Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-r4dm2 Total loading time: 0.312 Render date: 2021-09-21T17:01:32.886Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Inclusive and Non-Inclusive Networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

Anisha C. Datta
Affiliation:
Duke University
David A. Siegel
Affiliation:
Duke University
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Strategies for How Men Can Advance Gender Equity in Political Science
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Despite an increasing focus on gender equity in the profession, substantial inequity remains. Previous studies (Gumpertz et al. Reference Gumpertz, Durodoye, Griffith, Wilson and Rosenbloom2017; Kaminski and Geisler Reference Kaminski and Geisler2012) analyzed the “leaky pipeline” that results in the underrepresentation of women—as well as those with transgender, nonbinary, and other gender identities—in academic and tenured positions (Box-Steffensmeier et al. Reference Box-Steffensmeier, Cunha, Varbanov, Hoh, Knisley, Holmes and Larivière2015; Wolfinger, Mason, and Goulden Reference Wolfinger, Mason and Goulden2008). Extant work suggests multiple possible causes, including family commitments (Box-Steffensmeier et al. Reference Box-Steffensmeier, Cunha, Varbanov, Hoh, Knisley, Holmes and Larivière2015; Suitor, Mecom, and Feld Reference Suitor, Mecom and Feld2001) and disproportionate participation in “service activities,” such as graduate-student mentoring (Rosser et al. Reference Rosser, Domingo, Pasion, Gerber, Harris, Mamo and Rebanal2016).

This article focuses on a different cause, one that can arise even when all parties are well intentioned: non-inclusive professional networks. Professional networks pass along information and recommendations that drive personnel decisions (e.g., hiring), acceptance into graduate programs or selective conferences and workshops, and the granting of awards. According to the literature on “workplace ostracism,” defined as “being ignored and excluded by others on the job,” exclusionary professional networks are a barrier to gender and racial equality in academia (Zimmerman, Carter-Sowell, and Xu Reference Zimmerman, Carter-Sowell and Xu2016). This mirrors what we know about the effects of the composition of networks on individual and mass behavior (Larson and Lewis Reference Larson and Lewis2017; Siegel Reference Siegel2013; Sinclair Reference Sinclair2012): If network structure makes it sufficiently difficult to pass along information to important actors, as it does if networks are exclusionary, then that information is all but absent in decision making, and unrepresented individuals find their ability to influence professional outcomes vastly diminished.

An inclusive network is one in which an individual’s professional networks are diverse. Given the spotlight’s theme, we focus on gender diversity; however, the online appendix includes suggestive support for the relevance of our argument to racial diversity. Non-inclusive networks are those in which an individual’s professional networks are not diverse. Non-inclusivity or outright exclusion could be enforced by the dominant identity group, perhaps as backlash against rising diversity in the workplace (Zimmerman, Carter-Sowell, and Xu Reference Zimmerman, Carter-Sowell and Xu2016). It could be exacerbated by feedback, in that those with underrepresented identities may react to exclusionary environments by withdrawing further from networks that insufficiently include them (Johnston Reference Johnston2019). It also could be a result of homophily: the tendency to form connections with those who possess similar characteristics. Homophily can arise due to bias or to a lack of demographic diversity among those with whom we might make connections (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook Reference McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook2001).

Regardless of the cause of the non-inclusivity—and building on work that analyzes network-produced inequity in academia (Brown et al. Reference Brown, Horiuchi, Htun and Samuels2020)—we argue that professional networks that fail to include individuals with underrepresented gender identities can exacerbate gender bias and inhibit career advancement in political science. Furthermore, because networks operate regardless of intent, we posit that considering the role of professional networks can shed new light on the noted sluggishness of progress in increasing gender diversity in academia (Box-Steffensmeier et al. Reference Box-Steffensmeier, Cunha, Varbanov, Hoh, Knisley, Holmes and Larivière2015).

…we argue that professional networks that fail to include individuals with underrepresented gender identities can exacerbate gender bias and inhibit career advancement in political science.

To obtain a basic sense for how non-inclusive networks regarding gender identity might animate personnel decisions, we surveyed US political scientists in March 2020 (Datta and Siegel Reference Datta and Siegel2021). Our main independent variable of interest was respondents’ answer to the question of “whether they identify with an underrepresented gender identity, relative to the whole of political science.” We used this question format in order to be inclusive of different underrepresented gender identities. The online appendix contains a full description of the survey, its analysis, and a link to the (anonymous) data. Here, to avoid overly strong claims, we merely highlight a pattern of responses generally supportive of the view that the problem of non-inclusive networks that we and other scholars have identified is a serious one.

More than twice as many survey respondents of all genders were more likely to become aware of professional opportunities and contacts in informal settings. However, we found suggestive evidence (not quite significant at the p<0.1 level) that those faculty members with underrepresented gender identities may attend these events less often (figure 1).

Figure 1 Faculty with Underrepresented Gender Identities May Attend Fewer Social Activities

What proportion of these social activities (with faculty and/or graduate students) would you say you attend each month? (Faculty only).

