Suchergebnisse

"Political science is for everybody is the first intersectionality-mainstreamed textbook written for introductory political science courses. While political science and politics are for everybody, political institutions (and the discipline of political science) are neither neutral nor unbiased. When we write political science textbooks that obscure the differences in how groups experience and interact with political institutions, we do students a disservice. This book exposes students to these differences while also bringing marginalized voices to the fore in political science, allowing more students to see their lived experiences reflected in the pages of their political science textbook. Bringing together a diverse group of contributors, political science is for everybody teaches all the basics of political science while showing that representation matters--both in politics and in the political science classroom."--

Although women have made considerable inroads into political science, they still comprise only about one third of the profession. Women political scientists are concentrated at lower ranks and less prestigious institutions, less likely to be published in the discipline's top journals, and cited less frequently than men. There are indicators that women's marginalisation is related to exclusion from predominantly male networks in the discipline; thus, I propose a research agenda to map the extent of women's marginalisation in political science. In turn, I hope that this body of knowledge will push political scientists to address the structural inequalities embedded in the field.

ABSTRACTOpen-access (OA) advocates have long promoted OA as an egalitarian alternative to traditional subscription-based academic publishing. The argument is simple: OA gives everyone access to high-quality research at no cost. In turn, this should benefit individual researchers by increasing the number of people reading and citing academic articles. As the OA movement gains traction in the academy, scholars are investing considerable research energy to determine whether there is an OA citation advantage—that is, does OA increase an article's citation counts? Research indicates that it does. Scholars also explored patterns of gender bias in academic publishing and found that women are cited at lower rates in many disciplines. Indeed, in many disciplines, men enjoy a significant and positive gender citation effect (GCE) compared to their female colleagues. This article combines these research areas to determine whether the OA citation advantage varies by gender. Using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) tests, the nonparametric analog to the independent samples T-test, I conclude that OA benefits male and female political scientists at similar rates. Thus, OA negates the gender citation advantage that typically accrues to male political scientists.

AbstractStudies show that women and girls consistently demonstrate higher levels of concern for the environment than men and boys. Separately, research also indicates that women officeholders pay particular attention to the issues prioritized by their female constituents. Interestingly, despite the consistency of the gender gap in attitudes to environmental issues the literature has paid scant attention to the role of women officeholders in the adoption of environmental policy. The goal of this paper was to start to address that lacuna. Using pooled cross‐sectional time series analyses of environmental standards in 18 Western parliamentary democracies (1990–2012), our initial findings indicate women officeholders are associated with the adoption of higher environmental standards.

Malice in wonderland -- Defining dystopia -- The invisible hand strikes again -- Strategies and tactics of dystopian governments -- Individual survival and resistance -- The resistance will not be intimidated -- Disintegrating the oppressor -- Can you rebuild it?

ABSTRACTResearch on the political science profession has shown that homophilous research networks—that is, those organized along the lines of gender and race/ethnicity—reproduce hierarchies. Research networks composed of white men experience the most prestige and lead to the most opportunities. This study documents homophilous networks in a setting where they likely are nurtured: academic conferences. Drawing data from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, we examine the correspondence between the gender and the racial/ethnic composition of section members, panelists, and audience members for four research sections: Political Methodology; Political Psychology; Race, Ethnicity, and Politics; and Women and Politics. We find that attendees' and panelists' gender and racial/ethnic identity largely mirror the dominant gender and racial/ethnic group in their section. These findings indicate that homophily manifests at academic conferences and that efforts to diversify research networks should consider who listens to whom in these settings.