Made for Men: Political Science Departments in the United States as Gendered Institutions

A. Hinze
{"title":"Made for Men: Political Science Departments in the United States as Gendered Institutions","authors":"A. Hinze","doi":"10.1017/s1743923x23000399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article examines women’s perceptions of and experiences with institutional norms in political science departments and their institutions. Conceptually, it builds on feminist institutionalism. Specifically, it examines the broad institutional norms, formal and informal, that define political science departments within their larger institutions, as well as potential avenues for change. I argue that a “critical mass” of women in academic departments and the presence of “critical actors” in departmental and university leadership positions sympathetic to the cause and powerful enough to implement change can bring about institutional reforms. To that end, I conducted a survey among 1,273 female PhD students and faculty members in political science departments across the United States. The survey questions revolve around women’s perceptions of institutional gender norms, the way they are judged by them, their ability to have professional success under them, and their (or others’) ability to change them. After discussing the survey results within the context of feminist institutional theory, I offer some conclusions about the positions of women in political science departments in the United States, the implications of this for the profession at-large, and some thoughts on avenues for future research on the issue.","PeriodicalId":203979,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Gender","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Gender","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x23000399","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines women’s perceptions of and experiences with institutional norms in political science departments and their institutions. Conceptually, it builds on feminist institutionalism. Specifically, it examines the broad institutional norms, formal and informal, that define political science departments within their larger institutions, as well as potential avenues for change. I argue that a “critical mass” of women in academic departments and the presence of “critical actors” in departmental and university leadership positions sympathetic to the cause and powerful enough to implement change can bring about institutional reforms. To that end, I conducted a survey among 1,273 female PhD students and faculty members in political science departments across the United States. The survey questions revolve around women’s perceptions of institutional gender norms, the way they are judged by them, their ability to have professional success under them, and their (or others’) ability to change them. After discussing the survey results within the context of feminist institutional theory, I offer some conclusions about the positions of women in political science departments in the United States, the implications of this for the profession at-large, and some thoughts on avenues for future research on the issue.
《为男人而生:美国政治科学系作为性别机构》
本文考察了女性对政治科学部门及其机构的制度规范的看法和经验。从概念上讲,它建立在女权主义制度主义的基础上。具体地说,它考察了广泛的制度规范,正式和非正式的,这些规范在较大的机构中定义了政治科学部门,以及潜在的变革途径。我认为,学术部门中女性的“临界质量”,以及部门和大学领导职位中“关键角色”的存在,同情这一事业,并有足够的权力实施变革,可以带来制度改革。为此,我对全美1273名政治学系的女博士生和女教师进行了一项调查。调查的问题围绕着女性对制度性别规范的看法,她们被这些规范评判的方式,她们在这些规范下取得职业成功的能力,以及她们(或其他人)改变这些规范的能力。在女权主义制度理论的背景下讨论了调查结果之后,我提出了一些关于美国政治科学部门中女性职位的结论,这对整个职业的影响,以及对未来研究途径的一些想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信