Less attendance was not present among graduate-student respondents, which may be the result of higher demands on faculty respondents’ time or from their not feeling as included. Several questions in the online appendix address the latter possibility. Regardless, faculty with underrepresented gender identities may be less likely to participate in the types of informal networking that most people find to be most helpful. Coupled with evidence (see the online appendix) of the presence of demographic homophily in personnel-decision networks, our results suggest that professional networks are important but may underserve those with underrepresented gender identities. Responses to our optional free-response question by individuals with underrepresented gender identities echoed that assessment, as follows:

Biggest problem in my department are “informal” happy hours with the chair or other influential member where that individual dispenses information and/or opportunities to his favored junior colleagues. Also, a culture of gossip about members of faculty (always women) who do not participate in these events—we are considered “not as invested” in the department and “likely to leave.” (Respondent 55)

Especially at conferences, one can be in mixed gender groups and both men and women often look or speak toward the men in the group. I try really hard to participate and make sure that I look at and include women, especially younger women, in the conversation. (Respondent 94)

What can be done? Building on other proposed solutions that highlight the importance of reshaping norms and behavior among all political scientists (Htun Reference Htun2019), we offer some suggestions. Because an individual’s network is likely non-inclusive, those in a position to be a recommender or to make personnel decisions should look beyond their immediate networks in making recommendations. At minimum, network-derived information should be discounted relative to what is available from more objective sources.

It would be better to increase the frequency of inclusive networks. At the individual level, this entails a deliberate effort to broaden one’s reach. At the group level, professional associations could publicize the identities of diverse groups of scholars with varied expertise, amplifying the work of groups such as Women Also Know Stuff and People of Color Also Know Stuff; host networking events to bring diverse scholars together; and aim to diversify conference participation.

At the structural level, we should think more carefully about the spaces in which social interactions operate. Happy hours and later trips to the bar best serve those who are relatively free from family obligations and are well networked. They also can put those with underrepresented gender identities in an uncomfortable or even dangerous position. They thus do little to broaden networks and much to reinforce existing non-inclusive networks. Instead, activities that take place in the office during business hours, such as group lunches or family-friendly activities at other times, may encourage broader participation.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Leann Mclaren and Trent Ollerenshaw for their assistance with this article; to Mala Htun, Alvin Tillery, Jr., Betsy Super, and all of the participants at the 2018 APSA Diversity and Inclusion Hackathon for spurring an important conversation; and to Dan Mallinson and Rebecca Gill for all of their work in putting together this spotlight.

Data Availability Statement

Replication materials are available on Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TQYV0I.

Supplementary Materials

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S104909652100007X.

References

Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Cunha, Raphael C., Varbanov, Roumen A., Hoh, Yee Shwen, Knisley, Margaret L., and Holmes, Mary Alice. 2015. “Survival Analysis of Faculty Retention and Promotion in the Social Sciences by Gender.” Edited by Larivière, Vincent. PLOS ONE 10 (11): e0143093. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, Nadia E., Horiuchi, Yusaku, Htun, Mala, and Samuels, David. 2020. “Gender Gaps in Perceptions of Political Science Journals.” PS: Political Science & Politics 53 (1): 114–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096519001227.Google Scholar
Datta, Anisha C., and Siegel, David A.. 2021. “Replication Data for: Inclusive and Non-Inclusive Networks.” Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TQYV0I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumpertz, Marcia, Durodoye, Raifu, Griffith, Emily, and Wilson, Alyson. 2017. “Retention and Promotion of Women and Underrepresented Minority Faculty in Science and Engineering at Four Large Land Grant Institutions.” Edited by Rosenbloom, Joshua L.. PLOS One 12 (11): e0187285. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Htun, Mala. 2019. “Promoting Diversity and Inclusion through Engagement: The APSA 2018 Hackathon.” PS: Political Science & Politics 52 (4): 677–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096519000593.Google Scholar
Johnston, Kathryn V. 2019. “A Dynamical Systems Description of Privilege, Power, and Leadership in Academia: Identifying Barriers and Paths to Inclusive Communities of Excellent Scholarship.” Nature Astronomy 3 (12): 1060–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0961-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaminski, Deborah, and Geisler, Cheryl. 2012. “Survival Analysis of Faculty Retention in Science and Engineering by Gender.” Science 335 (6070): 864–66. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1214844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larson, Jennifer M., and Lewis, Janet I.. 2017. “Ethnic Networks.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (2): 350–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, Miller, Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Cook, James M.. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:415–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosser, Sue, Domingo, Carmen, Pasion, Sally, Gerber, Nancy, Harris, Diane, Mamo, Laura, and Rebanal, David. 2016. “IT Catalyst at San Francisco State University.” San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State University. Last updated October 25, 2016. itcatalyst.sfsu.edu/content/why-sf-state.Google Scholar
Siegel, David A. 2013. “Social Networks and the Mass Media.” American Political Science Review 107 (4): 786805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Betsy. 2012. The Social Citizen: Peer Networks and Political Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suitor, J. Jill, Mecom, Dorothy, and Feld, Ilana S.. 2001. “Gender, Household Labor, and Scholarly Productivity Among University Professors.” Gender Issues 19 (4): 5067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfinger, Nicholas H., Mason, Mary, and Goulden, Marc. 2008. “Problems in the Pipeline: Gender, Marriage, and Fertility in the Ivory Tower.” Journal of Higher Education 79 (4): 388405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Carla A., Carter-Sowell, Adrienne R., and Xu, Xiaohong. 2016. “Examining Workplace Ostracism Experiences in Academia: Understanding How Differences in the Faculty Ranks Influence Inclusive Climates on Campus.” Frontiers in Psychology, May 30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1 Faculty with Underrepresented Gender Identities May Attend Fewer Social ActivitiesWhat proportion of these social activities (with faculty and/or graduate students) would you say you attend each month? (Faculty only).

Supplementary material: PDF

Datta and Siegel supplementary material

Datta and Siegel supplementary material

Download Datta and Siegel supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 946 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Datta and Siegel Dataset

Link
You have Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Inclusive and Non-Inclusive Networks
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Inclusive and Non-Inclusive Networks
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Inclusive and Non-Inclusive Networks
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? *