Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-mtzvg Total loading time: 0.539 Render date: 2022-10-07T20:38:15.794Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

The Gender Gap in Political Discussion Group Attendance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2019

Edana Beauvais*
Affiliation:
McGill University

Abstract

Although women and men enjoy formally equal political rights in today's democracies, there are ongoing gaps in the extent to which they make use of these rights, with women underrepresented in many political practices. The gender gap in democratic participation is problematic because gendered asymmetries in participation entail collective outcomes that are less attentive to women's needs, interests, and preferences. Existing studies consider gender gaps in voting behavior and in certain forms of nonelectoral politics such as boycotting, signings a petition, or joining a protest. However, almost no work considers gendered variation in discursive politics. Do women participate in small, face-to-face political discussion groups at the same rate as men? And does gender intersect with other identities—such as ethnicity—to impact attendance at political discussion groups? I use data from the Canadian Election Study 2015 Web Survey to answer these questions. I find that women are significantly less likely to attend small-group discussions than men and that ethnicity intersects with gender in some important ways. However, I find no evidence that other social attributes—poverty or the presence of young children in the home—suppress women's participation in political discussion groups more than men's.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I thank Mark Warren and Andrew Owen for helping me develop this project, Dietlind Stolle (and the Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship) for support while I finished it, and the CES (2015) team of investigators who humored the variable suggestions that made it possible. I owe a debt of gratitude to the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research for funding my methods training through the Clogg and Henry “Hank” Heitowit scholarships. I thank the participants at the Canadian Political Science Association (2017), American Political Science Association (2017), séminaire à l'Université de Montréal (2018), Dan Westlake, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and feedback. Finally, I thank Adam Enders for help with R. I am solely responsible for any remaining errors. This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

