The gender gap in academia is well established. From lower journal submission rates (Djupe, Smith, and Sokhey Reference Djupe, Smith and Sokhey2019) to fewer citations in published research and course syllabi (Colgan Reference Colgan2017; Harris et al. Reference Harris, Croston, Hutti and Tyler2020; Liu, Devine, and Gauder Reference Liu, Devine and Gauder2020; Maliniak, Powers, and Walter Reference Maliniak, Powers and Walter2013; Mitchell, Lange, and Brus Reference Mitchell, Lange and Brus2013; Phull, Ciflikli, and Meibauer Reference Phull, Ciflikli and Meibauer2019) and excess service expectations (Pyke Reference Pyke2011), research consistently demonstrates that women and men face different challenges in navigating an academic career. Furthermore, women receive less recognition than the quality of their work warrants and less acknowledgment of their academic and service achievements overall (Cellini Reference Cellini2022; Dion, Summer, and Mitchell Reference Dion, Sumner and Mitchell2018; Jackson et al. Reference Jackson, Maliniak, Parajon, Peterson, Powers and Tierney2023). Such discordant experiences contribute to the gendered “leaky pipeline” pattern in which women leave academia earlier and at higher rates compared to their male counterparts (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Hardt, Meister and Kim2020; Xu Reference Xu2008). Analyses of gender diversity and inclusion in the political science subfield of security studies suggest that these problems of gender representation and gendered experiences are particularly acute.
Research on perceptions and experiences of the security studies subfield demonstrates significant gender differences in how women and men experience the security studies discipline and professional associations affiliated with it (Rublee et al. Reference Rublee, Jackson, Parajon, Peterson and Duncombe2020). Security studies as a subfield remains heavily male dominated (Borg Reference Borg2023; Jackson et al. Reference Jackson, Maliniak, Parajon, Peterson, Powers and Tierney2023). Women are far more likely than men to report harassment and negative experiences when they participate in various professional activities within security studies. They also report a sense of feeling unwelcome at professional affiliation meetings in higher rates than male respondents (Rublee et al. Reference Rublee, Jackson, Parajon, Peterson and Duncombe2020). Overall, this research points to a many-layered “chilly climate” for women that underpins the proposition that “women experience security studies far differently than their male colleagues” (Rublee et al. Reference Rublee, Jackson, Parajon, Peterson and Duncombe2020, 221).
Within the published security studies discipline, an experiential gender gap operates in parallel with a lack of diversity in gender representation in security studies publications (Phull, Ciflikli, and Meibauer Reference Phull, Ciflikli and Meibauer2019). For example, within security studies internationally, women represent approximately 35% of academic scholars. However, their representation in key global security studies journals, on average, falls below the 35% level (Borg Reference Borg2023; Rublee et al. Reference Rublee, Jackson, Parajon, Peterson and Duncombe2020). Research demonstrates that female authors are underrepresented in the top two US security studies journals, International Security and Security Studies (Borg Reference Borg2023; Hoagland et al. Reference Hoagland, Oakes, Parajon and Peterson2020). This trend is evidenced by better representation of women in peace science journals compared to traditional security journals (Hoagland et al. Reference Hoagland, Oakes, Parajon and Peterson2020, 402).
Analysis of the security studies discipline as it is taught reveals a lack of gender diversity evident within tertiary-level security studies course syllabi, from undergraduate to postgraduate syllabi, which is highly suggestive of gender stereotyping (Phull, Ciflikli, and Meibauer Reference Phull, Ciflikli and Meibauer2019). There also is evidence that perceptions of which international relations (IR) topics are of more interest to male or female students, including student perceptions that topics closely related to international security are of greater interest to male compared to female students (Buhr and Sideras Reference Buhr and Sideras2015, 475). This may have an impact on how students perceive themselves as part of the security studies subfield and whether a career in national security is for them.
