To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Abstract
Starting from the ‘gender problem’ in European studies, we scrutinize the gendered knowledge production patterns in a least likely case to be gendered, EU–Turkey studies, due to the overrepresentation of women in the field and its feminine image. We utilize feminist standpoint theory and apply research synthesis and citation analysis techniques to two original datasets comprising 300 articles in 26 Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) journals, published from 1996 to 2020 and involving 8494 citations. Our findings reveal that male‐dominated knowledge marks even EU–Turkey studies with men outnumbering women in authorships and an extremely limited number of articles focusing on gender, whilst ampler disparities transpire in first authorships and citations. Whilst women have progressively disrupted male‐dominated knowledge by surpassing male authorship numbers since 2014, engaging in greater theoretical sophistication and having a greater inclination to cite women, limited incorporation of women's standpoint hinders the field's potential to address gender inequalities and promote gender‐sensitive policies and development.
Avrupa Birliği (AB), hem kendi sınırları içinde hem de küresel ölçekte toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğini teşvik etme ve ilerletme konusunda lider bir aktör olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Türkiye’nin yirmi yılı aşkın adaylık süreci boyunca, AB’nin toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği alanındaki etkileri ele alınmış; bu süreçte Avrupalılaşmanın zamanla Avrupalılaşma karşıtlığına dönüştüğü savunulmuştur. Bu makale, AB’nin toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği liderliğini feminist epistemik adalet ve kolonyal modernite kavramaları çerçevesinde sorunsallaştırarak, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği politikalarının hangi dinamiklerle şekillendiğini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, Türkiye’deki sivil toplum örgütleriyle gerçekleştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış mülakatlara ve birincil kaynak analizine dayanan bir vaka analizi içermektedir. Ayrıca, Türkiye’nin iç toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği gündeminin AB politikaları ve yönergelerinden nasıl etkilendiği ve bu bağlamda Avrupa karşıtı dinamiklerin ülkenin toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği politikalarında ne tür değişikliklere yol açtığını değerlendirecektir. Epistemik adaletsizlik perspektifinde politika değişimlerini analiz eden bu araştırma, Türkiye’nin toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği politikasındaki dönüşümü ve AB ile ilişkilerin bu süreçteki etkilerini kapsamlı bir şekilde anlamayı hedeflemektedir.
For the final full version of the article, please see:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14683849.2022.2164189?src=most-cited-last-3-years#abstract
For free e-prints please contact me or one of the co-authors of the article.
Abstract: The anti-gender movement has been publicly pursuing its quarrel against the social, academic, and political contexts of gender. Thus, it has also been constituting a basis of activism for fundamentalists, nationalists, and conservatives. In this article, we argue that recent instances show the movement has a reciprocal strategy, which articulates its structural, civil, and political aspects of counter-mobilization. After explaining the fundamentals of these aspects, we focus on the case of Turkey to embody our theoretical discussions. We also attempt to offer a transversal strategy for broad-based coalitions that can challenge the movement by categorizing its recent reflections.
As relations between the European Union (EU) and Turkey have progressed, so has the body of literature on the relationship – to the extent that we can now identify ‘EU–Turkey studies’ as a boutique sub-discipline of EU studies. This article provides a systematic mapping of the evolution of EU–Turkey studies from 1996 to 2020 in order to explore the degree of epistemic diversity featured in the discipline as an indicator of epistemic (in)justice. Utilising the research synthesis technique, we analyse a novel dataset involving 300 articles published in 26 SSCI journals to scrutinise the extent of epistemic diversity in the discipline. Our mapping reveals two central features of EU–Turkey studies. First, the transformation of the discipline has largely been contingent on critical milestones in EU–Turkey relations. Lately, increasing conflictual dynamics in bilateral relations resulted in diminishing scholarly commitment to studying EU–Turkey relations. Second, epistemic diversity has remained fairly limited given the lack of geographic diversity in authorship, the accumulation of the publications in specific journals, and the segregated co-authorship clusters that limit the amalgamation of different ideas and values. At the same time, knowledge production in EU–Turkey studies has been mainly Eurocentric, due to the almost exclusive use of grand and up-and-coming theories/concepts of European integration, while the proliferation of issue areas since the launch of the discipline has not culminated in a strong focus on non-traditional, avant-garde research topics as such. To ensure epistemic justice in the discipline, EU–Turkey studies should place stronger emphasis on unconventional issue areas and on the explanatory power of mainstream and unorthodox (IR) theories that have the potential to explore the relationship within the context of the multilateral system in which EU–Turkey relations increasingly operate.
