A Gender Gap in Publishing?

Women's Representation in Edited Political Science Books

Author(s): A. Lanethea Mathews and Kristi Andersen
Source: PS: Political Science and Politics , Mar., 2001, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 143-
147
Published by: American Political Science Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1350324

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to PS: Political Science and Politics

This content downloaded from

196.1.114.18 on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:40:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 T"l----lll---...-I'E,', PRO FEISSIO N

A Gender Gap in Publishing? Women's

Representation in Edited Political Science Books*
A. Lanethea Mathews, Syracuse University
Kristi Andersen, Syracuse University

Academic publishing is tightly mentoring relationships, research account for a large proportion of the
connected to college and uni- topic and methodology, and time. literature in their field) (Creamer
versity faculty members' prospects We wish to contribute to the 1998). Men are three times more
for promotion, tenure, salary in- growing body of research on gender likely to have published more than
creases, and professional recogni- and academic publishing by examin- 10 journal articles than are their fe-
tion, and is often regarded as an ing male and female publishing in male counterparts (Dinauer and On-
index of one's scholarly contribution edited collections of political science deck 1999).1 Creamer (1998) sug-
to a given field (Blackburn and Law- literature. By focusing on edited gested that prolific publishers are
rence 1995). This is problematic be- books, we want to draw attention to disproportionately white males be-
cause, as many researchers have professional and collegial networks cause the career paths, work assign-
clearly documented, women publish that are essential to initiating and ments, research interests, and access
less than men. Because female fac- sustaining publishing. After briefly to resources conducive to frequent
ulty produce fewer publications on reviewing the literature on sex dif- publishing are more characteristic of
average than their male counter- ferences in academic publishing and white men than of women and mi-
parts, they also receive lower pay the status of women in political sci- norities.
and are more likely to hold the ence, we examine 78 edited political Women's lower publishing rates
ranks of assistant and associate pro-science books and compare women's are not indicative of less ambition.
fessor (Blackburn and Lawrence representation as contributing au- A survey of full-time college and
1995; Creamer 1998; Dinauer and thors to their representation in the university faculty at 384 institutions
Ondeck 1999; Roland and Fon- American Political Science Associa-
revealed that 54% of female faculty
tanesi-Seime 1996; Schneider 1998).tion. and 58% of male faculty considered
And, although gender differences in becoming an authority in their field
publishing have narrowed in most important. Likewise, 44% of female
disciplines over the past two de- Gender Disparities in faculty and 46% of male faculty con-
cades, in most cases, men still out- Academic Publishing sidered obtaining recognition from
publish women by a ratio of two to their colleagues to be important (Di-
According to a recent article in
one (Roland and Fontanesi-Seime nauer and Ondeck 1999).
The Chronicle of Higher Education,
1996). Among the factors cited as Other explanations for the gender
the Higher Education Research In-
being important to publishing regu- gap in academic publishing are that
stitute found that, as of 1989, 43%
larly are ambition, reputation, merit, female faculty are more likely to
of women in colleges and 20% in
institutional support and resources, work in nontenure-track, part-time,
universities had never published a
professional networks and collegial/ or temporary positions, to work at
single journal article. The same was
true of only 23% of men in colleges teaching colleges, and to lack access
and 7% in universities (Schneider to the institutional support, re-
A. Lanethea Mathews is a doctoral sources, or time needed for prolific
1998). Gender gaps in productivity
candidate in political science at Syracuse
persist even when controlling for publishing (Roland and Fontanesi-
University. Her research concerns women's Semi 1996; Schneider 1998). Even
educational origin, academic rank,
civic activities and political power, gender
when all else is equal, female faculty
and American political development,institutional
and type, and professional
age (Creamer 1998; Dinauer and tend to be more involved than their
women and electoral politics.
Ondeck 1999; Schneider 1998). In male counterparts in activities that
Kristi Andersen is professor and chair,addition, men continue to out- detract from research, such as advis-
department of political science, Maxwell
publish women even in fields in ing, administrative work, and serving
School of Citizenship and Public Affairs,
which women have been receiving on departmental committees (APSA
Syracuse University. Her most recent book Committee on the Status of Women
the majority of Ph.D.s for some time
is After Suffrage: Women in Partisan and
Electoral Politics Before the New Deal.(Creamer
She 1998; Schneider 1998). 1992; Sarkees and McGlen 1992;
has written on women and politics, publicWomen are also less likely to be Schneider 1998).
opinion, and political parties. highly prolific writers (writers who Women are also more likely than