This article contributes to the growing academic interest in highlighting gendered exclusion across lived experience, publications, and university curricula by exploring how this exclusion operates across the Canadian security studies space—that is, national and international security studies as practiced academically in Canada. Canada provides an interesting case for exploring the gender gap in security studies. First, the university sector has made strong commitments to policy leadership around equity, diversity, indigeneity, inclusion, and accessibility; members of Universities Canada made an explicit public commitment in 2017 to principles aligned with diversity and inclusion (Universities Canada 2017). Second, the Canadian government has championed gender equality in policy and practice. In 2017, Canada adopted the Feminist International Assistance Policy, which champions feminist values and the promotion of the rights of women and girls globally. Since the Liberal leader Justin Trudeau was sworn into office, it has been a priority to ensure a gender-equal Cabinet. Third, following the adoption of Canada’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have employed new directives and initiatives aimed at integrating gender perspectives in internal policies, recruitment drives, and training and education. In many ways, we expected from this broader context that there would be flow-on improvements around diversity and inclusion within the Canadian security studies subfield. Investigating the state of the discipline within this more permissive environment allows for a more precise focus on the dynamics of Canadian security studies and the identification of remaining barriers to diversity and inclusion. Furthermore, Canada is an important case for potential generalizability because it frequently is used in comparison with other Anglo-Saxon countries, European middle powers, and Nordic countries (Akbari and MacDonald Reference Akbari and MacDonald2014; Boot and Lowell Reference Boot and Lowell2019; Studlar Reference Studlar2007).
Research on the broader political science discipline in Canada demonstrates that whereas the national field has improved in terms of diversity of representation in demographics, research agendas, and teaching practices, there remains significant structural inequalities that affect the state of the Canadian political science academy (Abu-Laban Reference Abu-Laban2016). Key to this inequality is the recognition that although the discipline has become more numerically diverse, it “nevertheless continues to be shaped by a recurring masculine identity” (Abu-Laban Reference Abu-Laban2016; Stockemer et al. Reference Stockemer, Blair, Rashkova and Moses2016, 438).These findings map onto other country-based case studies of the political science field, which show that improvements or progression in gender parity are mitigated by social and structural barriers that affect the state of diversity in political science in Latin America (Carpiuc Reference Carpiuc2016), Italy (Cellini Reference Cellini2022), Finland (Kantola Reference Kantola2015), the United Kingdom (Young et al. Reference Young2021), Australia and New Zealand (Sawer and Curtin Reference Sawer and Curtin2016), and Japan (Steele Reference Steele2016).
Within the subfield of security studies, research on the state of diversity remains limited and tends to offer either a global picture of the field (Hoaglund et al. 2020) or retain a focus on the subfield as evident in the United States—which, although offering important insights, cannot map directly onto the national context of Canada. Moreover, the few studies that do explore the security studies subfield beyond the United States also focus predominantly on the discipline as published or taught (Phull, Ciflikli, and Meibauer Reference Phull, Ciflikli and Meibauer2019), leaving a knowledge gap regarding the lived experiences of security studies scholars outside of the United States. As Stockemer et al. (Reference Stockemer, Blair, Rashkova and Moses2016, 437) argued, although many share the goal of promoting diversity and inclusion, “actually achieving this goal is very hard to do.” Furthermore, lacking a baseline of knowledge of these gender gaps within a specific national context undermines the effectiveness of any calls to action or new initiatives designed to increase awareness and recognition of scholars from underrepresented groups (Jackson et al. Reference Jackson, Maliniak, Parajon, Peterson, Powers and Tierney2023).
This study presents key insights about Canadian security studies from (1) scholars’ perceptions and experiences of the subfield through survey data; (2) the published discipline via analysis of Canadian security studies journals; and (3) the taught discipline based on analysis of Canadian university security studies syllabi. Studying the state of gender diversity in Canadian security studies provides a valuable contribution to combating gender bias within the subfield of security studies, the larger field of political science, and the Canadian context specifically.Footnote 1 It allows us to unveil patterns of gender bias in the field to understand how acute the effects of a lack of diversity in gender representation are (Phull, Ciflikli, and Meibauer Reference Phull, Ciflikli and Meibauer2019; Rublee et al. Reference Rublee, Jackson, Parajon, Peterson and Duncombe2020). Understanding the potential flow-on effects allows us to explore avenues for meaningful change in gender diversity and inclusion within security studies specifically and potentially political science and IR more broadly (Mershon Reference Mershon2023, 304).
This study presents key insights about Canadian security studies from (1) scholars’ perceptions and experiences of the subfield through survey data; (2) the published discipline via analysis of Canadian security studies journals; and (3) the taught discipline based on analysis of Canadian university security studies syllabi.
We present an overview of our mixed-methods data collection and then describe the results and discuss the analysis of our findings. We conclude by offering recommendations and suggestions for potential future research to enhance our understanding of diversity and inclusion in Canadian security studies.