Publication in peer-reviewed journals is of major importance to careers in academia. It has become clear that a considerable gender gap exists in political science journal publishing and a debate on how to confront this gap has got under way. This article examines the gender distribution in publishing (1978–2021), submissions and reviewing (2015 to end of 2020) for West European Politics. We identify a gender gap in publishing, but find a more pronounced gap when it comes to submissions. Over time, there are notable changes in authorship categories. In terms of the review process, we have not found a gender gap in desk-rejects or in the double blind peer review process. However, there is a considerable gender gap in review invitations sent out. In addition, female scholars are somewhat less likely to accept invitations to review than their male colleagues. These observations are in-line with the findings of other political science journals. They underline the need for the discipline to confront, in particular, imbalances in submissions and to identify the reasons behind them, as key means to reduce gender gaps in academia.
This chapter presents the rationale, objectives, and structure of this volume and introduces the reader to the new complexities that epitomize EU–Turkey relations. To this end, it provides a set of guiding questions for the volume, offers a systematic overview of the major milestones in the EU–Turkey relationship, and classifies the key determinants of these developments under three categories: multilateral frameworks and external crises, internal EU and Turkish domestic developments, and EU–Turkey bilateral processes. The chapter then introduces the three-dimensional approach of the volume that brings together the analytical lenses of (1) theories and concepts, (2) institutions, and (3) policies based on a comprehensive survey of both key primary sources and academic literature dealing with the relationship. In a final step, the chapter presents the ensuing fifteen contributions to the volume.
This chapter summarizes the key insights derived from a three-dimensional perspective on EU–Turkey relations that combines the analytical lenses of (1) theories and concepts, (2) institutions, and (3) policies. It furthermore reflects upon the different periodizations of the EU–Turkey relationship. On this basis, we offer a systematic survey of the conditions under which cooperative trends in EU–Turkey relations could be (re)invigorated. The analysis shows that despite the high potential for reciprocity inside and outside the accession framework, the relationship currently rests on unfavorable conditions for cooperation on both sides. Important enablers of cooperative behavior—trust, communication, reputation, fairness, enforcement, and common identity—cannot properly operate in the current setup. The chapter puts forward possible means to allow for these enablers to facilitate cooperative behavior in EU–Turkey relations in the future. It concludes by discussing the future trajectory of the relationship and pinpointing avenues for a future research agenda for EU–Turkey studies.
This introduction provides an overview of the gendered nature of politics and international relations, before a brief summary of the articles that make-up this special issue.
Senior positions in academia such as tenured faculty and editorial positions often exhibit large gender imbalances across a broad range of research disciplines. The forces driving these imbalances have been the subject of extensive speculation and a more modest body of research. Given the central role publications play in determining individual outcomes and progress in academic settings, unequal patterns of authorship across gender could be a potent driver of observed gender imbalance in academia. Here, we investigate patterns of co‐authorship across four journals in ecology and evolutionary biology at four time‐points spanning four decades. Co‐authorship patterns are of interest because collaborations are important in scientific research, affecting individual researcher productivity, and increasingly, funding opportunities. Based on inferred gender from set criteria, we found significant differences between male and female researchers in their tendency to publish with female co‐authors. Specifically, compared to women, male researchers in the last author position were more likely to co‐author papers with other males. While we did find that the proportion of female co‐authors has increased modestly over the last thirty years, this is strongly correlated with an increase in the average number of authors per paper over time. Additionally, the proportion of female co‐authors on papers remains well below the proportion of PhDs awarded to females in biology.
In this chapter I argue that gender and intersectionality perspectives on the EU have much to contribute to social constructivism, not only because they draw on articulated theories of how gender –in intersection with other inequalities- is constructed through social and institutional practices, but also because of the specific attention they pay to gender and intersectional norms, meanings, and power relations that are constructed and contested in the EU political arena (Kronsell 2012; Van der Vleuten 2012; 2007; Kantola 2010; Hoskyns 2004). Even where there are differences within social constructivism, three points are generally accepted: the idea of European integration as a social construction in constant change; the mutual constitution of agents and structures; and the role of meanings, norms and discourses. It is in these three aspects in particular that gender and intersectionality perspectives on European integration have much to contribute to social constructivism. Moreover, gender and intersectional perspectives enrich social constructivism with a greater understanding of how power relations between women and men work in Europe. It is thus relevant to consider social constructivism through intersectional – and not only gendered- lenses because these provide an understanding of European integration that is more aware of the constitutive effects of EU norms and institutions on embodied European women and men, whose gender intersects with their social class, ethnicity, or sexuality, producing dynamics of privileges and exclusions. At the same time, intersectional approaches show that specific and diverse women and men are involved in the construction of EU norms and institutions, and this diversity should be reflected in EU policymaking.
