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

Abstract

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.

New Medium, Same Story? Gender Gaps in Book Publishing

“…A potential manuscript “submission gap”—driven by both publishers’ and senior male scholars’ networks—also may help to explain the book “publication gap.” In addition to network effects, women may write and submit fewer book manuscripts due to perpetually high academic service loads (Alter et al 2020); child-bearing and -rearing duties may reduce women’s productivity (i.e., the “mommy penalty”); and women might produce higher-quality work that takes more time (Hengel 2017). These factors may make women more risk averse.…”

“…At the assistant-professor level, for example, a scholar’s most notable output may be a book. Given this, gender publishing and citations gaps can have enormous implications for the evolution of women’s status in the profession (Alter et al 2020; Teele 2020)—especially because, in terms of citations, books have far greater impact than journal articles (Samuels 2013). Work on the gender gap in journals has sparked a conversation among journal editors and within APSA about the sources of women’s underrepresentation in journals’ table of contents (Brown and Samuels 2018).…”

Not a Leaky Pipeline! Academic Success is a Game of Chutes and Ladders

“…For many, the reality of academia is an unpredictable route, much like the children's board game with a winding path and spaces that suddenly deliver players closer to the win or drive them back to the starting line. The chutes and ladders metaphor more closely resembles the many ways in which gender inequality manifests in the academy, leading some to exit the profession or linger in untenured or contingent positions (Alter et al 2019;Artz, Goodall, and Oswald 2018;Babcock et al 2003;Barnes and Beaulieu 2017;Fattore 2019;Hesli and Lee 2011;Manchester, Leslie, and Kramer 2010;Mitchell and Hesli 2013;Mitchell, Lange, and Brus 2013). Chutes take the form of sudden and consequential changes in personal and professional circumstances that derail career trajectories-including pregnancy; struggles with infertility; bias in hiring decisions; daily parenthood challenges; gender-based harassment or the cumulation of microaggressions; and precarious employment in short-term, contingent, or adjunct faculty positions.…”

Gender Gap in Political Science: An Analysis of the Scientific Publications and Career Paths of Italian Political Scientists

“…The literature highlights a more marked presence of gender differences in the so-called hard-sciences sector; however, it also points out how the social sciences are still far from achieving gender equality (Avveduto 2019; Wang and Degol 2017). Within the social sciences, research conducted in the specific field of political science has shown that it includes all of these gaps (Alter et al 2020;Stegmaier, Palmer, and Van Assendelft 2011).…”