Major changes have occurred in the teaching of gender since the shift from women’s studies to gender studies. In some institutions gender studies became a separate and interdisciplinary track within social sciences and humanities, while in others it either lacked integration or disappeared altogether. What do these developments mean for gender in political science curricula? In this symposium scholars from different European countries, including Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom reflect on the state of gender within political science education. This introductory essay places national experiences within a broader European perspective; highlighting that gender is virtually absent from much of the political science curriculum. Gender and political science courses suffer from issues of supply (rather than demand), such as the persistent under-representation of women academics within political science as well as tight budget constraints. We argue that this is problematic and that gender should be a core part of the political science curricula for three key reasons: (i) politics is about power and power is always gendered; (ii) embedding gender in the core of political science education may positively affect gender equality in the profession and politics; and (iii) it reflects the contemporary resurgence of feminist activism across Europe. We conclude with concrete recommendations about how institutions and individuals can help address the virtual absence of gender, including: the integration of gender-related courses in politics programs; Gender & Politics related awards; big data collection projects regarding women in the profession and gender and politics teaching; and the development of leadership courses for women in politics.

Mainstreaming gender in political science education requires legislation, structures, instruments, and critical actors, not to mention a favourable political context for putting the issue on the agenda. This article examines these issues in the Spanish context with particular reference to the opportunities afforded to the mainstreaming of gender in higher education as a result of the European Higher Education Area and the policies pursued by the Socialist Zapatero government (2004–2011). Upon the back of these initiatives, undergraduate gender and politics studies were introduced for the first time in Spanish universities, having from the most part until then been the reserve of interdisciplinary Masters programmes on gender. While the opportunities to embed gender within political science education have been opened up, this process of mainstreaming has also been characterised by resistance. These issues are unpacked through a case study of the development of the gender and politics network within the Spanish Association of Political and Administrative Science, as well as through reference to the project of a pioneering textbook on mainstreaming gender in political science.

What have been the losses and the gains of the shift from women’s studies to gender studies for political science in The Netherlands? What are present-day opportunities and how should we move forward? Our systematic analysis of the Bachelor programmes offered by four Dutch political science departments shows that gender is not a central feature in the current curricula. Gender in political science has become dependent on personal interests and engagements at the individual level rather than being sustained by structural commitments at the departmental level. This article argues that a gender perspective should be part of the analytical toolkit of anyone trained as a political scientist. Students should be made aware that gender is a fundamental aspect of the organisation of power and therefore unambiguously political. Gender awareness impacts upon both students’ academic development and Dutch politics given that many graduates take up jobs in or close to the political environment. With this in mind, being equipped with a ‘gender lens’ will enable students to identify and explain gender inequalities and more importantly stimulate them to develop innovative strategies to close the gaps.

This article provides a case study analysis of the provision of gender and political studies education in the United Kingdom (UK). The article notes the lack of gender and politics modules available to students at the undergraduate level and links this to the under-representation of women within the discipline but also to the wider political and economic context. The article reflects upon the extent to which the study of gender and politics has been promoted within the UK, arguing that despite the key role played by national groups such as the Political Studies Association’s Women and Politics group, the wider discipline is yet to view gender as a core part of the curricula.

Gender studies in Germany is not a fully integrated aspect of political science training. Only very few of the about 70 political science institutes include gender research in their teaching programmes. This is surprising given that there are a number of factors that support a stronger institutionalisation of gender studies, such as the size of the German political science community, an increase in female faculty, and equal opportunity policies that have been adopted by the German Political Science Association. This article discusses the restrictive factors that impact upon gender studies within Germany and compares a 2009 study on the mainstreaming of gender topics in B.A. and M.A. programmes in political science with a more recent 2014 survey. The findings of this study point to the fact that while there have been some overall trends, there nonetheless remain a number of barriers to improving the position of gender studies, not least the small size of many institutes. Indeed, the survey reinforces the position whereby teaching tends to concentrate on what are regarded as the ‘important topics’, while gender becomes, at best, secondary. This reflects a broader finding that demands for more women in academia are easier to implement than the need for a gender mainstreaming of the political science curriculum.