This paper is an endeavour to explore and explain the Europeanisation patterns of gender equality in a longstanding candidate country, Turkey, with regard to the specific policy areas of work and family life reconciliation over the last two decades. To achieve this goal, this paper has utilised a combination of literature review, document analysis and 43 semi-structured in-depth interviews with European Union (EU) officials, representatives of social partners and international women’s organisations, as well as Turkish political elites and representatives of civil society organisations. The collected data have been analysed through the thematic analysis research method. Relying on an extensive review of the related literature and policy documents together with the data collected, this paper contends that the process of Europeanising Turkish work and family life reconciliation policies has remained contradictory, incomplete and patchy. Although the Turkish government has made various legislative changes in response to the adaptational pressure coming from the EU, a closer examination of those legislative amendments indicates a continued disconnect between Turkey and the EU in the specific policy area of work and family life reconciliation.
Following growing academic interest and activism targeting gender bias in university curricula, we present the first analysis of female exclusion in a complete International Relations curriculum, across degree levels and disciplinary subfields. Previous empirical research on gender bias in the teaching materials of International Relations has been limited in scope, that is, restricted to PhD curricula, non-random sampling, small sample sizes or predominately US-focused. By contrast, this study uses an original data set of 43 recent syllabi comprising the entire International Relations curriculum at the London School of Economics to investigate the gender gap in the discipline’s teaching materials. We find evidence of bias that reproduces patterns of female exclusion: 79.2% of texts on reading lists are authored exclusively by men, reflecting the representation of women neither in the professional discipline nor in the published discipline. We find that level of study, subfield and the gender and seniority of the course convener matter. First, female author inclusion improves as the level of study progresses from undergraduate to PhD. This suggests the rigid persistence of a ‘traditional International Relations canon’ at the earliest disciplinary stage. Second, the International Organisations/Law subfield is more gender-inclusive than Security or Regional Studies, while contributions from Gender/Feminist Studies are dominated by female authorship. These patterns are suggestive of gender stereotyping within subfields. Third, female-authored readings are assigned less frequently by male and/or more senior course conveners. Tackling gender bias in the taught discipline must therefore involve a careful consideration of the linkages between knowledge production and dissemination, institutional hiring and promotion, and pedagogical practices.
Accumulated evidence identifies discernible gender gaps across many dimensions of professional academic careers including salaries, publication rates, journal placement, career progress, and academic service. Recent work in political science also reveals gender gaps in citations, with articles written by men citing work by other male scholars more often than work by female scholars. This study estimates the gender gap in citations across political science subfields and across methodological subfields within political science, sociology, and economics. The research design captures variance across research areas in terms of the underlying distribution of female scholars. We expect that subfields within political science and social science disciplines with more women will have smaller gender citation gaps, a reduction of the “Matthew effect” where men’s research is viewed as the most central and important in a field. However, gender citation gaps may persist if a “Matilda effect” occurs whereby women’s research is viewed as less important or their ideas are attributed to male scholars, even as a field becomes more diverse. Analysing all articles published from 2007–2016 in several journals, we find that female scholars are significantly more likely than mixed gender or male author teams to cite research by their female peers, but that these citation rates vary depending on the overall distribution of women in their field. More gender diverse subfields and disciplines produce smaller gender citation gaps, consistent with a reduction in the “Matthew effect”. However, we also observe undercitation of work by women, even in journals that publish mostly female authors. While improvements in gender diversity in academia increase the visibility and impact of scholarly work by women, implicit biases in citation practices in the social sciences persist.
This article provides a novel conceptual framework to understand the impact of the European Union on Turkish politics and policies in the aftermath of the opening of accession negotiations in 2005. It argues that the post-2005 developments in Turkey not only attest to lesser and more limited Europeanisation, but also entail a process that is increasingly gaining momentum in the country and which is referred to as ‘de-Europeanisation’.
