Although the presence of women in the political science profession has increased rapidly since the 1980s, women still constitute less than 30% of the political science faculty nationwide and are more likely to find themselves in lower-paying and/or nontenure track positions (APSA 2011, 39; Evans and Moulder Reference Evans and Moulder2011). In the discipline, the position of gender and politics as a legitimate course of study has improved markedly since the 1970s (Lovenduski Reference Lovenduski1998; Mackay Reference Mackay2004; Murphy Reference Murphy2010; Tolleson-Rinehart and Carroll Reference Tolleson-Rinehart and Carroll2006). As Childs and Krook (Reference Childs and Krook2006, 19) point out, “mainstream editors, publishers and conference conveners no longer feel able to ignore the work of feminist political scientists.” But they also present evidence that this improvement stops short of full incorporation into the discipline and note that there is still skepticism about the value of feminist scholarship. This skepticism is also present at the intersection of the profession and discipline: while there are no systematic data on the employment of gender and politics scholars, it is not rare for a gender and politics scholar to be told that her employment prospects would be better if she were to research something else (Childs and Krook Reference Childs and Krook2006).Footnote ¹ Given the position of women in the profession and the status of gender and politics in the discipline, it is unsurprising that there is continued resistance to integrating gender into mainstream political science education (Baldez Reference Baldez2010; Lovenduski Reference Lovenduski2005; Murphy Reference Murphy2010).

A number of scholars have made clear cases for the mainstreaming of educational content about historically marginalized groups, such as women and minorities.Footnote ² Their arguments range from the general diversity argument that students benefit from exposure to diverse groups and subjects (Kowalski Reference Kowalski2000; Wahlke Reference Wahlke1991) to the more gender-specific arguments raised by Sjoberg (Reference Sjoberg2007) and Cassese, Bos, and Duncan (Reference Cassese, Bos and Duncan2012) wherein mainstreaming embeds gender into a discipline as an analytic construct, rather than as a descriptive category, and creates an atmosphere in which female students are more likely to see futures for themselves in a discipline.Footnote ³ Although some authors—most notably Cassese, Bos, and Duncan (Reference Cassese, Bos and Duncan2012)—offer practical suggestions for mainstreaming in the classroom, none has offered suggestions for a systemic change in the political science curriculum. In this article, I briefly discuss gender mainstreaming in political science education, contrast political science efforts with those made in another social science discipline (anthropology), and suggest a possible way forward for gender mainstreaming in political science education. It is my hope that this will stimulate discussion and prompt others to proffer suggestions for change in the discipline.

In 1991, John C. Wahlke published “The Political Science Major in the Liberal Arts Curriculum: A Report to the Profession,” otherwise known as the Wahlke Report (Wahlke Reference Wahlke1991). In it, he recommended that political science incorporate gender in the mainstream of political science education.Footnote ⁴ As Cassese, Bos, and Duncan (Reference Cassese, Bos and Duncan2012) note, though, the available evidence indicates that gender mainstreaming is not common practice in political science education, and, under the circumstances, it stands to reason that new generations of students are not being taught that gender is an integral part of both political history and the modern political landscape (Murphy Reference Murphy2010). It is also likely that they are not learning that inclusion of gender as an analytical and theoretical concept is essential for understanding political outcomes (Carpenter Reference Carpenter2007) or that studying gender and feminism brings attention to issues that have historically been ignored in the discipline (Mertus Reference Mertus2007). In short, if curriculum is, as Erevelles (Reference Erevelles2005, 423) notes, “constituted as a normalizing text,” then gender is not being normalized in political science education. Political science is not alone in its lack of gender mainstreaming; anthropology, for example, has also failed to integrate gender into the classroom adequately. The comparison between political science and anthropology is warranted, as the two share several gender-related characteristics. Both are male dominated but have well-developed subfields using gender as a source of inquiry (Carpenter Reference Carpenter2007; Morgen and Moran Reference Morgen and Moran1990; Murphy Reference Murphy2010; Stegmaier, Palmer, and van Assendelft Reference Stegmaier, Palmer and Assendelft2011). In both, serious research on gender issues began in earnest in the 1970s, and in both, gender scholars have pressed for the inclusion of gender in the classroom (Frueh Reference Frueh2007; Mertus Reference Mertus2007; Morgen and Moran Reference Morgen and Moran1990). Here is where the two diverge.

Gender scholars in political science have, for the most part, pressed for gender mainstreaming in articles (Carpenter Reference Carpenter2007; Cassese, Bos, and Duncan Reference Cassese, Bos and Duncan2012; Mertus Reference Mertus2007; Sjoberg Reference Sjoberg2007) rather than attempting a profession-wide initiative to mainstream gendered content in political science. Conversely, gender scholars in anthropology conducted the profession-wide American Anthropological Association (AAA) Project on Gender and the Curriculum (Morgen and Moran Reference Morgen and Moran1990). Between 1987 and 1989, the AAA's gender project leaders set out to meet three goals: (1) develop materials to aid gender mainstreaming, (2) incorporate gender into the discipline's textbooks, and (3) promote feminist anthropology at AAA meetings. It was argued that if these goals were met, then it would be “…impossible for social scientists to avoid dealing with gender in their studies of social stratification…” (Shapiro Reference Shapiro, Langland and Grove1981, 112). The result of the initiative, a curriculum guide entitled Gender and Anthropology: Critical Reviews for Research and Teaching (Morgen Reference Morgen1989), encourages faculty to move from teaching a chapter about gender and anthropology to teaching gender as an integral component of each of the major themes typically taught in introductory anthropology (e.g., human evolution, principles of archaeology, etc.). The curriculum guide met goal one and a text evaluation project was undertaken to attempt to meet goal two. There is no available evidence indicating that the promotion of feminist anthropology at AAA meetings was undertaken.Footnote ⁵

Unfortunately, very little follow-up assessed the effectiveness of the gender initiative. How much change did it create? Was gender mainstreamed in the anthropology classroom? Were texts updated to incorporate gender? These are questions that seem not to have been asked. Indirect evidence of the project's lack of success can be found in the anthropology education literature (Geller Reference Geller2009; Hendon Reference Hendon, Geller and Stockett2006; McElhinny et al. Reference McElhinny, Hols, Holtzkener, Unger and Hicks2003). Indeed, Hendon (Reference Hendon, Geller and Stockett2006, 137) notes that both in anthropology education, in general, and in texts, specifically, “the subject [gender] is not as invisible as was formerly the case, but is still treated as a ‘topic’ or an example of a particular set of research questions centering on women.”

Given the disappointing results of the AAA project, it is worth asking whether a similar initiative is warranted in political science. I argue that it is. When one considers that more than 70% of all political science professors are male (APSA 2011; Evans and Moulder Reference Evans and Moulder2011) and that an estimated 4% of the men and 10% of the women teach gender and politics (Bennie and Topf 2003, reported in Childs and Krook Reference Childs and Krook2006, 26), one potential explanation for the lack of gender mainstreaming in political science education is not that political scientists are hostile to gender research, but simply that very few political scientists—male or female—are adequately prepared to incorporate gender into their classes.Footnote ⁶ If we are to be successful in promoting gender mainstreaming, then the professoriate must be given the support and resources that only an APSA-led project can provide.

The idea of such an initiative is more plausible than some might think. APSA's recent state-of-the-discipline report contains a number of recommendations on gender and diversity: for example, the task force calls for better support of teaching and research on issues of race, class, and gender (APSA 2011). It also calls for improvement concerning educational and professional issues of gender, race, and class. In terms of providing adequate resources, the task force recognizes that “faculties must receive substantial technical, institutional, and departmental support if alternative strategies are to be widely developed, implemented, and assessed” (APSA 2011, 5). The APSA clearly recognizes that it has a role to play in transforming the discipline. If it can avoid the AAA's pitfalls, discussed below, an APSA-led gender initiative could provide a road map for integrating understandings of the roles and experiences of other historically underrepresented groups in the polis.Footnote ⁷