DATA SELECTION AND ANALYSIS
Rather than looking solely at authorship and citation patterns or survey and interview results as distinct studies, this study takes a different approach by utilizing mixed methods for data collection and analysis to provide a clear overview of the state of gender diversity in Canadian security studies. We deployed (1) an online survey; (2) an analysis of Canadian security-related journals; and (3) an analysis of selected security studies syllabi, which allowed us to examine aspects of three dimensions of gender equity: lived experiences, publications, and teaching resources (Duncombe et al. Reference Duncombe, von Hlatky, Nuñez-Mietzm, Rublee and Saideman2024).Footnote 2
Online Survey
We distributed an online survey to Canadian security studies scholars from October to November 2021, with the initial email invitation sent in October and a reminder in mid-November. The survey was administered via Qualtrics and was entirely anonymous; emails included an anonymous link rather than one linked to individual email addresses. The survey had a response rate of 22%: 141 respondents answered at least one question from a sample of 640 researchers identified from public websites and emails from Canadian research team members to their networks. More than 85% of respondents had a PhD as their highest degree, almost 13% had a master’s degree as their highest degree, and 1% had not completed an advanced degree. Almost 30% of respondents declined to specify their gender. Of those who did, 57% identified as male and 40% as female; 3% did not identify within the gender binary. Because of the small number of non-binary responses, our gender analysis focused on the differences in responses between men and women. Respondents were invited to self-identify by race/ethnicity; however, almost 40% of respondents declined to do so and, of those, only a small number identified as scholars of color. The small number of scholars of color among respondents precluded any statistically significant conclusions about differences among scholars based on race/ethnicity.Footnote 3
Two issues affected our ability to generalize from our survey data. First, the survey size was small; however, because we used statistical tests that compare groups (e.g., t-tests), the sample size was more than adequate (Sawilowsky and Blair Reference Sawilowsky and Blair1992). Second, survey respondents were self-selected rather than randomly selected. However, as Zvobgo et al. (Reference Zvobgo, Sotomayor, Rublee, Loken, Karavas and Duncombe2023) noted, climate surveys across academia rarely use random samples. They argued that “Without such statistical analyses, perceptions of systemic and structural inequities can be rendered invisible or dismissively reduced to anecdotal evidence, and without data collection, structural racism and sexism’s effects are difficult to quantify” (Zvobgo et al. Reference Zvobgo, Sotomayor, Rublee, Loken, Karavas and Duncombe2023, 602). It is important to note, however, that we should not assume generalizability to the wider population. Reinforcing our findings, however, are numerous studies that support them, which we highlight in the following discussion.
Journal Analysis
To examine the state of diversity within this aspect of Canadian security studies, we created a database of all authors of the top three Canadian security-related journals over three years, between 2018 and 2020, identifying the gender of all 340 authors from 249 research articles. We analyzed articles from three journals: International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, and Canadian Military Journal.
Syllabi Analysis
We collected data about the gender of authors from mandatory assigned-reading lists from a sample of 43 online, publicly available course syllabi for security-related courses from eight Canadian universities, totaling 1,268 required readings (1,661 authors).
RESULTS
This section presents the findings from our three different data-collection methods: a survey of Canadian academics, an analysis of Canadian security-related journals, and an analysis of selected security studies syllabi. The results provide evidence that women are underrepresented in Canadian security studies and they experience the subfield in less positive ways than men.
Survey Analysis
Key differences between men and women emerged in two broad areas: perceptions of climate and interest in professional development. To analyze these differences, we provide descriptive statistics and use statistical tests that compare groups. For interval variables, we used independent samples t-tests; for ordinal variables, we used Mann–Whitney tests. For categorical variables, we used chi-square tests of independence. Levels of statistical significance are reported throughout this discussion.
Canadian Security Studies Climate
Our findings indicate that men and women perceive the climate of Canadian security studies differently to a statistically significant degree. For example, survey respondents were asked, “Do you feel welcome in Canadian security studies?” More than 80% of men said they felt welcome “always” or “most of the time,” compared to 53% of women.Footnote 4 In fact, whereas 10% of women reported “never” feeling welcome, none of the male respondents did (figure 1).
