Despite comprising a large and increasing proportion of the United States population—about 14.7%, according to March 2006 Census Bureau estimates—Latinos continue to be severely underrepresented in political science, and today comprise less than 2% of the academy (Census Bureau 2006; Michelson 2007). Increased recent attention to the issues of recruitment and retention of Latino political scientists by professional associations such as the American Political Science Association (APSA) notwithstanding, the number of Latino scholars in the field continues to lag behind that of other racial and ethnic groups. But just where in the pipeline does the problem exist? Are not enough Latinos being recruited for graduate study? Are Latinos being successfully recruited but then not finishing their degrees? Or is the leak occurring later in scholars' careers, perhaps between graduation and tenure? Avalos (1991) noted that Latinas were particularly underrepresented, with few women entering or completing Ph.D. programs. More than 16 years later, does a gender gap persist among Latino political scientists? Do leaks in the pipeline differ for Latinos and Latinas? These are the questions that drive this research.

National data from the U.S. Department of Education suggest that the problem does not stem from a lack of undergraduate majors in political science. As shown in Table 1, from 1995–2005, Latinos earned 8.6% of all bachelor's degrees in political science awarded nationwide, compared to 6.3% for Asians, 10.4% for African Americans, and 74.8% for non-Latino Whites (Anglos). At the Ph.D. level, however, Latinos account for only 4.1% of all degrees awarded, compared to 5.3% for Asians, 8.8% for African Americans, and 81.8% for Anglos (see Table 2). While all non-Anglo groups decline in their proportion of degrees awarded between the two levels, the drop for Latinos is the most significant. At least part of the pipeline problem, then, is occurring between completion of the undergraduate degree and completion of the doctorate.

Looking separately at male and female degree completions, there is also evidence of a pipeline problem specific to Latinas. As shown in Table 1, at the bachelor's level more women complete the degree among all minority groups: 9.5% for Latinas compared to 7.7% for Latino men; 7.4% for Asian women compared to 5.2% for Asian men; and 13.2% for African American women compared to 7.7% for African American men. For Anglos, more men (79.4%) complete the degree than do women (70%). However, at the Ph.D. level, the percentage of degrees awarded to men compared to women is larger for all groups except for Latinos. Latino men and Latinas each account for 4.1% of all Ph.D.s awarded to men and women from 1995–2005 (see Table 2). However, because more Ph.D.s are awarded to men overall than to women, more degrees (N = 193) were awarded to Latino men during this period than to Latinas (N = 123). While Latinas completed over 2,600 more undergraduate degrees in political science than did Latino men, Latino men still earned 70 more doctorates. While this is not panel data, there have been more Latinas in the pipeline for all but the first two years of data reported in these tables, suggesting that the disparity in Ph.D. completions is not due to a lack of Latinas completing undergraduate degrees in the field.

The data for our investigation comes from a panel study of Latino graduate and undergraduate students known to the APSA. In 2000, all 274 individuals self-identified as Latino students were sent a brief survey; 106 completed this initial round of the survey, for a response rate of about 39%. In addition to some demographic information, the 2000 survey asked respondents about their enrollment status (the name of their school, the degree they were pursuing, their year of enrollment, and their anticipated year of graduation), as well as open-ended questions about challenges they faced, financial and non-financial support, and mentoring. A preliminary report describing findings from this survey was reported by Martinez-Ebers et al. (2000). Between February and September 2007 we asked respondents to the original survey for updates about their educational and professional situations, as well as their reflections on monetary and other types of support and challenges they had faced during their education and careers. In this second wave of the study, we received responses from 56 of those in the original pool of 106, one of whom clarified that he was not in fact Latino. This gives us a contact rate of about 53% (56/105). In addition, we used Internet and telephone research to track students who did not respond to the second wave of the survey, using contacts at their former institutions or other information provided on the 2000 surveys (e.g., contact information for family members) to determine whether or not they had completed their degrees and any other available information about their current situations. This method provided educational and professional status information for an additional 44 individuals, for an overall “response” rate of 100/105 (95%).

Although not a complete picture of the experiences of Latinos in the field, we believe the responses from our panel study provide valuable information about where Latinos leak out of the pipeline and why they continue to be underrepresented in the field. That these individuals were known to the APSA in 2000 suggests that they were already somewhat more likely to succeed—they had either joined the APSA, attended an APSA conference, or had been involved in an APSA program such as the McNair Scholars program or the Ralph Bunche Summer Institute. There are likely many other Latinos in the profession who were in the pipeline in 2000 who were less connected to the APSA network and were therefore even less likely to continue on to a tenure-track position in the field.

