Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-7j4dq Total loading time: 0.48 Render date: 2022-10-04T21:10:46.413Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Integrating Gender into the Political Science Core Curriculum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2012

Erin C. Cassese
West Virginia University
Angela L. Bos
College of Wooster
Lauren E. Duncan
Smith College


The New Research on Gender in Political Psychology Conference brought together new and experienced teachers with interests in gender politics. The conference session “Teaching Gender throughout the Curriculum” generated a great deal of discussion concerning the pedagogical practice of gender mainstreaming. Gender mainstreaming—the integration of gendered content into courses required for a major—was recognized as one of 11 recommendations for reforming the undergraduate political science curriculum in the 1991 APSA report “Liberal Learning an The Political Science Major: A Report to the Profession” (popularly referred to as the Wahlke Report). Little information is available on the prevalence of gender courses in the undergraduate curriculum, but the data that does exist suggest such courses are uncommon (Brandes et al. 2001). We found virtually no data on the practice of gender mainstreaming in political science and little data in the way of assessing the impact of gendered content when students are exposed to it. This absence of data suggests gender mainstreaming has not emerged as a serious priority for curricular reform.

Copyright © American Political Science Association 2012

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.)


Albright, Madeline. 2003. Madame Secretary: A Memoir. New York: Easton Press.Google Scholar
APSA. 2005. Women's Advancement in Political Science: A Report on the APSA Workshop on the Advancement of Women in Academic Political Science in the United States. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
APSA. 2011. Task Force Report on Political Science in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Beckwith, Karen. 2005. “A Common Language of Gender?Politics and Gender 1 (1): 128–36.Google Scholar
Boxer, Barbara. 1993. Strangers in the Senate: Politics and the New Revolution of Women in America. Washington, DC: National Press Books.Google Scholar
Brandes, Lisa, Buker, Eloise, Burgess, Susan, Cook, Constance, Flammang, Janet, Geiger, Shirley, Okin, Susan, Yoon, Bang-Soon, and Ackelsberg, Martha. 2001. “The Status of Women in Political Science: Female Participation in the Professoriate and the Study of Women and Politics in the Discipline.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34 (2): 319–26.Google Scholar
Camasso, Michael. 2007. Family Caps, Abortion, and Women of Color: Research Conncetion and Political Rejection. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Susan J. 1989. “Gender Politics and the Socializing Impact of the Women's Movement.” In Political Learning in Adulthood, ed. Sigel, Roberta. 306–39. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Elizabeth R. 2009. “Intersectionality and Research in Psychology.” American Psychologist 64 (3): 170–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Patricia H. 1991. Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darcy, Robert, Welch, Susan, and Clark, Janet. 1994. Women, Elections, and Representation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Eagly, Alice H., and Carli, Linda L.. 2007. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about How Women Become Leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Falk, Erike, and Kenski, Kate. 2006. “Sexism versus Partisanship: A New Look at the Question of Whether America Is Ready for a Woman President.” Sex Roles 54 (7-8): 413–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall Jamieson, Kathleen. 1995. Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hare-Mustin, Rachel T., and Marecek, Jeanne. 1988. “The Meaning of Difference: Gender Theory, Postmodernism, and Psychology.” American Psychologist 43 (6): 455–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare-Mustin, Rachel T., and Marecek, Jeanne. 1990. Making a Difference: Psychology and the Construction of Gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. “Congressional Enactments of Race-Gender: Toward a Theory of Raced-Gendered Institutions.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 529–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2005. “Engendering Political Science: An Immodest Proposal.” Politics and Gender 1 (1): 140–56Google Scholar
Heflick, Nathan A., and Goldenberg, Jamie L.. 2009. “Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that Objectification Causes Women to be Perceived as Less Competent and Less Fully Human.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (3): 598601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Philip W. 1968. Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kabeer, Naila. 2004. “Globalization, Labor Standards, and Women's Rights: Dilemmas of Collective (In)Action in an Interdependent World.” Feminist Economics 10 (1): 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, Robin M. 2000. “Including Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in Psychology Content Courses.” Teaching of Psychology 27 (1): 1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mankiller, Wilma Pearl, and Wallis, Michael. 1999. Mankiller: A Chief and Her People. 1st edition. New York: St. Martin's Griffin.Google Scholar