Whereas political science has a long history in the higher-education provision of many countries, it was only in the early 1970s that it became a feature of the provision in Austria. Not only is Austria a latecomer to the political science profession, but it is also home to a rather small political science community with there only being three universities which have established political science departments: Innsbruck, Salzburg and Vienna. Today two university political science departments have mainstreamed gender into their curriculum, with this being the result of the success of feminist entrepreneurs in these departments. The provision at the University of Vienna is typified by one where professors, associates and external lecturers contribute to the curriculum in gender political science. This state of affairs is, however, far from secure as the Bologna process, the transformation toward an entrepreneurial university as well as budget cuts challenge these institutionalizations. This article seeks to explain this mixed picture through an analysis of the recent state of the art of teaching and gender research in Austrian political science before proceeding to point out the favorable factors which fostered the establishment of gender studies in Political Science. Finally, the article builds on the recent challenging conditions which jeopardizes gender studies within the discipline.

There are currently millions of people with Alzheimer and other dementia-related conditions. Considering relatives and caregivers among others, this means additional millions of people affected. Despite expansive research also on the impact on welfare and health-care systems, the question of dementia from a democratic perspective has been neglected thus far. However, the current situation and projected developments require us to reflect on how participation and inclusion are fundamentally challenged for citizens with dementia. Consequently, the following explores pressing theoretical implications and emerging democratic deficits for societies where, constrained by conventional forms of participation, a rapidly increasing number of citizens are excluded from political processes. Furthermore, as will be illustrated, non-conventional and participatory-oriented concepts could even exacerbate rather than ameliorate inclusion and participation. Finally, I further hope to prompt reflection on possible avenues to enhancing representation and inclusion, ensuring ‘vote and voice’ to an ever growing group of citizens.

In a recent article in this journal, Stockemer characterizes fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) in comparison with Ordinary Least Squares regression as a ‘poor methodological choice’ because of its ‘suboptimal nature’ for the study of descriptive female representation in national assemblies across the globe. This article seeks to demonstrate that his judgments are based on two misconceptions: first, a misunderstanding of set-theoretical thinking in general, and specifically Qualitative Comparative Analysis; and second, a misinformed application throughout various steps of the fsQCA, for example, the calibration process, the analysis of necessary and sufficient conditions, and the interpretation of the results. In pointing out the weaknesses of Stockemer’s application of OLS, we argue – in contrast to Stockemer – that fsQCA can be a valuable tool for the comparative study of social phenomena, which offers a fundamentally different analytical perspective from standard quantitative techniques.

In this rebuttal piece to Buche et al, I reiterate my criticism of fuzzy set analysis as a method that is poorly suited to study women’s representation in parliament and other rather complex phenomena. The use of fuzzy set analysis is problematic from the onset, because this method asks the researchers to distinguish meaningful from non-meaningful variation and set benchmarks for high women’s representation, the cross-over point and low or non-high representation. Yet, in the study of women’s representation, the distinction between meaningful and non-meaningful variation and the setup of these benchmarks is problematic if not impossible, even with case-specific knowledge. For example, in Asia and Latin America can we talk about high women’s representation if there are 30 per cent women deputies, 35 per cent women deputies or 40 per cent women deputies? Neither the literature nor Buche et al give an answer to this question. This problem of arbitrarily setting benchmarks is magnified by the non-robust findings and low coverage of this method. It is disturbing if we get a completely different combination of conditions, if we slightly change the benchmark for high women’s representation and/or that of some of the conditions or independent variables. Because of these reasons, researchers should refrain from using fuzzy set analysis, when explaining variation in the number of deputies in parliament.

Social science departments are regularly criticised for a perceived failure to provide their graduates with a range of transferable or employability skills. This is particularly acute in many politics departments that have the difficulty of not being seen as a vocational subject. This article provides a national audit of levels of transferable skills teaching in UK Politics departments, carried out in academic year 2013–2014. It will argue that there is much good work in these areas being carried out in the UK political studies community, providing students with a range of transferable skills they will find of great use as they move towards employment. It will however observe that the discipline is poor in highlighting this in the online descriptions of course content they provide to students (and their parents).

In The Political Economy of Human Happiness: How Voters’ Choices Determine the Quality of Life, Benjamin Radcliff considers a wide variety of data from North America and Europe and argues that, on balance, welfare state policies make people happier. In short, there is a positive correlation and a causal relationship between happiness and welfare state provisions. This is an important conclusion for anyone interested in public policy and debates about the size of government. In their reviews, Larry M. Bartels and William A. Galston take issue with Radcliff’s thesis. They challenge the relationships that Radcliff suggests exist between specific policies and happiness. Bartels challenges the way Radcliff uses his statistics to support his thesis about the relationship between happiness and specific policies as well as our ability to make generalisations from the data. Galson’s objections to Radcliff’s analysis and argument is more conceptual, and, among other things, he challenges the connection Radcliff seeks to establish between happiness and the satisfaction of human needs.