In some ways, the responses we received are encouraging. Of the 100 Latino respondents (62 men and 38 women), 62 had completed their Ph.D.s, while another 13 were still in school. Only 19 had decided to abandon their studies before completing their doctorate (see Table 3). Avalos (1991) noted that the 1970s and 1980s produced very few Latino Ph.D.s, with only 13 Latinos receiving a Ph.D. in the 1980s, only two of whom were women. By comparison, the numbers from our survey indicate not only a growing number of Latino Ph.D.s but also increasing gender equity: 22 (35.5%) of the 62 new Ph.D.s received by our respondents were earned by Latinas. As Table 2 (above) indicates, Latinas earned 39% of all Ph.D.s in political science awarded to Latinos during the period 1995–2005.

However, the leaky pipeline does persist. Although more Latinos are completing the Ph.D. compared to earlier decades, many report that they have been unable to obtain tenure-track positions or are choosing to leave the field due to other considerations (Table 3). Of our 100 respondents, 30 had left the field completely and only 27 were tenured or in tenure-track positions—more Latinos had given up on political science than had managed to secure the “gold ring” of a tenure track job. While at least half of those who had left the field did so before completing their Ph.D. (N = 15), another 12 respondents who had completed their graduate educations also chose to leave political science, almost one-fifth of the 62 new Ph.D.s overall (19.4%).

Overall success rates between Latinos and Latinas in our study are fairly similar, with about 30% of each having left the field, including about 20% of those with doctorates. About three-fourths of those with doctorates were teaching; the proportion of Latinas overall who were teaching is slightly lower, but this is balanced by the larger proportion of Latinas still in school. When we disaggregate the “teaching” category, we find that Latinas are more likely to have tenure and slightly more likely to have tenure-track positions, while Latinos are more likely to have part-time positions; however, as Latinas are a much smaller group, there are actually equal numbers of tenured Latinos and Latinas in our study (four of each) and a larger absolute number of Latinos in tenure-track positions (see Table 3).

While it is tempting to laud these success stories, and the marked improvement in the recruitment and retention of Latino political scientists in recent years, there is a darker side to these survey results. Many more Latinos are completing the Ph.D. than are able to find tenure-track positions, and a significant proportion of Latinos are choosing to leave the field. This is a major leak in the pipeline. Our open-ended survey questions provide valuable insight into why Latino political scientists are finding it difficult to remain and succeed in the field, with significant differences in responses between Latinos and Latinas. In other words, while there are no major differences in success rates and pipeline losses between Latinos and Latinas, our survey responses suggest that the pipeline issues experienced by Latinos and Latinas are qualitatively different.

Not surprisingly, financial issues were a common and frequent concern. One male respondent noted: “My only problem has been financial. I did not have the backing to complete a Ph.D. and to take my time. Had to finish quickly, get a real job to pay down debts and that has not worked out well.” One response from another male respondent to our question about hindrances to completing graduate work was direct and to the point: “Hindrances—money, money, money.” One Latina who has left the profession also pointed to financial considerations: “I made that decision [to leave academia] in 2006. Income was one of the major issues.” Other respondents echoed this concern, noting that they continually considered leaving the field due to the poor salaries. However, a few respondents cited significant financial support. One Latina commented: “The biggest help that I have received during my career was the financial support offered by one mentor (in the form of a job as research assistant) during key moments in grad school when I had to help my family abroad. Without that extra help, it would have been very difficult for me to stay in the U.S. and complete my Ph.D.” Nevertheless, overall, financial issues were noted as significant hindrances rather than positive influences.¹

Mentoring, or the lack thereof, is also an issue. This is despite the Association's awareness of and attention to the mentorship issue in the past few decades. Rudder (1990) noted the need to recruit more minorities into graduate school and into the political science professoriate; Garcia and Smith (1990) argued that this would mean not only effort on the part of professional organizations but also direct mentoring by faculty and graduate students. APSA maintains a list of mentoring resources on its web site, including a service that matches individuals seeking a mentor with those registered as potential mentors. Since 1969 it has actively sought to provide institutional mentoring for minorities through the APSA Minority Fellows Program. While these services are certainly a step forward, our survey results reveal that poor or absent mentoring continues to contribute to the leaky pipeline even among Latinos associated with APSA.

Latinas in particular were more likely to cite an absence of good mentoring as one of the hindrances to their success. One respondent who did not complete his studies commented:

Responding to a question about whether they felt that as a Latina/o they had faced more or extreme challenges, one Latina replied:

Another Latino noted the lack of support in his program: “I finished my Ph.D. in April 2000 at {name of institution}. I must say that the graduate program there does not consider Latinos' needs and is very Eurocentric … I would not recommend any of my students to pursue a graduate degree there.” Another Latino commented: “My biggest hindrances were a lack of support from my Ph.D. advisor and the generally hostile atmosphere towards ethnic minorities in my graduate school department, both from staff and fellow graduate students.” One Latina was very specific about how her faculty mentoring fell short: “It would have been helpful to have more professors invite me to gather and interpret their research data and publish papers with them. Only one professor gave me such an opportunity.”

Latinas were also more likely than Latinos to cite family concerns. One respondent named as a hindrance to her career the fact that “the tenure clock and biological/mother of young child clocks are directly in competition.” Another Latina, who completed her Ph.D., is a mother of two preschool children and is in a tenure-track position, commented:

Another Latina wrote that her career has been “hindered … by my own want to have a good, well-rounded life with my family. We were not interested in moving to the Midwest, upstate NY or anywhere that was completely isolated from family.” One respondent that is teaching in adjunct positions noted that she has moved to be with her husband, who has a tenure-track position in another field: “This along with having two small children has resulted in my ‘straddling’ academia. I applied selectively to a few jobs this year and have just returned from a campus visit. It looks promising but [I am] unsure I would be able to take it if offered because it would require a considerable out of state commute.” A Latina who completed her Ph.D. in 2002 noted that she is still only halfway to tenure because she has had to change jobs three times in five years:

The only Latino who mentioned family balance issues in his response was a gay male who explained that he had taken a post-doc position overseas because of their “more sensible immigration regime for same sex couples” (his partner is not a U.S. citizen).

Latinas also were more likely to mention service demands. As one tenured Latina respondent put it: “Since there are not as many women in the profession we often end up on more committees than the average male because committees typically need to be diverse. The same is true with being Latino. For a Latina the combination can mean extra work that may or may not be rewarded.” Another Latina in a tenure-track position noted: “I think one of the biggest issues is being given the time to do research and not get your energy sucked away with teaching and service. The college tends to assign women of color a great deal of committee work, not to mention asking us to attend various diversity functions on campus.”

Several Latina respondents commented on the lack of support they have had from other Latino political scientists, particularly senior males. One Latina noted that “reviewing old conference programs I think it would be obvious that senior men were co-presenting (or mentoring) younger men more than women. This would also apply to reviewing the journals for publications, in my opinion.” This same respondent noted that she had received valuable mentoring from other women outside of the Latino Caucus or Race, Ethnicity and Politics groups of APSA. Another Latina wrote: “I have found that Latinos in the workplace have been less than helpful throughout my career.”

A final difference we noted is that Latinas were more likely to cite discrimination, including both sexism and racism, from colleagues, administrators, and students. One respondent noted: “As a woman of color, I have experienced a constant struggle for acceptance and respect in academia. Like other women of color, I have experienced racism and sexism throughout graduate school and then as a junior faculty member.” A Latina who has left the field noted: “Latinas face many more challenges, sexism and racism in the administration and department politics and also by the students.” Another Latina commented: “Like other women of color, I have found myself marginalized in academia.” Latinos also cited racism; one noted:

Another Latino commented: “People perceive you differently, talk down to you.” One wrote that “I have always been convinced that I worked twice as much as some of my fellow students to achieve the same grades.” However, a few respondents wrote that their ethnicity had been an advantage rather than a disadvantage. For example, one Latino commented: “If anything, being a ‘preferentially treated’ minority has opened opportunities to me that I might not have otherwise had … I often wonder if I am being treated less harshly than others.” And one Latina wrote: “I believe that Latinos in the profession are more competitive since many universities and departments want to have a faculty pool of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.”

A final theme of interest from our surveys was a relatively frequent complaint that it is generally assumed that all Latino political scientists study (or should study) Latino politics. One tenured Latina wrote: “Don't assume we all want to study Latin America or minority politics in the U.S. It's very off-putting … Just let us be scholars.” Another Latina commented: “It would be great to have had some guidance on how to resist well-meaning professors who have a tendency to assume Latino background = Latino politics scholar regardless of a student's actual interests.” A Latino political theorist wrote: “Although I have a natural interest and do inform myself about Latin American politics in general, it seems as if I'm expected to have this sort of expertise—even of a special sort—even though I specialized in something else.”