Recommendation 5: That the character and implications of ethnic, gender, and cultural diversity and the international and transnational dimensions of particular problems and policies be addressed in all relevant courses—“main-streamed,” in the pedagogical vernacular—not treated as a separate and unique problem to be dealt with in a particular course or two or by a particular faculty member. (Wahlke Reference Wahlke1991, 53; emphasis in original)
The idea for this Critical Perspectives section came from a short course at the 2011 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, “Teaching Gender and Politics: Views from the Field.” In one of the panel discussions, a senior feminist international relations scholar mentioned the above-quoted Wahlke Report, and most participants—almost all of whom identify as gender scholars, many of whom are senior in the field—were surprised not only that APSA recommended gender mainstreaming in the political science classroom, but also that it happened so long ago. Despite this now twenty-year-old recommendation, the available data on gender mainstreaming indicate that gender as a powerful theoretical and analytical construct remains outside the mainstream of political science education (Cassese, Bos, and Duncan Reference Cassese, Bos and Duncan2012). It is illustrative to note that our workshop participants were not the only political scientists who seem to have missed Wahlke's recommendation on inclusion of gender and ethnicity; it was not highlighted in either the immediate aftermath of the publication of the report or in more recent evaluations of the report's influence (Bennett Reference Bennett1991; Ishiyama Reference Ishiyama2005; Ishiyama, Breuning, and Lopez Reference Ishiyama, Breuning and Lopez2006; Kaufman-Osborn Reference Kaufman-Osborn1991). Given the many benefits of gender mainstreaming—from improving democratic citizenship to increasing the number of women in the profession—our goal for this Critical Perspectives section is to bring renewed focus to the subject of gender mainstreaming in political science education. We hope to start new conversations: What are the benefits of mainstreaming? How can faculty approach mainstreaming? What tools do faculty need in order to mainstream effectively? In the following essays, the authors approach these questions from a variety of viewpoints.
In the first essay, Marsha Lyle-Gonga takes as her starting point the underlying assumption that mainstreaming is an effective method for exposing students to gender in political science. She subjects this assumption to rigorous and thoughtful examination, looking at potential pitfalls in mainstreaming and alternatives to the approach. Erin Cassese and Angela Bos then provide a brief content analysis of prominent introductory textbooks and highlight the need for further attention to gender mainstreaming in political science texts. In the third essay, Leanne Doherty assesses the need for—and benefit of—gender mainstreaming in learning outside the classroom. She makes the case that all mainstreaming need not be done in a formal learning environment and that exposure to gender mainstreaming in working environments makes gender real to students in ways that classroom learning may not. I then argue that gender mainstreaming can serve as a means of transforming not just education, but also the discipline itself, and I suggest an institutionalized structure to sustain the transformation. Finally, Melissa Matthes provides concluding thoughts and rejoinders. Taken individually, each essay points to the benefits of gender mainstreaming in political science education; taken collectively, this Critical Perspectives section indicates that gender mainstreaming is not only beneficial to the political science curriculum, but also necessary if we are to become a more inclusive discipline.