Do You Feel Welcome in Canadian Security Studies? (by Gender)
Respondents also were asked to what extent Canadian security studies was inclusive, diverse, an “old boys’ network,” insular, and clubby. Women were less likely than men to state that Canadian security studies was inclusive and diverse and more likely to state that it was an old boys’ network, insular, and clubby. The first three findings were statistically significant (figure 2).Footnote 5
Descriptions of Canadian Security Studies (by Gender)
Note: Each percentage represents the number of respondents who responded “to some extent” or “to a great extent” to the respective descriptor when describing Canadian security studies. The numbers in Figure 2 are rounded.
Women also were more likely than men—to a statistically significant degree—to state that they experienced verbal or nonverbal behaviors that conveyed hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status.Footnote 6 In fact, women were more than 2.5 times as likely as men (48% to 19%) to have experienced this type of harassment within Canadian security studies. Among those who reported harassment, almost 90% of women believed their gender was related to their negative experience whereas less than 10% of men did (figure 3).
Experienced Harassment within Canadian Security Studies (by Gender)
Note: The numbers in Figure 3 are rounded.
Professional Development in Canadian Security Studies
It is not surprising that women were more likely than men to state that diversity initiatives are needed in Canadian security studies (figure 4), as well as to report more interest in participating in them (figure 5). These differences were statistically significant.Footnote 7
Are Diversity Initiatives Needed in Canadian Security Studies? (by Gender)
Interest in Participating in Diversity Initiatives (by Gender)
Journal Analysis
Journal publications provide scholars with not only important evidence for tenure and promotion but also exposure and name recognition within the discipline. This is particularly true for policy-focused journals, where authorship may lead to increased connections with think tanks, media, and policy officials. Given that Canada, compared to the United States and Europe, is a small market for security studies, the three journals analyzed (i.e., International Journal, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, and Canadian Military Journal) are the top three journals for a specialized security studies audience in Canada. These journals also provide good coverage across the academic–practitioner divide, allowing for a comprehensive representation of the Canadian security studies subfield. We analyzed 249 articles across three years—2018, 2019, and 2020—with a total of 340 authors to determine the gender of all authors of the research articles (both single and team authors).Footnote 8
We expected that parity in journal publications would be approximately 35% of journal authors to be women rather than 50% because women constitute approximately 35% of security studies scholars internationally (Rublee et al. Reference Rublee, Jackson, Parajon, Peterson and Duncombe2020). However, all three journals that we examined fell below the 35% level, with an overall average of 27% (figure 6). International Journal had the highest percentage of women authors at 31.6%; Canadian Foreign Policy Journal had 26.9% women authors and Canadian Military Journal had only 18.5% women authors.Footnote 9
Author Gender in Canadian Security-Related Journals (by Journal)
Of the 249 articles from the three journals during the three-year period, the majority (57%) were single-authored by men. Female single-authored articles came in second at 16% and male-only teams at 14%. Mixed teams authored 10% of the articles, and female-only teams authored 3% (figure 7).
Authorship Teams in Canadian Security-Related Journals (by Gender)
The 249 articles had a total of 340 authors. Male authors comprised the largest category by far (first author 55%), narrowly missing the second largest category by a small amount, with female first authors coming in at 18.2% and male second+ authors at 17.9%. Female second+ authors comprised only 8.8% (figure 8). In summary, male authors dominated the pages of Canadian security-related journals according to multiple key metrics.
Authorship in Canadian Security-Related Journals (by Gender)
Syllabi Analysis
Curricula that disproportionately assigns research authored by men provide evidence for bias that ultimately could lead to female exclusion in the classroom and the broader discipline (see, e.g., Hardt et al. Reference Hardt, Kim, Smith and Meister2019; Phull, Ciflikli, and Meibauer Reference Phull, Ciflikli and Meibauer2019). Although syllabi are not an exhaustive representation of what students and instructors discuss during class, they are a reasonable illustration of what type of topics, readings, and authors are considered paramount to understanding security studies (Sondarjee Reference Sondarjee2023). As Phull, Ciflikli, and Meibauer (Reference Phull, Ciflikli and Meibauer2019) argued, syllabi act as a “mode of disciplinarity” by encompassing the information and instructions needed to produce, and reproduce, the discipline as a functioning system. Furthermore, open-access syllabi are ultimately influential in the discipline, precisely because they are open access and available to colleagues both inside and outside of a specific university or institution. Instructors may look to other security studies course syllabi for inspiration in developing their own, which in turn becomes the basis for their teaching (Sondarjee Reference Sondarjee2023). This is particularly important because, as Sondarjee (Reference Sondarjee2023) argued, “[W]hat is inscribed on that piece of (electronic) paper and what readings are assigned shape the presentation of the field to newcomers.” As a result, course syllabi can provide an additional proxy to conceptualize the state of the Canadian security studies environment (Sonderjee 2023).