Informed decisions about sampling are critical to improving the quality of research synthesis. Even though several qualitative research synthesists have recommended purposeful sampling for synthesizing qualitative research, the published literature holds sparse discussion on how different strategies for purposeful sampling may be applied to a research synthesis. In primary research, Patton is frequently cited as an authority on the topic of purposeful sampling. In Patton's original texts that are referred to in this article, Patton does not make any suggestion of using purposeful sampling for research synthesis. This article makes a unique contribution to the literature by examining the adaptability of each of Patton's 16 purposeful sampling strategies to the process of qualitative research synthesis. It illuminates how different purposeful sampling strategies might be particularly suited to constructing multi-perspectival, emancipatory, participatory and deconstructive interpretations of published research.
The critique of silence in International Relations theory has been long-standing and sustained. However, despite the lasting popularity of the term, little effort has been made to unpack the implications of existing definitions and their uses, and of attempts to rid the worlds of theory and practice of silences. This article seeks to fill this vacuum by conducting a twofold exercise: a review and revision of the conceptualisation of silence current in the literature; and a review of the implications of attempts to eliminate silence from the worlds of theory and practice. Through the discussion, the article suggests that we deepen and broaden our understanding of silence while simultaneously accepting that a degree of silence will be a permanent feature of theory and practice in international politics. Finally, the conclusion illustrates the possibilities for analysis and theory opened by these arguments through an exploration of how they may be used to interpret and address recent events in Yemen.
Following a poststructuralist theorising of identity in international relations, which argues that identity is relationally and discursively constructed through foreign policy, this article attempts to analyse the way in which the European Commission discursively constructs European identit(ies) in its relations with Turkey around the theme of security'. The study utilises the methodological tools of critical discourse analysis in analysing the speeches and field interviews conducted with European Commission officials, in examining the way in which they construct Europe' in relation to the security implications of Turkish accession. The article's findings challenge the argument that Europe is moving beyond the modern state to resemble a postmodern order, and problematises the designation of the Commission as a cosmopolitan' actor in EU enlargement policy.
Which European universities and research centres are most prominent in research on European Union (EU) interest groups? What are the theoretical perspectives employed currently in this scholarship? What research designs do scholars employ to study and investigate EU interest groups? And finally, what are the academic works that constitute the core building blocks on which researchers of EU lobbying build their theoretical arguments and empirical research? We answer these questions by analysing an original, built-for-purpose dataset providing information on the theoretical approaches, research designs and bibliographic references employed in 196 academic articles published on the topic of EU lobbying and interest groups in 22 European and American journals of political science and public policy. The dataset also contains information about authors' academic affiliation and Ph.D.-awarding institutions. We combine two approaches employed in the literature on systematic analyses of a discipline: the research synthesis and meta-analysis approach, and the bibliometric approach.
European Union (EU) studies is known as a fragmented and interdisciplinary field. Drawing on bibliometric methods, this article presents a novel approach to examining the alleged lines of fragmentation in EU studies. It maps the network structure arising from the citation practices in journals concerned with EU studies by analysing 2,561 documents, containing 66,162 references, published in four authoritative EU journals in the period 2003–2010. The article finds: (1) a complex network of EU and non-EU sources clustering around different bordering disciplines, particularly Political Science, Comparative Politics, International Relations and Public Administration; (2) that the two core journals – Journal of European Public Policy and Journal of Common Market Studies – play an integrating function by holding the various subfields of EU studies together; and (3) a transatlantic divide in communication practices of EU scholars.
Has the EU's political accession conditionality changed after the enlargement of 2004 against the backdrop of apparent 'enlargement fatigue' and domestic obstacles in the remaining non-member countries? Based on an empirical analysis of non-member eligibility and EU discrimination, this article concludes that EU enlargement policy has remained consistently linked to compliance with basic democratic norms in the target countries. The recent drawbacks in the negotiations of the EU with Croatia, Serbia, and Turkey have been caused by issues of national identity related to legacies of ethnic conflict that are likely to create high political costs to the target governments. As a result, whereas consistency has remained high, effectiveness is reduced. The findings confirm the continuing relevance of the external incentives model of EU conditionality after the recent enlargement.
Occupations with a greater share of females pay less than those with a lower share, controlling for education and skill. This association is explained by two dominant views: devaluation and queuing. The former views the pay offered in an occupation to affect its female proportion, due to employers' preference for men–a gendered labor queue. The latter argues that the proportion of females in an occupation affects pay, owing to devaluation of work done by women. Only a few past studies used longitudinal data, which is needed to test the theories. We use fixed-effects models, thus controlling for stable characteristics of occupations, and U.S. Census data from 1950 through 2000. We find substantial evidence for the devaluation view, but only scant evidence for the queuing view.
Women now receive political science degrees in record numbers, but female representation among political science faculty still lags behind that of many other disciplines. Only 26% of the 13,000 political science professors in the United States today are women (Sedowski and Brintall 2007). According to our recent survey of international relations faculty in the United States—the 2006 Teaching, Research, and International Politics (TRIP) Survey—women comprise an even smaller proportion of IR scholars: 77% of the IR faculty respondents are men, while only 23% are women. Even more than their counterparts in the wider field of political science, women in IR tend to be more junior and less likely to hold tenure than their male colleagues. Women comprise a minority at every level of the profession, but they are most scarce at the full professor level: Only 17% of political science professors and 14% of IR professors are women (Maliniak et al. 2007c; Sedowski and Brintall 2007).
The European integration process both affirms and challenges gender relations in Europe. Yet integration theories have contributed little to understanding gender dynamics. The article presents a feminist critique of integration theories and argues that they have failed to look at how gender relations impact the ‘driving forces' of European integration. This lacuna is attributed to the implicit male norm and the rudimentary view on power embedded in integration theories. The article also explores ways to include gender in integration studies and suggests how EU integration can be perceived from a feminist viewpoint.
This article adds a new case-study to the existing empirical analyses of gender differences in academic journals. The record of South European Society and Politics confirms the established pattern of a gender gap in published output, with its source at the submissions stage. It also reveals gendered preferences with regard to authorship styles, highlighting a pattern of greater individualism and homophily for men and a more collaborative picture for female scholars; in particular, we found that co-authoring increases women’s publication footprint. Moving on to the journal’s gatekeepers, we also discovered gender imbalance. An investigation of rejection rates finds that the predominantly female editorial team made gender-neutral choices during the initial editorial review of submissions, but selected overwhelmingly male referees. While women are less successful than men in the blind peer review process, this is overshadowed by the difference in submission rates. Potential explanations for the latter were considered, including lesser access to academic networks as well as the “impostor phenomenon”, which afflicts women more than men. The article concludes that addressing the journal publishing gender gap requires broader changes in academic life.
The gender gap pervades many core aspects of political science. This article reports that females continue to be under-represented as authors and reviewers in European Union Politics and that these differences have only diminished slightly since the second half of the 2000s. We also report that females use more cautious and modest language in their correspondence with the editorial office, but do not find evidence that this under-studied aspect of the gender gap affects the outcome of the reviewing process. The authors discuss some measures European Union Politics and other journals might take to address the imbalance.
Publishing has a variety of functions for academics. The most significant of these is linked to esteem and career success. Beyond this, however, publishing in academic journals also plays a significant knowledge production role; consequently, who is represented in journal publishing is also about who knows and is contributing to productive knowledge in different fields. In this article, we draw on the gender distribution in publishing from the journal’s inception in 1962 until 2021, for reviewing (2015–2020) and for submissions ratios since 2017 in JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. While we identify a gender gap in publishing and a persistent one in submissions, we also highlight the ways in which this gap has impacted knowledge production and reinforced disciplinary boundaries. Over time, we also find notable changes in review participation with more women being invited to review and more likely to accept invitations to review. Because these findings are consistent with the general trends in Political Science and International Relations journals, we conclude this assessment with a reflection on what strategies have paid off to decrease existing gaps and meet some of the ongoing challenges.
Despite taking significant steps to comply with the Copenhagen criteria after receiving the candidate-country status in 1999, Turkey gradually moved away from European norms, values, and policy demands in various policy areas. This study explores (de)-Europeanization of Turkey's gender equality policy in terms of both legislative changes and the shifts observed in domestic actors' discourses over the past decade, focusing particularly on the debates surrounding the Istanbul Convention. It argues that the fading credibility of the EU conditionality coupled with domestic political dynamics led to the weakening of the EU as a reference point in domestic debates, where policies ensuring gender equality were reversed by pro-family conservative discourses and policies. The study points to domestic factors, including the country's authoritarian turn, and international factors such as the stalling EU-Turkey relations coupled with the backlash against gender equality in EU member states as the key dimensions of de-Europeanization of gender equality policy.
In this study, I investigate the evolution of authorship diversity in the scientific journals of three major pan-European professional associations of political research (ECPR, EPSA and EISA), since their first issue until 2020, through an analysis of the bibliometric information of each published item. Established between 1973 and 2019, the seven periodicals under scrutiny (European Journal of Political Research, European Journal of International Relations, European Political Science, European Political Science Review, Political Research Exchange, Political Science Research & Methods and Global Affairs) cover a wide spectrum of political science and offer a convenient gateway for exploring various disciplinary dynamics, with a focus mostly on comparative politics, international relations and political methodology. The dataset includes 5281 articles and 4533 unique authors affiliated to 1029 unique institutions from 73 countries. The analysis shows that, while currently more diverse than ever, all these journals still have a large Western European and/or US core. Research is overwhelmingly produced in OECD member states and about half originates in countries where English is an official language. Although collaborations are increasingly frequent and seem to become the norm, scholars affiliated with Central and Eastern European institutions, as well as women authors are still heavily underrepresented.
This book explores the Europeanisation of gender policies and addresses some of the challenges of the debates surrounding the EU’s impact on domestic politics. Using Turkey as a case study, it illustrates that Europeanisation needs a feminist agenda and perspective. The first part of the book critically engages with the literature on Europeanisation, the EU’s gender policies and gender policymaking, and the interaction between Europeanisation and gender policies to argue that the Europeanisation framework falls short in devising sustainable gender policies due to a lack of feminist rationale and theory. Subsequently, the book develops a feminist framework of Europeanisation by drawing on the work of key feminist philosophers (Carole Pateman, Onora O’Neill, Nancy Fraser, Anne Phillips, Iris Young) and uses this framework to offer a critique of the Europeanisation of gender policies in various areas where the EU has prompted changes to domestic policies, including in civil society, political representation, private sector, violence against women, education, and asylum policy.
Many studies in political science and other disciplines show that published research by women is cited less often than research by male peers in the same discipline. While previous studies have suggested that self-citation practices may explain the gender citation gap in political science, few studies have evaluated whether men and women self-cite at different rates. Our article examines the relationship between author gender, author experience and seniority, and authors’ decisions to include self-citations using a new dataset that includes all articles published in 22 political science journals between 2007 and 2016. Contrary to our expectations, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that men are more likely cite their previous work than women, whether writing alone or co-authoring with others of the same sex. Mixed gender author teams are significantly less likely to self-cite. We also observe lower rates of self-citation in general field journals and Comparative/International Relations subfield journals. The results imply that the relationship between gender and self-citation depends on several factors such as collaboration and the typical seniority and experience of authors on the team.
We use two major datasets collected by the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project to map the international security subfield, examining conventional wisdom about the subfield’s gender composition, theories, methods, and policy relevance. At first glance, articles in security journals appear similar to security articles, in general, political science and international relations field journals on these variables. On closer inspection, however, we find that much of the standard thinking about international security describes only two security journals, International Security (IS) and Security Studies (SS). First, women author a small percentage of articles in these two journals, with little increase over time, whereas a growing share of articles in other top journals has a female author or coauthor. Second, more articles in IS and SS employ a realist theoretical approach, and these journals have been slower to embrace nonparadigmatic scholarship. Third, in contrast with articles published in the other journal types, only a small percentage of articles in IS and SS use quantitative methods. Finally, these journals are more policy prescriptive than journals representing other parts of the discipline. IS, in particular, publishes more articles containing explicit policy recommendations than any other journal. Our understanding of the international security subfield may reveal only part of the metaphorical elephant explored by the blind men if observers do not consider variation in security-related research across different journals and types of journals.
Gender inequality as a phenomenon is also present in academic writing and publishing. In this article, we review the gender imbalance in the percentage of authors and reviewers in EPS from 2015 to 2019. At the submissions stage, male authors submit approximately twice as many manuscripts compared to female authors. At the publication stage, there is less of a gender difference due to a higher success rate for female authors. For reviewers, however, the gender discrepancies are even wider. At the invitation stage, we invited only roughly four women to review for every ten men. When it comes to completed reviews, the gap widens to roughly three women for ten men. Our findings show that we still have a long way to go to achieve parity in the review process. We suggest that parity in the review process is not independent of more women scholars being promoted to higher level academic positions.
Publications have become the single most important factor of career evaluation in the social sciences, as well as in most other academic disciplines. This has in turn led some scholars to examine the existence of potential biases in peer-reviewed publications. Teele and Thelen (2017) have shown that political science is not free from such biases. This article examines publication patterns and the peer-review process for the European Journal of Political Research. It relies on data on more than 5000 submissions between 2006 and 2017. I look at possible biases at the different stages of the publication process: submission, desk evalauation, review and acceptance. Results show that the journal's processes are free from bias, but confirm that submission patterns remain different, despite convergence in recent years.
The publication pattern of EPSR confirms the findings of established scholarship on gender and publishing; women publish less than men (roughly, 30% to 70%). This gap reflects a previous submission gap; i.e., men submit even much more than women do. EPSR editorial process does not show signs of discrimination: single or leading female authors have significantly lower desk rejection rates than their male counterparts in similar configurations. Women though, are underrepresented as peer reviewers and EPSR has taken measures to redress this situation. Looking at women authors perceptions, findings (that cannot be considered representative), are consistent with existing scholarship. Women authors perceive themselves as more perfectionist and more risk adverse, they also perceive that they can dedicate less time to research, and they express mistrust in the blind review process. As a general conclusion, whilst reversing the gender gap requires structural action beyond and before the editorial process, journal editors must consider forms to secure more extensive women inclusion in publications.
This paper seeks to uncover what drives European Parliament (EP) discussions on a privileged partnership for Turkey. In line with Habermas’s Communicative Action Theory, it scrutinizes the justifications used by the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in the Plenary Sessions between 2005–2012, i.e. from the start of accession negotiations until the privileged partnership’s falling into disuse in EP discussions. The research reveals that the alleged benefits of privileged partnership in contrast to the costs of Turkey’s full membership constitute the backbone of the right-wing groups’ arguments whereas the objection to a privileged partnership is justified by MEPs from left-wing groups for being against the EU’s official commitments to Turkey. In disputing Turkey’s full membership, the members of the right-wing parties reconstruct a European identity in which Turkey is the constitutive other.
The article argues that dissident voices which attempt to theorise Europe differently and advocate another European trajectory have been largely excluded and left unheard in mainstream discussions over the past decade of scholarship and analysis. Dissident voices in European Union studies are those that seek to actively challenge the mainstream of the study of Europe. The article briefly examines the discipline of mainstreaming, then surveys the extent of polyphonic engagement in EU studies, before setting out how the special issue contributors move beyond the mainstream. The article will argue the merits of more polyphonic engagement with dissident voices and differing disciplinary approaches for the health and vitality of EU studies and the EU policy field itself. It summarises the special issue's argument that by allowing for dissident voices in theorising Europe, another Europe, and another theory, is possible - indeed, probable.
The innovative and exciting research in the field of feminist International Relations (IR) scholarship and feminist International Law is discussed. The challenges and difficulties that lie ahead for both disciplines as well as the potential for feminists in IR are highlighted.
This article investigates the extent to which citation and publication patterns differ between men and women in the international relations (IR) literature. Using data from the Teaching, Research, and International Policy project on peer-reviewed publications between 1980 and 2006, we show that women are systematically cited less than men after controlling for a large number of variables including year of publication, venue of publication, substantive focus, theoretical perspective, methodology, tenure status, and institutional affiliation. These results are robust to a variety of modeling choices. We then turn to network analysis to investigate the extent to which the gender of an article's author affects that article's relative centrality in the network of citations between papers in our sample. Articles authored by women are systematically less central than articles authored by men, all else equal. This is likely because (1) women tend to cite themselves less than men, and (2) men (who make up a disproportionate share of IR scholars) tend to cite men more than women. This is the first study in political science to reveal significant gender differences in citation patterns and is especially meaningful because citation counts are increasingly used as a key measure of research's quality and impact.Daniel Maliniak is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego. E-mail: dmaliniak@ucsd.edu
Ryan Powers is a graduate student in the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin—Madison. E-mail: rpowers@wisc.edu
Barbara F. Walter is Professor of Political Science and Associate Dean at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. E-mail: bfwalter@ucsd.edu
The foundation of the Turkish Republic and its modernisation project rested upon changing women's secondary role within society and providing them with equality through development and education. These reforms had an impact on changing the status of upper and middle class women, but its impacts remained limited for women in the lower societal segments. A further major change in regards to gender equality is the attempt of Turkey to be an EU member, which resulted in a major legislative shift through EU directives being inserted into national legislation. The result was a move towards the Europeanisation of its welfare regime in the last two decades. The current in progressive reforms has also given rise to a counter trend, namely the Islamist and conservative political party took office in 2002. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) actually supports the rights and public visibility of women with headscarves and championed women's roles as mothers and wives. Therefore, it based its discourse on those women's issues that were enmeshed with family and religious affairs. In this way, the status of women and the relationship between gender and social policy in the Turkish welfare system offer an ample example of the veiled Europeanisation of the welfare model in Turkey, in which women's issues are seen as a pendulum between EU legal regulations and the conservative discourse of the AKP government.
