Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T06:20:03.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can We Change How Political Science Thinks? “Gender Mainstreaming” in a Resistant Discipline

Presidential Address delivered to the Canadian Political Science Association, Ottawa, June 2, 2015

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2016

Jill Vickers
Jill Vickers*
Affiliation:
Carleton University
*
Distinguished Research Professor and Emeritus Chancellor's Professor in Political Science, Carleton University, 125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa ON, K1S 5B6, email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that, despite significant increases in the number of women professors and the growth of feminist political science, transformative change hasn't occurred in how conventional political scientists think about politics. “Transformative change” requires the successful mainstreaming of gender-focused knowledge and the use of “gender” as a category of analysis in studies of politics. The article first explores the insights of leading feminist political scientists in the five Anglo-American democracies, about why gender mainstreaming has not succeeded to date. It establishes the extent of the failure and explores its causes, including the discipline's fragmented structure, polarized culture and a number of theoretical and methodological incompatibilities between mainstream and feminist political science. Finally, several promising strategies for achieving transformative change are explored.

Résumé

Cet article fait valoir que, malgré la nette augmentation du nombre de professeures et l'essor de la science politique féministe, aucun changement en profondeur ne s'est produit. Il faudrait pour cela l'intégration probante des connaissances axées sur le genre et l'utilisation du « genre » comme catégorie d'analyse dans les recherches menées en politique. Ce travail-ci porte d'abord sur les observations de cinq politologues féministes de premier plan dans cinq démocraties anglo-américaines sur les raisons de l’échec de l'intégration de la dimension du genre jusqu'ici. L'article établit l’étendue de l’échec et explore ses causes, y compris la structure fragmentée de la discipline, la polarisation de la culture et plusieurs incompatibilités d'ordre théorique et méthodologique entre la science politique courante et la science politique féministe. L'article se conclut par une analyse de plusieurs stratégies susceptibles d'apporter un changement en profondeur.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 747 - 770
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abu-Laban, Yasmeen and Couture, Claude. 2010. “Multiple Minorities and Deceptive Dichotomies.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 43: 433–456.Google Scholar
Ackerly, Brooke and True, Jacqui. 2008. “An Intersectional Analysis of International Relations.” Politics & Gender 4:156–72.Google Scholar
Alexander-Floyd, Nikol. 2015. “Women of Color, Space Invaders, and Political Science.” In How Political Science Can Be More Diverse. Symposium. PS, 48: 464–68.Google Scholar
Althaus, C. 1997. “What Do We Talk About? Publications in the AJPA 1970–95.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 56: 141–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2014. “No Shortcuts to Gender Equality: The Structures of Women's Exclusion in Political Science.” Politics & Gender 10: 437–47.Google Scholar
Arscott, Jane and Tremblay, Manon. 1999. “Il reste encore des travaux à faire: Feminism and Political Science in Canada and Quebec.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 32: 125–51.Google Scholar
Beckwith, Karen. 2015. “State, Academy, Discipline: Re-gendering Political Science.” In How Political Science Can Be More Diverse. Symposium. PS 48: 445–49.Google Scholar
Brandes, Lisa, Buker, Eloise, Burgess, Susan, Cook, Constance, Flammang, Janet, Geiger, Shirley, Okin, Susan, Yoon, Bang-Soon and Ackelsberg, Martha. 2001. “The Status of Women in Political Science: Female Participation in the Professoriate and the Study of Women and Politics in the Discipline.” PS 34 (2): 319–26.Google Scholar
Brettschneider, Marla. 2011. “Heterosexual Political Science.” In State of LGBT/Sexuality Studies in Political Science. Symposium, ed. Currah, P.. PS 44: 23–26.Google Scholar
Breuning, Marijke and Saunders, Kathryn. 2007. “Gender and Journal Authorship in Eight Prestigious Political Science Journals.” PS 40: 347–51.Google Scholar