PSOnline www.apsanet.org 143

This content downloaded from
196.1.114.18 on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:40:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
men to interrupt their careers for for scholars wishing to initiate and outside of professional networks and
child-bearing, child-rearing, caring sustain a publishing career. collegial relationships. Institutional
for an elderly relative, or supporting policies and practices may contribute
It is almost a truism to state that
a spouse (Dinauer and Ondeck to, but do not determine, whether a
those who do not have a number
1999; Long 1990; McElrath 1992; faculty member initiates and sustains
of students, colleagues, or mentors
Schneider 1998). However, family to call new ideas to their atten- a strong publishing record. However,
responsibilities probably have less tion, those who are not consulted as Creamer (1998) noted, colleagues
effect on women's publishing activity external to a scholar's immediate
by others for advice and informa-
than work assignments and time. tion, those who are not in corre- institution are important sources of
Even when controlling for marital spondence with those on the fron- recognition and reinforcement. Be-
tiers of research, those who do not
status, women are less likely to pub- cause women are less likely than
have friends in high and important
lish than are their male counterparts men to be fully integrated into colle-
places who might help them ad-
(Sarkees and McGlen 1992). vance their careers, are not in the gial networks, they find it more diffi-
Cheryl Young (1995) suggested best position to know what is go- cult to receive the acclaim necessary
that the content of women's scholar- ing on in their field. And as far as to partake of the institutional re-
ship may lead to the marginalization such factors are concerned, wards that increase publishing pro-
women are in a more disadvan-
of the voices, perspectives, and ductivity.3
methods of women in top academic taged position than men . ... For
most, productivity is a function of
publications. According to Young, Women in Political Science
one's position in the communica-
women's research styles and topic tion system in a discipline. (1975,
choices might not fit traditional no- 134) In 1992, Sarkees and McGlen re-
tions of what many reviewers and ported that while women continue
editors consider to be the best or Many women first experience gen- to obtain record numbers of political
most rigorous research. Few articles der-based professional inequality in science degrees, the percentage of
about women and politics, for exam-graduate school. Female graduate female faculty in political science
ple, have been published in leading students often have a harder time departments lags considerably be-
political science journals other than than males finding and developing hind that of many other disciplines.
Women & Politics (Sarkees and Mc- meaningful mentor relationships Likewise, female political scientists
Glen 1992). In consequence, wom- with senior scholars and may receivecontinue to be overrepresented in
en's publishing opportunities may beless credit for collaborative research part-time and nontenure-track posi-
restricted, or ghettoized, to specific when they do develop such relation- tions-positions which make pub-
and gendered domains. ships (APSA Committee on the Sta-lishing and the forming of collegial
Finally, women's lower publishing tus of Women 1992; Creamer 1998). networks and relationships more
rates may be a consequence of a Male mentors may have different difficult.4 In addition to these obsta-
"chilly climate" in some academic relationships to male proteges than cles, female political scientists are
departments. Women are more to female proteges, and some aca- less likely than males to say that
likely than men to be excluded and demic departments still suffer from athey have adequate resources for
isolated from the types of profes- lack of female researchers and men- scholarly work, that they are in-
sional and social networks that de- tors. The failure of female graduate
volved in department information
fine the life of a department (Anon- students to develop meaningful net-networks, or that their colleagues
ymous and Anonymous 1999; APSAworks in graduate school has an im- refer students interested in research
Committee on the Status of Women portant impact on the rest of their to them for collaboration and men-
1992; Long 1990; Tripp-Knowles careers. Indeed, Long (1990) foundtorship.
1995). Subtle (and not-so-subtle) that collaboration with a mentor is These differences, which remain
forms of discrimination include ex- the most important factor affecting a even when controlling for rank, ten-
clusion from institutional rewards faculty person's publishing produc- ure, and institution type, are re-
like tenure and salary increases, sex-tivity following the completion of his flected in low publishing rates
ual harassment, and a disregard for or her doctoral training.2 Thus, gen- among female political scientists in
feminist or gender-related research der seems to have a cumulative, if top political science journals. Be-
(Benokraitis 1998; Creamer 1998; indirect, effect on academic publish- tween 1980 and 1990, women au-
Hopkins 1999; McElrath 1992; ing. When a small unit of time is thored or coauthored only 12% of
Tripp-Knowles 1995). Likewise, analyzed, gender differences in pub- all articles published in the Ameri-
women may be less likely than men lishing productivity are generally can Political Science Review (Sarkees
to receive visiting appointments andsmall (Blackburn and Lawrence and McGlen 1992). Looking beyond
participate in editorial boards, pro- 1995), but become greater as longer the APSR, Young (1995) examined
fessional panels, committees, and units of time are considered 15 top political science journals and
research teams-activities that en- (Creamer 1998). found that only 24% of all articles
courage the building of professional In sum, it seems women's publish-published between 1983 and 1994
networks and contacts outside home ing productivity is constrained by thehad at least one female author. Only
institutions. As Lewis noted, build-particular gendered milieu in which 18% of the articles examined had
ing professional networks is essentialthey work and by their placement one female author only. In contrast,

144 PS March 2001

This content downloaded from

196.1.114.18 on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:40:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 of which were pub
TABLE 1
1995 and 1997.6 We chose five cate-
Male and Female Membership in APSA Fields of
gories to represent the diversity of
Specialization, 1995-97 fields within political science-elec-
Total Percent Percent toral behavior, environmental policy,
Members Male* Female* Male Female Latin American politics, political
philosophy and theory, and interna-
Electoral Behavior 168 136 32 81% 19%
tional politics-and retained in our
Environmental Policy 477 366 111 77 23 sample books falling into these five
Latin American Politics 538 396 142 74 26
categories for which we could iden-
Political Philosophy and Theory 2177 1707 470 78 22 tify all the contributors. We col-
International Politics 3587 2776 811 77 23
lected the names of contributing au-
thors from the actual book itself if it
*We divided members whose sex was unknown according to the pro
known males and females. was located in the Syracuse Univer-
sity library, from the original adver-
tisement, or by contacting the pub-
over 80% of the articles had a singleing to 78 edited political science lisher via email or phone. We
male author or a male lead author. books because, perhaps more so excluded from our analysis books for
Male authors dominated the publi- than articles in journals, contribu- which the contributing authors are
cations in every political science tions to edited books are structured deceased (e.g., those containing
journal examined except Women & by networks and personal connec- works by authors such as Adam
Politics, in which 82.6% of the arti- tions among scholars. In this sense, Smith and Karl Marx). This resulted
cles had at least one female author examining the representation of in a sample of 78 books. We then
(only 30% of the articles published women in edited books may provide calculated the percentages of female
in Women & Politics had one male clues as to how female and male and male contributing authors for
each book and for all the books in
author). These findings suggest thatfaculty develop the kinds of net-
articles related to women and/or works that eventuate in publications.each category.
What is at issue here is not female To determine whether women
gender have a much lower chance of
being published in top-rated political publishing productivity per se, but were underrepresented among au-
science journals that are not specifi-rather whether female political sci- thors contributing to edited political
cally targeted to such concerns. In- entists are represented in important science books, we compared our
deed, in just the first 12 years of its research and professional networks findings to the percentages of fe-
existence, Women & Politics pub- compared to their proportion in the male and male scholars in each sub-
lished one-third of the total number discipline as a whole. ject category published in APSA's
of women and politics articles ever A sample consisting of all adver- 1995-97 Directory of Members.
published in the top 15 political sci- tised edited books was taken from APSA membership rolls are helpful
ence journals combined (Kelly, Wil- the advertising sections of four is- in two respects. First, because mem-
sues of the American Political Sci- bers report their own fields of spe-
liams, and Fisher 1994).5 Political
science, like other male-dominated ence Review published in 1996 and cialization, the directory gives some
disciplines, may be resistant to re- the official program for the Ameri- indication of how political scientists
search that concerns women and can Political Science Association's characterize themselves and their