For this study, we were unable to collect a complete sample of security-related course syllabi from Canadian universities. Therefore, we compiled a sample of 43 publicly available syllabi from eight universities for security-related courses offered between 2018 and 2020, which contained a total of 1,268 course readings.Footnote 10 To collect these data—gathered from mandatory assigned readings listed in the course syllabi—we searched online through the political science and IR department curriculum websites of the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities before broadening the search to include universities outside of the U15. These course syllabi represented a geographically and institutionally varied sample compared to studies that focus on one university or region (Matthews Reference Matthews2020; Phull, Ciflikli, and Meibauer Reference Phull, Ciflikli and Meibauer2019; Sonderjee 2023).
More than 66% of the courses were taught by male instructors and 30% by female instructors.Footnote 11 One course (2.3%) was team taught by a male and a female instructor. Almost 73% of syllabi reading authors were men and 25.5% were women.Footnote 12 Institutional authors comprised 1.7% of syllabi readings (figure 9). Of particular note was that women instructors were significantly more likely to assign readings by female authors: 35% of syllabi readings were authored by women in female-taught courses; male-taught courses listed only 21.7% authored by women. These differences in author gender among male- and female-taught courses were statistically significant.
Author Gender of Syllabi Readings (by Gender of Instructor)
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, this research represents the first mixed-methods study of gender diversity and inclusion in Canadian security studies. Our findings indicate that the subfield of security studies in Canada is not equally welcoming for all academics: Canadian security studies reflects neither the diversity of scholars and the students studying it nor the diversity of the Canadian population. In addition, women experience Canadian security studies in more negative ways, feeling less welcome than their male colleagues and less likely to describe the subfield as diverse or inclusive than men.
Our findings indicate that the subfield of security studies in Canada is not equally welcoming for all academics: Canadian security studies reflects neither the diversity of scholars and students studying it nor the diversity of the Canadian population.
First, the analysis shows that within our sample, there are statistically significant differences between how male and female scholars in Canadian security studies perceive and experience the subfield. Slightly more than 50% of female survey respondents indicated that they felt welcome in Canadian security studies, whereas male respondents reported feeling welcome more than 80% of the time. Furthermore, female scholars were less likely to report that Canadian security studies was “inclusive” (69%) than male scholars (90%). Women within our sample also were almost three times more likely than men to report experiences of harassment within Canadian security studies.
Second, the analysis highlights that male authors dominate the pages of Canadian security-related journals: publications were 3 times more likely to have a male single author than a female single author. This is an important finding because scholars generally believe an academic field “exists mostly in the journals” (Borg Reference Borg2023, 512; Waever Reference Waever1998, 697). Examination of the top three Canadian security studies–related journals revealed that all three fell below the expected parity level of 35%, based on the breakdown of male and female scholars internationally (Rublee et al. Reference Rublee, Jackson, Parajon, Peterson and Duncombe2020).
Third, the results show that male authors are almost three times more likely to appear on security studies course syllabi than female authors. The analysis also found a correlation between the gender of instructors and the gender share of syllabi authors: female-taught courses were significantly more likely to have course syllabi with female-author assigned readings.