Carroll, Susan and Zerilli, Linda M.G.. 1993. “Feminist Challenges to Political Science.” In Women and Politics and Gender and Politics, ed. W, Ada. Finifter. Washington DC: APSA.Google Scholar
Celis, K., Kantola, J., Way, G. and Weldon, S.L.. 2013. “Introduction: Gender and Politics, A Gendered World, A Gendered Discipline.” In Oxford Handbook on Politics and Gender. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press: 1–26.Google Scholar
Chappell, Louise. 2006. “Comparing Political Institutions: Revealing the Gendered “Logic of Appropriateness.’” Politics & Gender 2: 223–35.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah and Mona Leena, Krook (2009). ‘Analysing Women's Substantive Representation: From Critical Mass to Critical’ Actors', Government and Opposition 44: 125–45.Google Scholar
Curthoys, Ann. 1998. “Gender in the Social Sciences in Australia.” In Challenges for the Social Sciences and Australia. vol. 2. Canberra: Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. Google Scholar
Curthoys, Ann. 2014. “Gender in the Social Sciences.” Australian Feminist Studies 29: 115–20.Google Scholar
Curtin, Jennifer. 2013. “Women and Political Science in New Zealand: The State of the Discipline.” Political Science 65(1): 63–83.Google Scholar
Curtin, Jennifer, Chappell, Louise and Hill, Lisa. 1999. “Gender Audit of the Australian Journal of Political Science, 1979–1998.” In Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of the Australasian Political Studies Association, September 26–29, University of Sydney, ed. John Brookfield. Sydney, NSW.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S., Honig, Bonnie and Phillips, Anne. 2009. “Overview of Political Theory.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Science, ed. Goodin, R.E.. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dudley, J. and Palmieri, S.. 1999. “Can Ladies Work Here Too Nanna?” In Gender and Australasian Politics Textbooks . Canberra: Australian Political Studies Association.Google Scholar
Eichler, Margrit. 1984. “Sexism in Research and Its Policy Implications.” In Taking Sex into Account: The Policy Consequences of Sexist Research, ed. Vickers, Jill. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.Google Scholar
Freidenvall, Lenita and Krook, Mona Lena. 2011. “Discursive Strategies for Institutional Reform.” In Gender, Politics and Institutions, ed. Krook, M.L. and Mackay, F.. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert. E. 2009. “Introduction.” The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hartsock, Nancy. 2001. “Report on the Roundtable: Has the Study of Women/Gender Changed Political Science?” PS on line, www.apsanet.org (May 15, 20014).Google Scholar
Hankivsky, Olena. 2005. Social Policy and the Ethic of Care. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Hankivsky, Olena. 2006. “Gender Mainstreaming.” In Critical Policy Studies, ed Orsini, M. and Smith, M.. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Hero, Rodney. 2015. “Reflections on ‘How Political Science Can Be More Diverse.’” In the How Political Science Can Be More Diverse. Symposium. PS 48: 469–72.Google Scholar
Hill Collins, Patricia. 2005. “Where's the Power?” In Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics, ed. Lorber, J.. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury.Google Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 2015. “For a More Public Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 15: 269–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 2014. “Restructuring the Social Sciences?” PS 47: 279–83.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Fiona and Keane, Helen. 2014, “Gender and Feminism in the Social Sciences: Equity, Excellence and Knowledge in the Disciplines.” Australian Feminist Studies 29: 107–14.Google Scholar
Johnson, Carole. 2014. “Hard Heads and Soft Hearts.” Australian Feminist Studies 29: 121–36.Google Scholar
Kantola, Johanna. 2015. “Political science as a gendered discipline in Finland.” European Political Science 14: 79–86.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Timothy V. 2005. “Dividing the Domain of Political Science: The Fetishism of Subfields.” Polity 38: 41–71.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, M. 1989. Fearless and Faithless: Moving Feminist Protest inside the Church and the Military. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keränen, Marja. 1990. Finnish “Undemocracy”: Essays on Gender and Politics. Helsinki: Finnish Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Kittlison, Miki Caul. 2015. “Advancing Women in Political Science.” In How Political Science Can Be More Diverse. Symposium. PS 48: 450–53.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 2014. “Restructuring Social Science.” PS 47: 165–72.Google Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena and Mackay, Fiona. 2011. “Introduction.” Gender, Politics and Institutions, ed. Krook, M. L. and Mackay, F.. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lamoureux, Diane, Trimble, Linda and Koene, Miriam. 1997. “Report on the Status of Women in the Discipline.” CPSA/ACSP Bulletin Nov: 76–83.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni. 1998. “Gendering Research in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science. 1: 333–56.Google Scholar
