You Research Like a Girl: Gendered Research Agendas and Their Implications

• Published in: PS, political science & politics Vol. 52; no. 4; pp. 663 - 668
• Main Authors: Key, Ellen M., Sumner, Jane Lawrence
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, USA Cambridge University Press 01.10.2019
• Subjects: Bias; Careers; Dissertations & theses; Doctoral Dissertations; Evidence; Females; Game Theory; Gender; Gender differences; Ghettos; International relations; Males; Men; Periodicals; Political science; Politics; Productivity; Research Design; Researchers; Segregation; The Profession; Women
• ISSN: 1049-0965; 1537-5935
• DOI: 10.1017/S1049096519000945

Political science, like many disciplines, has a “leaky-pipeline” problem. Women are more likely to leave the profession than men. Those who stay are promoted at lower rates. Recent work has pointed toward a likely culprit: women are less likely to submit work to journals. Why? One answer is that women do not believe their work will be published. This article asks whether women systematically study different topics than men and whether these topics may be less likely to appear in top political science journals. To answer this question, we analyzed the content of dissertation abstracts. We found evidence that some topics are indeed gendered. We also found differences in the representation of “women’s” and “men’s” topics in the pages of the top journals. This suggests that research agendas may indeed be gendered and that variation in research topic might be to blame for the submission gap.