What are the implications of these findings for the Canadian security studies market? They echo the results of research conducted at the international level by highlighting the gender gap in Canadian security studies across experience, academic publications, and syllabi. In terms of research on perceptions and experiences of the security studies subfield, the Canadian security studies survey findings align with research on diversity and inclusion within professional affiliations in international security studies. A 2019 survey conducted for the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) of the International Studies Association (ISA) found that male scholars were three times as likely as female scholars to state that they “always” felt welcome (Rublee et al. Reference Rublee, Jackson, Parajon, Peterson and Duncombe2020, 218). Whereas the overall findings of the Canadian survey are slightly more positive by comparison, the differences between female and male respondents indicating that they felt welcome in Canadian security studies—that is, slightly more than 50% for women and more than 80% for men—are statistically significant, indicating a possible substantial gender gap in perspectives and experience of the subfield. Although not directly comparable, a 2012 survey of the Canadian Political Science Association revealed that less than 30% of female respondents believed the discipline provided support and encouragement to new members, compared to almost 50% of male respondents (Abu-Laban et al. Reference Abu-Laban, Everitt, Johnston, Papillon and Rayside2012, 11). This survey also found that 68% of female respondents who reported experiencing discrimination believed it to be due to their gender (Abu-Laban et al. Reference Abu-Laban, Everitt, Johnston, Papillon and Rayside2012, 12). Our Canadian security studies survey provided even starker findings: almost 90% of female respondents believed this negative experience was related to gender, compared to less than 10% of male respondents. On the question of harassment, comparison with both the ISSS survey and a 2017 American Political Science Association (APSA) sexual-harassment survey was useful. Both our survey and the ISSS survey asked whether respondents had experienced verbal or nonverbal behaviors that conveyed hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status. For the ISSS survey, 30% of women and 13% of men reported such experiences (Rublee Reference Rublee, Jackson, Parajon, Peterson and Duncombe2020, 220); for our Canadian security studies survey, 48% of women and 19% of men did so. The APSA survey asked whether members had experienced condescension, inappropriate looks or language, or unwanted sexual touches or advances; it found that 49% of women and 26% of men experienced these behaviors at APSA Annual Meetings (Sapiro and Campbell Reference Sapiro and Campbell2018). Results of the three surveys are not directly comparable; for example, the APSA survey included those who experienced condescension, which may be interpreted more broadly than hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status. Thus, more respondents were expected to answer positively to the broader criteria. Our Canadian security studies survey asked about experiences within Canadian security studies, whereas the ISSS and APSA surveys asked about experiences within specific ISA/ISSS and APSA events. The former includes a much broader set of circumstances; therefore, we expected more respondents to answer yes. Although direct comparisons are not possible, all of these surveys indicate that men and women experience the subfield in different ways. This comparison also highlights that our survey findings are supported by numerous related studies. Overall, these data point to the persistence of male dominance in the Canadian security studies subfield, despite the inroads made by the Canadian political science profession more generally to improve the place of women in the discipline (Everitt Reference Everitt2021).
Regarding publishing in the discipline, the gender parity of Canadian security studies–related journal publications is less than a comparable journal-authorship analysis of US and European security studies journals with a mean of 29% (Borg Reference Borg2023, 525). Despite women constituting approximately 35% of security studies scholars internationally, these results align with the trend of male-authored articles representing the largest share of published security work (Hoaglund et al. 2020, 405). In fact, the Canadian security studies context suggests that the underrepresentation of women in publication rates is slightly more acute than for European and US security studies journals. Despite the national context of commitments to diversity and inclusion across the tertiary, government, and defense sectors, there remains a need for greater efforts to include security scholarship by women (Hoaglund et al. 2020, 407).
In terms of the discipline as taught, findings from our syllabi analysis indicate that patterns of gender exclusion in Canadian security studies are not dissimilar to those in the United States and the United Kingdom (Phull, Ciflikli, and Meibauer Reference Phull, Ciflikli and Meibauer2019). The general trend of male instructors or convenors assigning more readings by male authors and females assigning more readings by female authors is reflected in our findings (Colgan Reference Colgan2017; Maliniak, Powers, and Walter Reference Maliniak, Powers and Walter2013; Smith et al. Reference Smith, Hardt, Meister and Kim2020). What is interesting, however, is the indication that ingrained barriers to gender parity in readings listed in Canadian security studies courses syllabi remain—even with the past decade of Canadian government, security, and foreign policies explicitly focusing on gender equality and empowerment of women and girls.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This article presents insights about the extent to which a gender gap within the subfield of security studies, identified in the international literature, also is present in Canada. Our study contributes to the emerging scholarship on diversity and inclusion in security studies by sharing the results of a multi-method investigation into the state of gender diversity in Canadian security studies, focusing on both gender representation and gendered experiences of the subfield. By analyzing data collected from an online survey of security studies scholars in Canada and a document analysis of Canadian security-related journals and selected security studies syllabi, this study provides evidence that women are underrepresented in Canadian security studies and they experience the subfield in less positive ways.
Our study contributes to the emerging scholarship on diversity and inclusion in security studies by sharing the results of a multi-method investigation into the state of gender diversity in Canadian security studies, focusing on both gender representation and gendered experiences of the subfield.
