This symposium explores the ways in which women are descriptively represented in political science, by exploring the ways in which they are positioned institutionally in Spain, Finland, Germany and the United Kingdom. The symposium also explores the ways in which structures may serve to disadvantage women, by analysing HE policy and citation practices. Critical theory reminds us that in observing power structures we can seek to change them, and so our conclusion reflects on some more practical suggestions.

In political research and everyday politics, Finland is often presented as one of the gender-equal countries. The Nordic countries, Finland included, top a number of gender equality indices indicating that women’s societal position is particularly advanced. Feminist research, however, seeks to highlight the issue specificity of such evaluations. While Finland comes out on top in terms of a number of indicators, there are other areas where Finland is a laggard. Gender equality in the Academy is a case point. About a quarter of professors are women in Finland but their numbers fluctuate a lot from one discipline to another. Political science has traditionally been very male dominated, and the notion of politics is perceived as masculine. This article provides a brief overview of the current status of women in political science in Finland. It revisits earlier findings about how political science as a discipline is gendered in Finland and evaluates their pertinence today. The article then discusses the current situation and evaluates the changed institutional context. Despite progress made in numbers, gender continues to shape the political science discipline in Finland.

Women are grossly underrepresented in the German political science profession, but some progress in breaking the glass ceiling has been made in the last 20 years. This article outlines women’s entry and advancement in the German academic community. We examine the particulars of obtaining a German doctorate and the nature of how postdocs prepare for their qualifications to receive a tenured professorship. We also analyse the gendered nature of the German academic institution and measures for promoting equal opportunity. Our findings show that gender inequalities are visible in the number of women in the profession and in their rank, although some progress has been made in closing this gap. Equal opportunity measures and some changes in German academic institutions, such as in the German Political Science Association (DVPW), have benefited women. Problems remain, however, in German universities’ inability to provide postdoc level job security and (in many cases) adequate pay in the postdoc phase. More permanent lecturer positions are needed in Germany.

This article incorporates and analyses some quantitative indicators relating to the status of women in the field of political science in Spain. These statistics are broken down according to the gender of undergraduates and Ph.D. dissertations, as well as the teaching staff in all Spanish political science departments. Likewise, in order to offer information concerning those working in this field, the gender gap of members and the executive board of the Spanish Association of Political Science is also included. Finally, the same gender breakdowns have been made for the scientific committees of the political science conferences held in Spain, and the authorship of articles published in the Spanish Journal of Political Science since its inception.

UK Higher Education has recently entered uncharted waters – this includes changes to the fee structures in England and ever increasing pressure to perform to measurables such as Key Information Sets, Destinations of Leavers in Higher Education data and a plethora of Key Performance Indicators. In this article, we highlight key findings from recent research regarding the status of women in the profession – with particular emphasis upon evidence that may suggest a gender divide in terms of research and teaching. We then go on to explore primary data from a number of sources to explore whether male and female academics in the UK have different priorities, and question to what extent recent reforms will exacerbate a ‘glass ceiling’ or ‘leaking pipeline’ and further challenge the diversity of the profession.

The article analyses publication patterns according to gender in three Political Science and International Relations journals based in Britain (Political Studies, British Journal of Political Science, and Review of International Studies). Examining publications from 1991 to 2011 in terms of authorship, seniority of author, and number of citations and responses, our findings suggest that women are less likely to be published as sole or lead author than their male counterparts are but that they are just as likely to be cited. Furthermore, since 2000, women are now over-represented in comparison with their presence within the discipline in publications that have at least one female author.

This symposium has highlighted that some positive change has been achieved for women’s status in the profession. The authors are cautiously optimistic. At the same time, we argue that this does not allow for complacency and we suggest a number of positive strategies that may also be beneficial.

There is no shortage of political science literature on field research regarding issues of research design, methodology, and data evaluation. Yet, the practical and organisational intricacies that precede successful fieldwork are frequently overlooked. This lack of methodical advice may be due to the impression that field research is highly contextual, and so case-specific that general guidelines, which apply to all field research endeavours alike, are inconceivable. While we acknowledge the organisational complexity of field research, we disagree with the notion that the preparatory dimension of fieldwork is by necessity unique for every undertaking. Rather, recommendations for common challenges that occur during the preparation and organisation phase of a field trip can be identified and formulated. Consequently, we present and discuss ten organisational ‘do’s’ preceding successful field research. Current graduate students and future field researchers will regard these ten pointers as useful hints in the organisation of their own endeavour. While the list is by no means exhaustive, the ten recommendations will lower the organisational entry costs of aspiring field researchers, and enable them to hit the ground running upon arrival in the field.

As many Ph.D. candidates appreciate, the reality of maintaining productivity during the course of your candidature often proves to be challenging. This article aims to provide a fresh way to view your Ph.D. candidature to aid productivity and learn skills which can be transferred over to future employment as an early career academic. The article presents a set of sub-skills and perspectives to deconstruct the task of writing a thesis and to establish skills which can benefit your future academic career.

In this book review symposium, Jan Biba, Jeffrey Edward Green and John P. McCormick take on the work of democratic theorist, Nadia Urbinati. In Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth and the People, Urbinati argues for what she calls a ‘diarchic’ conception of democracy, whereby opinion and will formation must not collapse into one another (hence diarchy rather than mono-archy). This has implications for how we think about issues such as representation and pluralism. It also means that Urbinati is sceptical of populism, whether of the left or the right. The problem with populism is that opinion and will formation collapse in the figure of the people. Accordingly, for Urbinati, the people can and should be understood as a plurality, as never one with itself and only existing through representations of it. Her argument also has implications for the question of equality. As she argues, in a diarchic version of democracy, political equality is to be valued very highly, and she argues for the importance of campaign finance reform. Thus, with Urbinati’s diarchic democracy we get a conception of democracy that is liberal, pluralist and representative, but also highly critical of actually existing forms of democracy.

Göran Therborn’s recent book The Killing Fields of Inequality is an opportunity for political scientists to reconnect with a thematic that has for long been the pre-occupation of sociologists: inequality. The killing fields to which Therborn refers in the title of his book are inequalities of wealth, health, education, dignity, and so on. These inequalities are killing fields because they result in millions of premature deaths every year, not just in the Third World, but also in North America and Europe. And even when people survive inequality, their lives are limited by the inequalities they face. In The Killing Fields, Therborn examines the different ‘fields’ of inequality, examining the different ways in which inequality works, for instance through what he terms ‘distanciation’, and he identifies the critical battlefields on which the struggle against inequality has to take place. In their reviews of Therborn’s book, Walden Bello, Joohee Lee and Shujiro Yazawa take a critical look at the different aspects of Therborn’s argument, including the role of the middle classes, the concept of distanciation and Therborn’s use of Amartya Sen’s capability approach.