Gender and bias in the International Relations curriculum: Insights from reading lists
Gender and bias in the International Relations curriculum: Insights from reading lists
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1354066118791690
复制
发表时间：
2019-06-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Meibauer, Gustav
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Phull, Kiran;Ciflikli, Gokhan;Meibauer, Gustav
随着越来越多的学术兴趣和针对大学课程中性别偏见的行动主义，我们提出了在一个完整的国际关系课程中对女性排斥的第一次分析，跨学位水平和学科子领域。以往关于国际关系教材中性别偏见的实证研究，研究范围有限，主要局限于博士课程、非随机抽样、样本量小或以美国为主。相比之下，本研究使用的原始数据集的43个最近的教学大纲，包括整个国际关系课程在伦敦经济学院调查学科的教材中的性别差距。我们发现的偏见，再现模式的女性排斥的证据：阅读清单上的文本的79.2%是完全由男性撰写的，反映了妇女的代表性，无论是在专业学科，也不是在出版的学科。我们发现，研究水平，子领域和性别和课程召集人的资历事项。首先，女性作者的包容性随着研究水平从本科到博士的进步而提高。这表明传统的国际关系经典在最早的学科阶段是僵化的。其次，国际组织/法律子领域比安全或区域研究更具性别包容性，而性别/女权主义研究的贡献主要由女性作者主导。这些模式表明，在各分领域内存在性别陈规定型观念。第三，男性和/或更高级的课程召集人分配女性作者的阅读材料的频率较低。因此，要解决所教学科中的性别偏见问题，就必须认真考虑知识生产和传播、机构聘用和晋升以及教学实践之间的联系。
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.