Mackay, Fiona. 2001. Love and Politics: Women, Common Sense and the Ethic of Care. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Malinak, Daniel, Powers, Ryan and Walter, Barbara F.. 2008, “The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations.” International Organization 67: 889–922.Google Scholar
Malinak, Daniel, Oakes, Amy, Peterson, Susan and Tierney, Michael J.. 2008. “Women in International Relations.” Politics & Gender 4: 122–41.Google Scholar
Masuoka, Natalie, Grofman, Bernard and Feld, Scott L.. 2007. “The Political Science 400: A 20-Year Update.” PS 40: 133–45.Google Scholar
Mershon, Carol and Walsh, Denise. 2015. “Introduction.” Symposium: How Political Science Can Be More Diverse. PS 48: 441–44.Google Scholar
Motiejunaite, Jurate. 2005. Women's Rights: The Private/Public Dichotomy. New York: IDEA Press.Google Scholar
Paxton, Pamela. 2008. “Gendering Democracy.” In Theory and Methodology, ed. Goertz, and Mazur, A. G.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paxton, Pamela and Hughes, Melanie H.. 2007. Women, Politics and Power: A Global Perspective. Pine Forge PA: Sage.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Randall, Vicky. 2014. “The Comparative Study of Politics and Gender.” In Deeds and Words: Gendering Politics after Joni Lovenduski, ed. Campbell, R. and Childs, S.. Colchester UK: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Rollins, Joe. 2011. “Political Science, Political Sex.” In The State of LGBT/Sexuality Studies in Political Science, Symposium, ed. Currah, P.. PS 44: 27–30.Google Scholar
Sawer, Marian. 2004. “The Impact of Feminist Scholarship on Australian Political Science.” Australian Journal of Political Science 39: 553–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkees, M.R. and McGlen, N.E.. 1999. “Misdirected Backlash: The Evolving Nature of Academia and the Status of Women in Political Science.” PS 32: 100–7.Google Scholar
Simms, Marian and Bayes, Jane H.. “Conclusion.” In Gender and Politics: The State of the Discipline, ed. Bayes, J.H.. Berlin: Barbara Burdrich.Google Scholar
Smith, Miriam. 2009. “Diversity and Canadian Political Development.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association May 27. Canadian Journal of Political Science . 42: 831–54.Google Scholar
Squires, Judith and Weldes, Jutta. 2007. “Beyond Being Marginal: Gender and International Relations in Britain.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9: 185–203.Google Scholar
Tetreault, Mary Ann. 2008. “Women in International Relations.” Politics & Gender 4: 144–56.Google Scholar
Trimble, Linda. 2002. “Reflections on the Status of Women in the Discipline.” Presentation to the CPSA Status of Women in the Discipline Roundtable, May 31, Toronto.Google Scholar
Vickers, Jill. 1989. “Memoirs of an Ontological Exile.” In Feminism: From Pressure to Politics, ed. Miles, A. and Finn, G.. 2nd ed. Montreal: Black Rose.Google Scholar
Vickers, Jill. 1997. Reinventing Political Science: A Feminist Approach. Halifax: Fernwood.Google Scholar
Vickers, Jill. 2011. “‘Gendering’ Federalism: Institutions of Decentralization and Power-Sharing.” In Gender, Politics and Institutions, ed. Krook, M and Mackay, F. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Vickers, Jill. 2012. “Gendering Power: Feminist Approaches.” In Political Power: The Development of the Field, ed. Haugaard, Mark and Ryan, Kevin, Toronto, Berlin: Barbara Burdrich.Google Scholar
Williams, Christine. 2000. Sept “Preface.” In Feminist Views of the Social Sciences. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Wilson, Ernest. 1985. “Why Political Scientists Don't Study Black Politics, but Historians and Sociologists Do.” PS 18: 600–07.Google Scholar
Yeatman, Anna. 1997 “Feminism and Power.” In Reconstructing Political Theory: Feminist Perspectives, ed, Shanley, Mary Lyndon and Narayan, Uma. State College PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar