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.

Faculty are becoming increasingly interested in the science of teaching and learning (SoTL) and working to explore whether specific interventions are associated with a substantive change in learning outcomes (Whitman and Richlin 2007). In this article we lay out different ways faculty might deepen their approach to SoTL through their courses, provide examples for and explanations of these designs, discuss different means of assessing outcomes depending on the types and regularity of courses faculty teach, and provide specific tools for assessment in the context of a Political Science methods course.

No abstract

No abstract