My research uncovered two primary reasons for the failure of the AAA gender initiative. First, no evidence suggests that the AAA did anything to promote the initiative beyond partnering with the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to fund the project/publish the curriculum guide.Footnote ⁸ The initiative, in essence, was an attempt at what the business community calls organizational transformation; in order for transformation efforts to be successful, the organization must actively promote the transformation using a carefully written change management plan. Among other things, the organization must create a sense that the change needs to occur, provide adequate resources to support the transformation, place its most influential members in positions to promote the change, and—above all—it must institutionalize its new approach (Kotter Reference Kotter2007).Footnote ⁹ This last point, institutionalization, is the AAA initiative's second major issue: it was targeted at undergraduate education. Graduate students—and those who train them—are a more appropriate target audience.

Ernest Boyer, the preeminent SoTLFootnote ¹⁰ scholar, notes that “as a scholarly enterprise, teaching begins with what the teacher knows.” What the teacher knows, in the higher education setting, begins with what he or she learns in graduate school; graduate education is more than simply content. To paraphrase Colander and Klamer (Reference Colander and Klamer1987, 95), graduate departments determine a discipline's discourse, certify professionals in the discipline, and guide budding academics as to what is and is not an important field of study in the discipline. Had the AAA started with materials and training for graduate programs, it would have improved the odds that gender mainstreaming would be institutionalized in the curriculum.

As noted, any transformative effort must be accompanied by rigorous change management planning. This includes creating a sense that change is necessary, providing resources, and institutionalizing the change. The APSA can foster a sense that change is necessary—first by starting a gender initiative and then by promoting that initiative in organization-wide communications and at conferences. If, for example, the Annual Meeting theme statement were to revolve specifically around gender inclusion, it would send a powerful message to the membership. Considerable resources would be necessary for a discipline-wide gender initiative; the APSA (2011) recommends that the discipline fund such initiatives by partnering with other organizations (e.g., the American Association of University Women or National Science Foundation) and with members of the discipline to raise external funds. Thus, the APSA could be instrumental in finding funding for a gender initiative.

The next step would then be to ensure that the change is institutionalized. First, a textbook mainstreaming initiative would be necessary for the transformation to become institutionalized.Footnote ¹¹ APSA could be instrumental in encouraging authors and publishers to revise texts. Second, institutionalization must have the support of the most influential among us. As Dryzek (Reference Dryzek2006, 487) notes, the only successful reorientations of the discipline have been “revolutions without enemies in the discipline.” To Dryzek's point, the behavioral revolution started with a handful of scholars at prestigious institutions. Thus, if gender mainstreaming is to be institutionalized in the discipline, then it is crucial that powerful political science departments “buy-in” to gender mainstreaming.Footnote ¹² These are the departments that, by virtue of position, set the tone for what is and is not an acceptable field of inquiry in the discipline. In this context, buy-in could include gender mainstreaming in required graduate and undergraduate courses as well as expanded course offerings that give students greater exposure to gender as an analytic construct.

When gender is no longer what Wahlke (Reference Wahlke1991, 53) called a “separate and unique problem to be dealt with in a particular course or two by a particular faculty member,” there are two likely outcomes. First, because they will be able to see themselves in the curriculum, more female political science majors are likely to pursue graduate degrees in political science. Second, gender and politics will no longer be a separate and unique subject dealt with by a small number of mostly female scholars, most often published in gender-focused journals. Thus, gender mainstreaming may well lead to a virtuous feedback loop in which the presence of gender in political science education leads not just to more women in the profession, but also to greater acceptance of gender in the discipline.Footnote ¹³ The current lack of gender mainstreaming in political science education is damaging to the students' understanding of the world in which they live and is ultimately damaging to the presence of women in the profession. A gender mainstreaming initiative sponsored, supported, and promoted by the discipline's premier professional association, the American Political Science Association, would provide the best chance for normalizing gender, not just in the classroom, but ultimately in both the discipline and in the profession.