McGlone, Matthew, Aronson, Joshua, and Kobrynowicz, Diane. 2006. “Stereotype Threat and the Gender Gap in Political KnowledgePsychology of Women Quarterly 30 (4): 392–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, Peggy. 2004. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” In Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study, ed. Rothenberg, Paula S., 188–92. New York: Worth.Google Scholar
Nerad, Maresi. 2004. “The Advancement of Women Ph.D.s in Political Science: Defining the Problem.” Paper presented to NSF-APSA Workshop on Women's Advancement in Political Science, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1991. “Gender Differences in Political Participation in Britain: Traditional, Radical, and Revisionist Models.” Government and Opposition 26 (1): 5674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 2003. “The Gender Gap: Old Challenges, New Approaches.” In Women and American Politics: New Questions, New Directions, ed. Carroll, S. J., 146–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Tara N., Garland, Tammy S., Bumphus, Vic W., and Thompson, Roger. 2010. “Personal and Political? Exploring the Feminization of the American Homeless Population.” Journal of Poverty 14 (1): 97115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rios, Desdamona, Stewart, Abigail J., and Winter, David G.. 2010. “'Thinking She Could Be the Next President:' Why Identifying with the Curriculum Matters.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 34 (1): 328–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 1999. “One Experience Is Worth a Thousand Words: Engaging Undergraduates in Field Research on Gender.” PS: Political Science and Politics 32 (1): 6368.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women's Place Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez-Hucles, Janis V., and Davis, Donald D.. 2010. “Women and Women of Color in Leadership: Complexity, Identity, and Intersectionality.” American Psychologist 65 (3): 171–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sapiro, Virginia. 1981. “When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women.” American Political Science Review 75 (3): 701–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Monica C.Forthcoming. “Gender Bending or Gender Reinforcing? Effects of Candidates' Gender-Based Strategies.” Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Pat. 1998. 24 Years of House Work … and the Place Is Still a Mess: My Life in Politics. Kansas City, MS: Andrews McMeel.Google Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A., and Mischler, William. 2005. “The Nexus of Representation: An Integrated Model of Women's Representation.” Journal of Politics 67 (2): 407–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settles, Isis H., Cortina, Lilia M., Malley, Janet, and Stewart, Abigail J.. 2006. “The Climate for Women in Academic Science: The Good, the Bad, and the Changeable.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 30 (1): 4758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sevelius, Jeanne M., and Stake, Jayne E.. 2003. “The Effects of Prior Attitudes and Attitude Importance on Change and Class Impact in Women's and Gender Studies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 33 (11): 2341–53.Google Scholar
Silverberg, Helene. 1994. “Organizing a Course that is Attentive to Issues of Racial and Sexual Difference.” PS: Political Science and Politics 27 (4): 718–19.Google Scholar
Stewart, Abigail J., and McDermott, Christina. 2004. “Gender in Psychology.” Annual Review of Psychology 55: 519–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, Michele. 2001. “Understanding the Policy Impact of Electing Women: Evidence from Research on Congress and State Legislatures.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34 (2): 217220.Google Scholar
Traister, Rebecca. 2010. Big Girls Don't Cry: The Election that Changed Everything for American Women. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Wahlke, John C. 1991. “Liberal Learning and the Political Science Major: A Report to the Profession.” PS: Political Science & Politics 24 (1): 4860.Google Scholar
Wyer, Mary, Murphy-Medley, Deena, Damschen, Ellen I., Rosenfeld, Kristen M., and Wentworth, Thomas R.. 2007. “No Quick Fixes: Adding Content about Women to Ecology Course Materials.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 31 (1): 96102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure 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 or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ 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.

Integrating Gender into the Political Science Core Curriculum
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.

Integrating Gender into the Political Science Core Curriculum
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.

Integrating Gender into the Political Science Core Curriculum
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? *