In addition to these general conclusions, we make recommendations for future research. First, these findings suggest a need to collect more research data on gender diversity in Canadian security studies. Patterns of structural inequality become obvious only when analyzing large-scale data. Our research as represented in this article is a snapshot assessment of the Canadian security studies subfield, which is a baseline from which we can measure meaningful change. Understanding not only how deeply the subfield is gendered but also whether this is shifting over time is important for assessing whether meaningful changes are taking place in light of existing public commitments to diversity and inclusion. We therefore recommend a follow-up survey to investigate any potential change over time as well as additional years of journal analysis. We also suggest investing in the collation of large statistical datasets to serve as quantitative indicators of inequity, which would provide clarity “about who is, and who is not, included in various levels of academia; information which can be used to directly address any identified areas of underrepresentation/s, and help to shape education of institution policy development” (Crimmins Reference Crimmins and Crimmins2020, 19). Such longitudinal data collection will allow for clearer insight into changes over time, including a more precise assessment as to how diversity and inclusion policies influence—or not, as may be the case—the gender gap in the Canadian security studies subfield. We also encourage the exploration of the gender gap through other methodological avenues, including interviews with and experimental surveys of university students who take security studies courses in Canada. This could shed light on whether the gender composition of syllabi, journals, and academic teaching staff makes a difference in who views security studies in academia or national security as a viable career option.
Second, we strongly encourage investigation into racial diversity within the field. Other research indicates that race and ethnicity are important components in who is allowed to speak authoritatively about national security (Barma Reference Barma2020; Bhambra et al. Reference Bhambra, Bouka, Persaud, Rutazibwa, Thakur, Bell, Smith, Haastrup and Adem2020; Rublee et al. Reference Rublee, Duncombe, Karavas, Barma, Idika-Kalu, Sotomayor, Kalil and Kang2024; Zvogbo et al. 2023). We believe that this likely is the case in Canadian security studies as well. Moreover, it is important to consider this in light of patterns of unequal power relations rooted in Canada’s foundation and legacy as a settler colony (Abu-Laban Reference Abu-Laban2016, 494). Data-collection challenges rendered it difficult to make concrete conclusions about race from our data, for several reasons. For an author analysis of journal articles and syllabi readings, researchers assign categories to authors. To assign gender, we can use online tools or research author pronouns. Some research uses visual aids to conduct an intersectional analysis to assess whether scholars are racialized (Everitt Reference Everitt2021; Smith Reference Smith, Frances, Dua, James, Kobayashi, Li, Ramos and Smith2017). However, assigning race to authors as a specific constructed category is not possible without self-disclosure. Therefore, for these data-collection instruments, we focused on gender. For our survey, almost 40% of respondents declined to identify race/ethnicity; of those who did, only a few identified as scholars of color. As a result, we were unable to draw any statistically significant conclusions about differences between scholars of color and white scholars. Because of these limits of our data-collection methods, we recommend interviews over the use of data-count tools.
Third, we recommend building on our current research by including analysis of French-language university syllabi. This would deepen our understanding of the breadth and depth of structural inequalities in Canadian security studies, providing another tier of insight into patterns of inequality and exclusion relative to Canada’s history as a settler colony (Abu-Laban Reference Abu-Laban2016).
Fourth, we recommend that Canadian universities provide support for the development and utilization of tools for academic instructors to advance diversity in terms of gender, racial, and indigenous identity across their curriculum and syllabi as well as published work. These resources would allow instructors to draw on lists of authors and topics when revising their syllabi and updating assigned-reading lists as well as for the development of their own research and publications. A recent example is the resource bank initiated by Queen’s University department of political studies, which offers a voluntary and collaborative living document, to which both academics and students can contribute and draw from for any teaching and research purpose. Similarly, the WomenAlsoKnowStuff initiative that highlights the knowledge and expertise of women political scientists has inspired other projects on gender parity and diversity in national security. These projects include the Diversity in National Security Network and the Leadership Council for Women in National Security, which provide resources for developing research and publications. Institutional support for the implementation of such online resource banks would signal how seriously a university considers the problem of diversity in academia and its commitment to greater gender equality in security studies, political science, and academia more broadly.Footnote 13
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was funded by a Mobilizing Insights in Defence and Security Targeted Engagement Grant (No. 2019-2-08) through the Canada Department of National Defence. We thank George Karavas, Erin Bennell and Don Clermont for their research assistance.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Research documentation and data that support the findings of this study are openly available at the PS: Political Science & Politics Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/4BEBLZ.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there are no ethical issues or conflicts of interest in this research.
Open access