References

REFERENCES

Achen, Christopher H. 2005. “Let's Put Garbage-Can Regressions and Garbage-Can Probits Where They Belong.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 22 (4): 327–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfred, Taiaiake, Pitawanakwat, Brock, and Price, Jackie. 2007. “The Meaning of Political Participation for Indigenous Youth: Charting the Course for Youth Civic and Political Participation.” Research report, Canadian Polity Research Network and Elections Canada Ottawa, June. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.555.4162&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed November 26, 2018).Google Scholar
Anderson, Cameron. 2010. “Regional heterogeneity and policy preferences in Canada: 1979–2006.” Regional and Federal Studies 20(4–5):447468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bächtiger, André, Spörndli, Markus, Steenbergen, Marco R. and Steiner, Jürg. 2007. “Deliberation in Legislatures: Antecedents and Outcomes.” In Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern?, ed. Rosenberg, Shawn W.. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 82100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Benjamin R. 2003. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Beauvais, Edana. 2018a. “Deliberation and Equality.” In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, eds. Bächtiger, André, Dryzek, John S., Mansbridge, Jane, and Warren, Mark E.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 144–55.Google Scholar
Beauvais, Edana. 2018b. “The Democratic Potential of Discursive Practices.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Beauvais, Edana. 2018c. “Inequalities of Participation in the Canadian Democratic System.” Presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, Regina, Canada.Google Scholar
Beauvais, Edana, and Bächtiger, André. 2016. “Taking the Goals of Deliberation Seriously: A Differentiated View on Equality and Equity in Deliberative Designs and Processes.” Journal of Public Deliberation 12 (2). https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss2/art2/ (accessed November 26, 2018).Google Scholar
Bedolla, Lisa García, Lavariega Monforti, Jessica L., and Pantoja, Adrian D.. 2007. “A Second Look: Is There a Latina/o Gender Gap?Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 28 (3–4): 147–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedolla, Lisa García, and Scola, Becki. 2006. “Finding Intersection: Race, Class, and Gender in the 2003 California Recall Vote.” Politics & Gender 2 (1): 527.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1994. “Deliberative Rationality and Models of Democratic Legitimacy.” Constellations 1 (1): 2652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Justin, Chouhoud, Youssef, and Junn, Jane. 2016. “Reaching Beyond Low-Hanging Fruit: Surveying Low-Incidence Populations.” In The Oxford Handbook of Polling and Polling Methods, eds. Ray Atkeson, Lonna and Alvarez, R. Michael. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 181206.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E., Verba, Sidney, and Schlozman, Kay Lehman. 1995. “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation.” American Political Science Review 89 (2): 271–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breton, Charles, Cutler, Fred, Lachance, Sarah, and Mierke-Zatwarnicki, Alex. 2017. “Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote Choice in the 2015 Federal Election.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 50 (4): 1005–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 1998. “Contract or Conversation? Theoretical Lessons from the Canadian Constitutional Crisis.” Politics & Society 26 (1): 143–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2009. “Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy?Political Theory 37 (3): 323–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffé, Hilde, and Bolzendahl, Catherine. 2010. “Same Game, Different Rules? Gender Differences in Political Participation.” Sex Roles 62 (5–6): 318–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, Fay Lomax, Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Jacobs, Lawrence. 2007. “Who Deliberates? Discursive Participation in America.” In Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern?, ed. Rosenberg, Shawn W.. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2008. “Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation.” Political Studies 56 (1): 7698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Kathy. 2008. “Intersectionality as Buzzword: A Sociology of Science Perspective on What Makes a Feminist Theory Successful.” Feminist Theory 9 (1): 6785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2007. “Theory, Evidence, and the Tasks of Deliberation.” In Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern?, ed. Rosenberg, Shawn W.. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 237–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontaine, Tim. 2015. “Record Number of Indigenous Candidates Win Seats.” CBC, October 20. http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indigenous-guide-to-house-of-commons-1.3278957 (accessed November 26, 2018).Google Scholar
Fournier, Patrick, van der Kolk, Henk, Carty, R. Kenneth, Blais, André and Rose, Jonathan, eds. 2011. When Citizens Decide: Lessons from Citizen Assemblies on Electoral Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1990. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Text, no. 25/26: 5680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, Archon. 2013. “The Principle of All-Affected Interests: An Interpretation and Defense.” In Representations: Elections and Beyond, eds. Nagel, Jack H. and Smith, Rogers M.. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 236–68.Google Scholar
Gastil, John, Deess, E. Pierre, and Weiser, Phil. 2002. “Civic Awakening in the Jury Room: A Test of the Connection between Jury Deliberation and Political Participation.” Journal of Politics 64 (2): 585–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, John, and Dillard, James P.. 1999a. “The Aims, Methods, and Effects of Deliberative Civic Education through the National Issues Forums.” Communication Education 48 (3): 179–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, John, and Dillard, James P.. 1999b. “Increasing Political Sophistication through Public Deliberation.” Political Communication 16 (1): 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gay, Claudine, and Tate, Katherine. 1998. “Doubly Bound: The Impact of Gender and Race on the Politics of Black Women.” Political Psychology 19 (1): 169–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidengil, Elisabeth. 2007. “Beyond the Gender Gap: Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Saskatoon, 2007.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 815–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidengil, Elisabeth, Giles, Janine, and Thomas, Melanee. 2008. “The Gender Gap in Self-Perceived Understanding of Politics in Canada and the United States.” Politics & Gender 4 (4): 535–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidengil, Elisabeth, O'Neill, Brenda, and Young, Lisa. 2010. “Her Mother's Daughter? The Influence of Childhood Socialization on Women's Political Engagement.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 31 (4): 334–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2007. “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 35 (1): 4068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Graeme. 2017. “Québec's Social Capital Deficit Stumped Academics Long before Potter Waded into the Debate.” National Post, April 3. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/Québecs-social-capital-deficit-stumped-academics-long-before-potter-waded-into-the-debate (accessed November 26, 2018).Google Scholar
Harell, Allison, and Panagos, Dimitrios. 2013. “Locating the Aboriginal Gender Gap: The Political Attitudes and Participation of Aboriginal Women in Canada.” Politics & Gender 9 (4): 414–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrick, Rebekah. 2018. “The Gender Gaps in Identity and Political Attitudes among American Indians.” Politics & Gender 14 (2): 187207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Norris, Pippa. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., Cook, Fay Lomax, and Delli Carpini, Michael X.. 2009. Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Mendelberg, Tali. 2014. The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Raphael, Chad. 2014. Deliberation, Democracy, and Civic Forums: Improving Equality and Publicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collective, Kino-nda-niimi. 2014. The Winter We Danced: Voices from the Past, the Future, and the Idle No More Movement. Winnipeg: ARP Books.Google Scholar
Knobloch, Katherine R., and Gastil, John. 2015. “Civic (Re)socialisation: The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation.” Politics 35 (2): 183200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landemore, Hélène. 2012. “Democratic Reason: The Mechanisms of Collective Intelligence in Politics.” In Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms, eds. Landemore, Hélène and Elster, Jon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 251–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1977. “Acceptable Inequalities.” British Journal of Political Science 7 (3): 321–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2010. “Deliberative Polling as the Gold Standard.” The Good Society 19 (1): 5562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali. 2002. “The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence.” Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation 6 (1): 151–93.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali, Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Oliphant, J. Baxter. 2014. “Gender Inequality in Deliberation: Unpacking the Black Box of Interaction.” Perspectives on Politics 12 (1): 1844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micheletti, Michele, and Stolle, Dietlind. 2017. “Toying Around with the Future.” In Mothers and Others: The Role of Parenthood in Politics, eds. Thomas, Melanee and Bittner, Amanda. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 288310.Google Scholar
Mills, Charles W. 1997. The Racial Contract. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Nath, Nisha. 2011. “Defining Narratives of Identity in Canadian Political Science: Accounting for the Absence of Race.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 44 (1): 161–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, Brenda, and Gidengil, Elisabeth. 2017. “Motherhood's Role in Shaping Political and Civic Participation.” In Mothers and Others: The Role of Parenthood in Politics, eds. Thomas, Melanee and Bittner, Amanda. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 268–87.Google Scholar
Owen, David, and Smith, Graham. 2015. “Survey Article: Deliberation, Democracy, and the Systemic Turn.” Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (2): 213–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, John. 2003. “Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies 53 (1): 180–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paxton, Pamela, Kunovich, Sheri, and Hughes, Melanie M.. 2007. “Gender in Politics.” Annual Review of Sociology 33: 263–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Matthew, and Smith, Graham. 2014. “Defining Mini-Publics.” In Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process, eds. Grönlund, Kimmo, Bächtiger, André, and Setälä, Maija. Wivenhoe Park, UK: ECPR Press, 926.Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Burns, Nancy, Verba, Sidney, and Donahue, Jesse. 1995. “Gender and Citizen Participation: Is There a Different Voice?American Journal of Political Science 39 (2): 267–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, Stephanie A. 2008. “Gender: An Intersectionality Perspective.” Sex Roles 59 (5–6): 301–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. 2015. “The Misery of Settler Colonialism: Roundtable on Glen Coulthard's Red Skin, White Masks and Audra Simpson's Mohawk Interruptus.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Studies Association. https://www.leannesimpson.ca/writings/the-misery-of-settler-colonialism-roundtable-on-glen-coulthards-red-skin-white-masks-and-audra-simpsons-mohawk-interruptus (accessed November 26, 2018).Google Scholar
Smith, Graham. 2009. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2015. “Trends in Social Capital in Canada.” https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2015002-eng.htm (accessed November 26, 2018).Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2017a. “Comparison Age Pyramid.” May 1. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/pyramid/pyramid.cfm?type=2&geo1=01&geo2=01 (accessed November 26, 2018).Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2017b. “The Daily—Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Key Results from the 2016 Census.” October 25. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025a-eng.htm (accessed November 26, 2018).Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2017c. “Low Income Cut-Offs (LICOs) before and after Tax by Community and Family Size in 2016 Constant Dollars.” http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=engid=2060092.Google Scholar
Steiner, Jürg, Bächtiger, André, Spörndli, Markus, and Steenbergen, Marco R.. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stolle, Dietlind, Hooghe, Marc, and Micheletti, Michele. 2005. “Politics in the Supermarket: Political Consumerism as a Form of Political Participation.” International Political Science Review 26 (3): 245–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolle, Dietlind, and Micheletti, Michele. 2013. Political Consumerism: Global Responsibility in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Melanee. 2012. “The Complexity Conundrum: Why Hasn't the Gender Gap in Subjective Political Competence Closed?Canadian Journal of Political Science 45 (2): 337–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Dennis F. 2008. “Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Katherine Cramer. 2004. Talking about Politics: Informal Groups and Social Identity in American Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, Katherine Cramer. 2008. Talking about Race: Community Dialogues and the Politics of Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1999. “Deliberation, and What Else?” In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed. Macedo, Stephen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 5869.Google Scholar
Weldon, Laurel. 2006. “The Structure of Intersectionality: A Comparative Politics of Gender.” Politics & Gender 2 (2): 235248.Google Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2017. “A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory.” American Political Science Review 111 (1): 3953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E., and Gastil, John. 2015. “Can Deliberative Minipublics Address the Cognitive Challenges of Democratic Citizenship?Journal of Politics 77 (2):562–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2011. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Beauvais supplementary material

Appendix

Download Beauvais supplementary material(File)
File 67 KB
6
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Gender Gap in Political Discussion Group Attendance
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Gender Gap in Political Discussion Group Attendance
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Gender Gap in Political Discussion Group Attendance
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *