New research reveals a stark gender disparity in political science journals.
Data & Methods: Analyzing dissertation abstracts from women\'s studies programs at top universities (Stanford, Chicago, Berkeley, Michigan and Columbia), this study examines topic selection differences between male and female PhD candidates. Researchers investigated whether "women's topics" versus "men's topics" experience different publication success rates in leading political science journals.
Key Findings: The analysis shows clear evidence of gendered research agendas—certain subjects persistently appear more often in studies by women than men, including issues related to gender equality and women\'s representation. Conversely, other topics are dominated by male-focused approaches.
📊 Data Source & Methodology: Dissertation abstracts from elite programs were analyzed for topic alignment with journal publication patterns.
🔍 Analysis Approach: Comparison of submission trends between genders revealed that journals favor research focused on specific traditional political science themes over gender-specific topics.
💡 Implications: This suggests structural barriers in academia might disproportionately affect women scholars, potentially explaining why they advance more slowly despite equal quality. The findings point to topic selection as a significant factor contributing to the persistent leaky pipeline.
| You Research Like a Girl: Gendered Research Agendas and Their Implications was authored by Ellen Key and Jane Lawrence Sumner. It was published by Cambridge in PS in 2019. |