gender (Sarkees and McGlen 1992, 1995 Annual Meeting. Selecting own research. Second, while not ev-
1999; Young 1995). books through advertisements al- ery political scientist participates in
lowed us to examine books pub- APSA, membership reflects a cer-
lished at a particular point in time, tain commitment to the profession
Data Collection and Method
rather than previously published or and scholarship in the field as well
We examined the proportion of highly cited books. This initial sam- as, possibly, an eagerness to partici-
male and female authors contribut- ple included 364 books, a majority pate in the kinds of influential net-
works that lead to publications and
academic advancement (Young
TABLE 2 1995).
Male and Female Authorship by Field, 1995-97
Male Female Analysis and Findings
Books Authors Authors Authors
As reported by the American Po-
Electoral Behavior 10 182 89% 11% litical Science Association's member-
Environmental Policy 10 152 84 16 ship office, women now constitute
Latin American Politics 6 91 59 41 about 26% of the total membership.
Political Philosophy and Theory 30 307 70 30 In 1995, this figure was about 23%
International Politics 22 310 86 14 (Young 1995). Table 1 indicates the
proportion of male and female

PSOnline www.apsanet.org 145

This content downloaded from

196.1.114.18 on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:40:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TABLE 3
Female Representation by Field, 1995-97
Membership- Adjusted
Female Female Authorship Female Adjusted
Members Authors Difference Authors* Difference

Electoral Behavior 19% 11% 8% 11% 8%

Environmental Policy 23.3 16 7.3 16 7.3
Latin American Politics 26.4 41 -14.6 33 -6.6
Political Philosophy and Theory 21.6 30 -8.4 16 5.6
International Politics 22.6 14 8.6 14 8.6

*Adjusted figures exclude those edited volum

such as volumes about "feminist interpretat

APSA members
every fieldin
except each nities and that
field
Latin American ofthese networks
spe- them-
politics drops belowfor
cialization examined their proportion
this selves are in part structured by gen-
study.
of APSA membership.7
Fairly consistent with The results der
the relations.8
proportion
of female APSA in the political philosophy and the-
members, the per-
centages of women
ory category are most instriking.each area of
Discussion
specialization When gender-related content is con-
considered hovers be-
tween 19 and 26. trolled, the percentage of female Three important findings from
An overview of male and female contributors drops almost by half, above bear repetition and further
authorship by each subject area is from 30% to 16%. Consistent with elaboration. First, the percentage of
presented in Table 2. For the 78 Young's (1995) finding that most females contributing to edited political
edited books examined, women gender-related research is confined science books is relatively consistent
made up only 22% of all contribut- to Women & Politics, gender-related with the percentage of women in the
ing authors-a percentage consistent research (particularly in political American Political Science Associa-
with their overall membership in theory) seems to be ghettoized into tion. Second, women's representation
APSA from 1995 to 1999. Although particular books. among contributing authors falls con-
the gender gap in publishing appears Table 4 presents evidence for siderably once controls for content
to be narrower in some subfields whether women's participation as and topic are introduced. Thus, while
rather than others (e.g., 41% of con- editors or coeditors has any bearing women are increasingly entering the
tributing authors in Latin American on whether females were more likelyresearch and publishing world, their
politics are women), in all cases men to author contributions to the books participation is often relegated to sep-
appear to out-publish women. under study. As indicated, women arate and gendered domains. Third,
Women make up only 11% of au- make up only 15% of authors con- female political scientists may be pub-
thors contributing to electoral be- tributing to those books edited by lishing less in edited books because
havior edited books, and only 14% male editors and coeditors only. they are not able to establish the pro-
of those contributing to interna- However, women make up more fessional connections and collegial
tional politics collections. than half (52%) of authors for networks that would facilitate publish-
As shown in Table 2, the percent- books with a female lead editor or ing. Given the disparity in female par-
age of female authors contributing at least one female coeditor. These ticipation in female-edited books and
to books in some fields exceeds fe- results suggest that establishing pro- male-edited books (52% and 15%,
male representation in APSA for fessional networks is important for respectively), it is also likely that fe-
those fields. However, the figures in women pursuing publishing opportu- male political scientists have fewer
Table 2 reflect the inclusion of col-
lections of gender-related research
and works of feminist theory, sub- TABLE 4
fields which are dominated by
Women's Representation in Female Edited or Coedited
women. Table 3 reports the basic
Volumes
gender differences among APSA
members and contributing authors Total Male Female
by field and also the difference when Volumes* Authors Authors
edited books that contain an un-
All 78 88% 22%
usual percentage of female authors
due to their content are excluded Female Edited or Coedited 16 48% 52%
No Female Editors 62 85% 15%
from the sample. Once these "outli-
ers" are excluded, women's repre- *From adjusted figures in Table 1
sentation as contributing authors in

