Made for Men: Gender Equality in Political Science Departments

• In Event: American Politics and Gender

Abstract

In this paper, I examine the gender parity mechanisms (or, likely, lack thereof) specific to Political Science. In the light of previous studies I ask specifically whether the attrition of equal gender representation among the higher ranks of the discipline is related to the way the discipline itself is structured. In other words, are the parameters of expectations to succeed and advance in Political Science in American departments built around, as Caroline Criado Perez suggests in her book Invisible Women (2019), male work preferences, the expectation of “traditional” family structures, and male social and professional proclivities in general? I base my research on data from a survey (N=1,200) I conducted among female Ph.D. students and faculty members in Political Science departments across the United States (including public and private institutions, as well as Ph.D. granting, M.A. granting, and undergraduate-only departments) between April and May 2020, in order to tease out their specific perceptions of their role as women in the discipline. I supplement my own survey data with additional survey data hat has been collected and presented by the American Political Science Association (APSA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF), as well as other researchers in the field. Preliminary results indicate that the institutional mechanisms in the universities and departments across the United States have a built-in bias against women, but that this bias is often exacerbated by the lack of women in the higher ranks of the tenure-track and upper-level administration. Furthermore, motherhood appears to be the single most factor that creates professional disadvantages for women in academia across the board, among graduate students as much as among faculty. I find that Political Science as a discipline, and the paths of professional advancement within it, remain structured around the social roles, perceptions, and social proclivities of men. I hypothesize that this is a function of the underrepresentation of women in key committees, and among the higher [i.e. tenured] ranks of the discipline, and, more importantly, the penalties imposed on women and female-presenting caregivers across the discipline. These structures of inequity are still rarely questioned, mostly taken for granted, and therefore reiterated and bolstered by daily actions of those in positions of power within the academy (Kantola 2008; Meyerson et al 2007; Renwick Monroe and Chiu 2010; Smith and Calasanti 2005). This creates a vicious circle of institutionalized gender inequity and an imposing professional penalty for motherhood: Because institutionalized structures within the academy, and Political Science in particular, have evolved based on the experiences, needs, and social roles of men (and white men in particular), institutional norms, policies, procedures, as well as modes of interaction favor this group (Smith & Calasanti 2005). Institutional norms, procedures, and expectations can only be overturned, however, if there significant social pressure to question them – otherwise, they will be taken for granted (Meyerson et al. 2007). This, in turn, is less likely if women remain absent from key leadership positions, and positions of power within the institution, thus fostering reinforcement of the status quo, rather than the potential for change.

Author

• Annika M. Hinze, Fordham University