References to publications written by women constitute a significantly larger proportion of citations in articles written by women than in articles written by men in the same subfields. Further, the difference between citation patterns of men and women authors increases as the proportion of women in the discipline decreases, showing that these women are doubly disadvantaged in accumulating citations. These results suggest that the problems of members of an out-group tend to be most serious when their numbers are small and that they will find it increasingly easier to gain acceptance and recognition as their numbers increase.
This paper was first published in Socialist Review, no. 80, 1985. The essay originated as a response to a call for political thinking about the 1980s from socialist-feminist points of view, in hopes of deepening our political and cultural debates in order to renew commitments to fundamental social change in the face of the Reagan years. The "Cyborg Manifesto" tried to find a feminist place for connected thinking and acting in profoundly contradictory worlds. Since its publication, this bit of cyborgian writing has had a surprising half-1ife. It has proved impossible to rewrite the cyborg. Cyborg's daughter will have to find its own matrix in another essay, starting from the proposition that the immune system is the bio-technical body's chief system of differences in late capitalism, where feminists might find provocative extra-terrestrial maps of the networks of embodied power marked by race, sex, and class. The essay below is substantially the same as the 1985 version, with minor revisions and correction of notes.
The discipline of international relations has had different reactions to the increased salience of gender advocacy in international politics; some have reacted by asking feminist questions about IR, while others have encouraged the study of gender as a variable disengaged from feminist advocacy. This article takes up this debate simultaneously with current debate on gender and the noncombatant immunity principle. Through a causal analysis of the ineffectiveness of the immunity principle, it argues that feminism is an indispensable empirical and theoretical tool for the study of gender in global politics. Concurrently, it demonstrates that gender stereotypes in the immunity principle are a natural part of the gendered just war narrative, rather than a deviation from normal immunity advocacy. It concludes by arguing that the gendered immunity principle fails to afford any civilians protection, and by suggesting a more effective, feminist reformulation based on empathy.
This article takes the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome as an opportunity to reflect upon half a century of academic discourse about the EU and its antecedents. In particular, it illuminates the theoretical analysis of European integration that has developed within political science and international studies broadly defined. It asks whether it is appropriate to map, as might be tempting, the intellectual 'progress' of the field of study against the empirical evolution of its object (European integration/the EU). The argument to be presented here is that while we can, to some extent, comprehend the evolution of academic thinking about the EU as a reflex to critical shifts in the 'real world' of European integration ('externalist' drivers), it is also necessary to understand 'internalist' drivers of theoretical discourse on European integration/the EU. The article contemplates two such 'internalist' components that have shaped and continue to shape the course of EU studies: scholarly contingency (the fact that scholarship does not proceed with free agency, but is bound by various conditions) and disciplinary politics (the idea that the course of academic work is governed by power games and that there are likely significant disagreements about best practice and progress in a field). In terms of EU studies, the thrust of disciplinary politics tends towards an opposition between 'mainstreaming' and 'pluralist versions' of the political science of EU studies. The final section explores how, in the face of emerging monistic claims about propriety in the field, an effective pluralist political science of the EU might be enhanced.
This account of the Matthew effect is another small exercise in the psychosociological analysis of the workings of science as a social institution. The initial problem is transformed by a shift in theoretical perspective. As originally identified, the Matthew effect was construed in terms of enhancement of the position of already eminent scientists who are given disproportionate credit in cases of collaboration or of independent multiple discoveries. Its significance was thus confined to its implications for the reward system of science. By shifting the angle of vision, we note other possible kinds of consequences, this time for the communication system of science. The Matthew effect may serve to heighten the visibility of contributions to science by scientists of acknowledged standing and to reduce the visibility of contributions by authors who are less well known. We examine the psychosocial conditions and mechanisms underlying this effect and find a correlation between the redundancy function of multiple discoveries and the focalizing function of eminent men of science-a function which is reinforced by the great value these men place upon finding basic problems and by their self-assurance. This self-assurance, which is partly inherent, partly the result of experiences and associations in creative scientific environments, and partly a result of later social validation of their position, encourages them to search out risky but important problems and to highlight the results of their inquiry. A macrosocial version of the Matthew principle is apparently involved in those processes of social selection that currently lead to the concentration of scientific resources and talent (50).