146 PS March 2001

This content downloaded from

196.1.114.18 on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:40:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
opportunities to establish connections accepting of articles that consider these points of view are altering
with their male colleagues than with them. This will not happen, how- the discipline.
other women in the discipline. ever, unless political science depart- The committee also recommended
Political science departments and ments begin to give more attention that departments take steps to im-
the discipline as a whole can take to the experiences of their female prove the likelihood of women suc-
steps to increase female faculty pub- researchers. In 1992, the APSA ceeding at research by, among other
lishing rates and recognition of the Committee on the Status of things, enhancing the visibility of
contributions of female researchers Women suggested that improvingfemale faculty within the department
and publishers. Young (1995) sug- the status of women in political and profession, encouraging mentor-
gested that as gender-related studies science required accepting both ing, and providing research support.
become more theory driven and the differing points of view that Our findings suggest that mentoring
data dependent, traditional political women bring to the discipline andand forming professional networks
science journals will become more the corresponding ways in which are particularly important.

Notes

*The research presented here was sup- 3. Institutional reward structure is most science departments (Sarkees and McGlen
ported by the Graduate School at Syracuseinfluential in determining whether a faculty 1992, 55).
University through its participation in the person begins a publishing record early in his 5. Even when women do publish in political
Preparing Future Faculty program, sponsored or her career. Although the institution plays ascience journals, they are less likely to be
by the Council of Graduate Schools and the role in helping faculty, a commitment to pub-
cited by their male colleagues. The com-
Association of American Colleges and Uni-lishing (especially through work assignments),
pounding effect of lower publication rates and
versities and made possible with funding from time, and interest in research are stronger
participating institutions and a grant from thepredictors of publishing activity than is insti- lower citation rates leads to the perception
Pew Charitable Trusts. The authors also wish tutional reward structure, including salary that few women are top scholars in their field
to thank Elizabeth D. Miller, who completed(Creamer 1998). (Creamer 1998; Young 1995).
some of the data collection for this study, and 4. Since the 1980s, women have constituted 6. Four books were published in 1993,
Nancy Burns, who had the original idea to a majority of both undergraduate and gradu- three in 1994, and one in 1992.
examine edited volumes. ate political science students but, as of 1990- 7. Publishing among scholars who study
1. Creamer estimated that about 15% of all 91, women made up only 8.1% of all full pro- "ethnicity" or "race" mimics the experience
faculty produce about 50% of all publications. fessors in the institutions participating in the
of scholars who study gender (Young 1995).
2. Long (1990) also found that opportuni- American Political Science Association an-
8. This is consistent with Ward, Gast and
ties for collaboration were significantly re- nual departmental survey. Between 1972 and
duced for female graduate students with chil-1990, the biggest gains for women in political Grant (1992). Their study of citations to soci-
dren. This obstacle to predoctoral science have been at the instructor and assis- ology articles revealed that women scholars
productivity has a significant impact on initi-tant professor levels, suggesting that women and gender-related research have high visibil-
ating and sustaining a record of publishing. may encounter a "glass ceiling" in political ity within a network of women scholars.

