Search results

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Preface: Why Are We Still Counting? -- CHAPTER 1. Introduction: Still Counting -- CHAPTER 2. Counting Matters: The Numbers Game and Women's Political Power -- CHAPTER 3. The Electoral Glass Ceiling -- CHAPTER 4. It's a Drag: Where Have All the Women Leaders Gone? -- CHAPTER 5. Spice Girls and Old Spice Boys: Getting There is Only Half the Battle -- CHAPTER 6. Counting for Something: Women in Politics Can Make A Difference -- CHAPTER 7. Conclusion: Halfway to Equal? -- APPENDIX I: Women Legislators and Senators, 1916-1969 -- APPENDIX II: Women Legislators and Senators, 1970-1985 -- Glossary -- Endnotes -- Website Information and Web Links -- Works Cited -- Index

This symposium explores the ways in which women are descriptively represented in political science, by exploring the ways in which they are positioned institutionally in Spain, Finland, Germany and the United Kingdom. The symposium also explores the ways in which structures may serve to disadvantage women, by analysing HE policy and citation practices. Critical theory reminds us that in observing power structures we can seek to change them, and so our conclusion reflects on some more practical suggestions.

If at one time we thought that the movement to science would yield unification of the discipline, it is now apparent that there are many roads to science. Still it is important for us to consider yet again what the appropriate goals are for our scientific enterprise. What works in theory building; induction and deduction; prediction and control; the search for useful principles to guide us - examining these questions, we can build a better science. Political science has come so far as a discipline that different schools and scholars have different interpretations of science in the study of pol

Throughout my life, politics and political science have been intertwined. I handed out leaflets for Adlai Stevenson at age 12, participated in protests at Oberlin and Berkeley, and, as I developed professional expertise, worked with national security agencies. Conflict has been a continuing interest, particularly whether situations are best analyzed as a security dilemma or aggression. In exploring this question, I was drawn into both political psychology and signaling, although the two are very different. I have continued to work on each and occasionally try to bring them together. My thinking about strategic interaction led to a book-length exploration of system effects, a way of thinking that I believe is still insufficiently appreciated in the discipline and among policy makers. My research continues to be stimulated by both developments in the discipline and unfolding international politics.

Political scientists have portrayed women in a stereotypical, biased manner. Using research by many political scientists to illustrate these points, the content & effects of male bias in political science are explored. Three phenomena are observed: (1) grossly insulting comments about women; (2) assumptions leading to a false assessment of women's political nature & potential; & (3) the exclusion of women & issues relevant to women from serious consideration. The effect of these biases is the contamination of the conduct, findings, & conclusions of political science research. P. Montgomery.

Revisits the long-standing intradisciplinary tension between political science (which ostensibly traffics in the empirical) & political theory (with its focus on the normative). Because political scientists often charge political theorists with engaging in humanistic rather than scientific research, the questions explored here revolve around clarifying the relation of political theory to the humanities & responding to "hard" scientists' specific criticisms of "soft" humanistic scholarship. That humanistic research is interested in interpretation & judgment rather than in explanation & quantifiability does not make it of lesser importance to the study of politics. K. Coddon