Council of the American Political Science Association instructed the Executive Director to survey the membership of the Association as to their attitudes toward the usefulness ofPSin form and content. In order to take full advantage of the resources needed to conduct this survey, the National Office conceived a broader study of membership attitudes toward Association activities. The final questionnaire was approved by the Council.On June 7, 1974, the questionnaire was mailed to 1,000 individuals selected randomly from the membership files of the Association. A second mailing was sent to those who had not responded on July 9. A total of 530 completed questionnaires were received for a response rate of 53 percent.The demographic characteristics of the membership, as reflected in the sample, are portrayed in Table 1.The small number of students in the sample is surprising, given the fact that a third of all Association members pay student dues. This discrepancy cannot be attributed to differential response rates; a check of our numbering system confirms the fact that “student” members returned their questionnaires at the same rate as “annual” members. Clearly, a substantial number of individuals paying student dues are employed full-time.

The Bias of American Political Science

1940 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin E. Lippincott
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
American Political Science

In His Day: Awareness of Wilson’s Duplicity

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 762-763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desmond Jagmohan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Woodrow Wilson ◽  
Princeton University ◽  
History Of ◽  
Complex Landscape ◽  
American Political Science

Woodrow Wilson is the only American political scientist to have served as President of the United States. In the time between his political science Ph.D. (from Johns Hopkins, in 1886) and his tenure as president (1913–21), he also served as president of Princeton University (1902–10) and president of the American Political Science Association (1909–10). Wilson is one of the most revered figures in American political thought and in American political science. The Woodrow Wilson Award is perhaps APSA’s most distinguished award, given annually for the best book on government, politics, or international affairs published in the previous year, and sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation at Princeton University.Wilson has also recently become the subject of controversy, on the campus of Princeton University, and in the political culture more generally, in connection with racist statements that he made and the segregationist practices of his administration. A group of Princeton students associated with the “Black Lives Matter” movement has demanded that Wilson’s name be removed from two campus buildings, one of which is the famous Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs (see Martha A. Sandweiss, “Woodrow Wilson, Princeton, and the Complex Landscape of Race,” http://www.thenation.com/article/woodrow-wilson-princeton-and-the-complex-landscape-of-race/). Many others have resisted this idea, noting that Wilson is indeed an important figure in the history of twentieth-century liberalism and Progressivism in the United States.A number of colleagues have contacted me suggesting that Perspectives ought to organize a symposium on the Wilson controversy. Although we do not regularly organize symposia around current events, given the valence of the controversy and its connection to issues we have featured in our journal (see especially the September 2015 issue on “The American Politics of Policing and Incarceration”), and given Wilson's importance in the history of our discipline, we have decided to make an exception in this case. We have thus invited a wide range of colleagues whose views on this issue will interest our readers to comment on this controversy. —Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document