References

Anonymous and Anonymous. 1999. "Tenure Communications Research." Human Com- Sarkees, Meredith Reid, and Nancy E. Mc-
in a Chilly Climate." PS: Political Science munication Research 25(June): 548-68. Glen. 1992. "Confronting Barriers: The
& Politics 32(March): 91-99. Hopkins, Nancy. 1999. "MIT and Gender Status of Women in Political Science."
APSA Committee on the Status of Women. Bias: Following Up on Victory." The Women & Politics 12(4): 43-86.
1992. "Improving the Status of Women in Chronicle of Higher Education, June 11, -. 1999. "Misdirected Backlash: The Evolv-
Political Science: A Report with Recom- B4.
ing Nature of Academia and the Status of
mendations. " PS: Political Science and Pol- Kelly, Rita May, Linda M. Williams, and Women in Political Science." PS: Political
itics 23(September): 547-54. Kimberly Fisher. 1994. "Women & Politics: Science and Politics 32(March): 100-107.
Benokraitis, N.V. 1998. "Working in the Ivory An Assessment of Its Role within the Dis-
Basement: Subtle Sex Discrimination in
Schneider, Alison. 1998. "Why Don't Women
cipline of Political Science." Women & Publish as Much as Men? Some Blame
Higher Education." Career Strategies for Politics 14(4): 3-18.
Inequity in Academe; Others Say Quantity
Women in Academe, ed. Lynn H. Collins, Lewis, Lionel S. 1975. Scaling the Ivory Tower:
Merit and Its Limits in Academic Careers. Doesn't Matter." The Chronicle of Higher
Joan C. Chrisler, and Kathryn Quina.
Education, September 11, A14.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Blackburn, Robert J., and Janet H. Lawrence. Press. Tripp-Knowles, Peggy. 1995. "A Review of
1995. Faculty at Work: Motivation, Expecta- Long, J. Scott. 1990. "The Origins of Sex Dif- the Literature on Barriers Encountered by
Women in Science Academia." Resources
tion, Satisfaction. Baltimore: John Hopkins ferences in Science." Social Forces 84(4):
University Press. 1297-1315. for Feminist Research 24(1/2): 28-34.
Creamer, Elizabeth G. 1998. Assessing Faculty McElrath, Karen. 1992. "Gender, Career Dis-Young, Cheryl D. 1995. "An Assessment of
Publication Productivity: Issues of Equity. ruption, and Academic Rewards." Journal Articles Published by Women in 15 Top
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Political Science Journals." PS: Political
of Higher Education 63(May/June): 269-
26(2). Washington, DC: Graduate School 81. Science and Politics 28(September): 525-
of Education and Human Development, Roland, Catherine Buffalino, and Margaret 33.

George Washington University. Fontanesi-Seime. 1996. "Women Coun- Ward, Kathryn B., Julie Gast, and Linda Grant.
Dinauer, Leslie D., and Kristen E. Ondeck. selor Educators: A Survey of Publication 1992. "Visibility and Dissemination of
1999. "Gender and Institutional Affiliation Activity." Journal of Counseling & Develop- Women's and Men's Sociological Scholar-
as Determinants of Publishing in Human ment 74(May/June): 490-95. ship." Social Problems 39(August): 291-98.

PSOnline www.apsanet.org 147

This content downloaded from
196.1.114.18 on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:40:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms