Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:29:52.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Practical Process of Gender Mainstreaming in the Political Science Curriculum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2013

Amy L. Atchison
Amy L. Atchison*
Affiliation:
Valparaiso University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although the presence of women in the political science profession has increased rapidly since the 1980s, women still constitute less than 30% of the political science faculty nationwide and are more likely to find themselves in lower-paying and/or nontenure track positions (APSA 2011, 39; Evans and Moulder 2011). In the discipline, the position of gender and politics as a legitimate course of study has improved markedly since the 1970s (Lovenduski 1998; Mackay 2004; Murphy 2010; Tolleson-Rinehart and Carroll 2006). As Childs and Krook (2006, 19) point out, “mainstream editors, publishers and conference conveners no longer feel able to ignore the work of feminist political scientists.” But they also present evidence that this improvement stops short of full incorporation into the discipline and note that there is still skepticism about the value of feminist scholarship. This skepticism is also present at the intersection of the profession and discipline: while there are no systematic data on the employment of gender and politics scholars, it is not rare for a gender and politics scholar to be told that her employment prospects would be better if she were to research something else (Childs and Krook 2006). Given the position of women in the profession and the status of gender and politics in the discipline, it is unsurprising that there is continued resistance to integrating gender into mainstream political science education (Baldez 2010; Lovenduski 2005; Murphy 2010).

Type
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 228 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2013 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

APSA. 2011. Political Science in the 21st Century: Report of the Task Force on Political Science in the 21st Century. http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/TF_21st%20Century_AllPages_online2.pdf (accessed February 8, 2012). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Baldez, Lisa. 2010. “The Gender Lacuna in Comparative Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (1): 199–205.Google Scholar
Bennett, Douglas C. 1991. “Political Science within the Liberal Arts: Towards Renewal of Our Commitment.” PS: Political Science & Politics 24 (2): 201–4.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Charli. 2007. “Introduction.” International Studies Perspectives 8 (3): 315–16.Google Scholar
Cassese, Erin C., and Bos, Angela L.. 2013. “A Hidden Curriculum? Examining the Gender Content in Introductory Level Political Science Textbooks.” Politics & Gender 9 (2): 214–223Google Scholar
Cassese, Erin C., Bos, Angela L., and Duncan, Lauren E.. 2012. “Integrating Gender into the Political Science Core Curriculum.” PS: Political Science & Politics 45 (2): 238–43.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah, and Krook, Mona Lena. 2006. “Gender and Politics: The State of the Art.” Politics 26 (1): 18–28.Google Scholar
Colander, David, and Klamer, Arjo. 1987. “The Making of an Economist.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1 (2): 95–111.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2006. “Revolutions Without Enemies: Key Transformations in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 100 (4): 487–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erevelles, Nirmala. 2005. “Understanding Curriculum as Normalizing Text: Disability Studies Meet Curriculum Theory.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 37 (4): 421–39.Google Scholar
Evans, Heather K., and Moulder, Ashley. 2011. “Reflecting on a Decade of Women's Publications in Four Top Political Science Journals.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44 (4): 793–98.Google Scholar
Fahey, Stephanie. 1988. “‘Putting Gender Into’ Geography.” Australian Geographical Studies 26 (1): 202–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frueh, Jamie. 2007. “Teaching Complexity with Gender.” International Studies Perspectives 8 (3): 317–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geller, Pamela L. 2009. “Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology.” Annual Review of Anthropology 38 (1): 65–81.Google Scholar
Hendon, Julia. 2006. “Feminist Perspectives and the Teaching of Archaeology: Implications from the Inadvertent Ethnography of the Classroom.” In Feminist Anthropology: Past, Present, and Future, eds. Geller, Pamela L. and Stockett, Miranda K.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 129–42.Google Scholar
Ishiyama, John. 2005. “Examining the Impact of the Wahlke Report: Surveying the Structure of the Political Science Curricula at Liberal Arts and Sciences Colleges and Universities in the Midwest.” PS: Political Science & Politics 38 (1): 71–75.Google Scholar
Ishiyama, John, Breuning, Marijke, and Lopez, Linda. 2006. “A Century of Continuity and (Little) Change in the Undergraduate Political Science Curriculum.” The American Political Science Review 100 (4): 659–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman-Osborn, Timothy V. 1991. “From the Science to the Art of Politics.” PS: Political Science & Politics 24 (2): 204–205.Google Scholar
Kotter, John P. 2007. “Leading Change.” Harvard Business Review 85 (1): 96–103.Google Scholar
Kowalski, Robin M. 2000. “Including Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in Psychology Content Courses.” Teaching of Psychology 27 (1): 18–24.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni. 1998. “Gendering Research in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1): 333–56.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni. 2005. Feminizing Politics. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Mackay, Fiona. 2004. “Gender and Political Representation in the UK: The State of the ‘Discipline.’” The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 6 (1): 99–120.Google Scholar
McElhinny, Bonnie, Hols, Marijke, Holtzkener, Jeff, Unger, Susanne, and Hicks, Claire. 2003. “Gender, Publication and Citation in Sociolinguistics and Linguistic Anthropology: The Construction of a Scholarly Canon.” Language in Society 32 (3): 299–328.Google Scholar
Mertus, Julie. 2007. “Teaching Gender in International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 8 (3): 323–25.Google Scholar
Morgen, Sandra, ed. 1989. Gender and Anthropology: Critical Reviews for Research and Teaching. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Morgen, Sandra, and Moran, Mary. 1990. “Transforming Introductory Anthropology: The American Anthropological Association Project on Gender and the Curriculum.” Women's Studies Quarterly 18 (1/2): 95–104.Google Scholar
Morley, Louise. 2007. “Sister-matic: Gender Mainstreaming in Higher Education.” Teaching in Higher Education 12 (5/6): 607–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Kate. 2010. “Feminism and Political History.” Australian Journal of Politics & History 56 (1): 21–37.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Judith. 1981. “Anthropology and the Study of Gender.” In A Feminist Perspective in the Academy: The Difference it Makes, eds. Langland, Elizabeth and Grove, Walter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 110–29.Google Scholar
Sjoberg, Laura. 2007. “Gender and Personal Pedagogy: Some Observations.” International Studies Perspectives 8 (3): 336–39.Google Scholar
Stegmaier, Mary, Palmer, Barbara, and Assendelft, Laura van. 2011. “Getting on the Board: The Presence of Women in Political Science Journal Editorial Positions.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44 (4): 799–804.Google Scholar
Tolleson-Rinehart, Sue, and Carroll, Susan J.. 2006. “Far from Ideal: The Gender Politics of Political Science.” American Political Science Review 100 (4): 507–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlke, John C. 1991. “Liberal Learning and the Political Science Major: A Report to the Profession.” PS: Political Science & Politics 24 (1): 48–60.Google Scholar