Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:25:01.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Intersectional Analysis of International Relations: Recasting the Discipline

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2008

Brooke Ackerly  and
Jacqui True
Brooke Ackerly
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
Jacqui True
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this essay we use a basic feminist analytical tool, intersectionality, to understand why we do not see more women across the spectrum and at all levels in the international relations field in the United States. Our intersectional analysis reveals that to understand why women are underrepresented in IR, we should not look harder at women in IR but rather at IR as a discipline.

Type
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 156 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ackerly, Brooke A., Stern, Maria, and True, Jacqui, eds. 2006. Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerly, Brooke A., and True, Jacqui. forthcoming. Doing Feminist Research in Social and Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Agathangelou, Anna M., and Ling, L. H. M.. 2004. “Power, Borders, Security, Wealth: Lessons of Violence and Desire from September 11.” International Studies Quarterly 48 (3): 517–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Sociological Association. 2005. Full-Time Faculty Distribution by Rank and Gender. Available from http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/leftnav/research_and_stats/profession_trend_data/fulltime_faculty_distribution_by_rank_and_gender (27 September 2007).Google Scholar
Anand, Dibyesh. 2007. “Anxious Sexualities: Masculinity, Nationalism and Violence.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9 (2): 257–69.Google Scholar
Cancian, Francesca M. 1992. “Feminist Science: Methodologies That Challenge Inequality.” Gender & Society 6 (4): 623–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Robert M. A., and Jarvis, Darly S. L.. 2001. International Relations—Still an American Social Science?: Toward Diversity in International Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
D'Costa, Bina. 2006. “Marginalized Identity: New Frontiers of Research for IR?” In Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, ed. Ackerly, Brooke, Stern, Maria, and True, Jacqui. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonow, Mary Margaret, and Cook, Judith A.. 1991. Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, M. Mark, Kittleson, Miki Caul, and Sandholtz, Wayne. 2006. “Women and Globalization: A Study of 180 Countries, 1975–2000.” International Organization 60 (2): 293–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, Teresa, and Neufeld, Mark. 1997. “Critical Reflections on a Discipline: A Canadian Perspective.” Bulletin of the Canadian Political Science Association 26 (1): 27–31.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Stanley. 1977. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106 (3): 41–60.Google Scholar
Holsti, Kal. 1987. A Divided Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Darly S. L. 2000. International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism: Defending the Discipline. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Jaschik, Scott. 2007. “Philosophy and Sexism.” Inside Higher Education, September 10. <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/09/10/philos> (18 November 2007).+(18+November+2007).>Google Scholar
Ma, Jennifer. 2005. “Trends and Issues: Recruiting and Retaining Female and Minority Faculty.” New York: TIAA-CREF Institute.Google Scholar
Maliniak, Daniel, Oakes, Amy, Peterson, Susan, and Tierney, Michael. 2007. The View from the Ivory Tower: TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in the United States and Canada. www.wm.edu/trip.Google Scholar
Naples, Nancy A. 2003. Feminism and Method: Ethnography, Discourse Analysis, and Activist Research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reinharz, Shulamit. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ritter, Gretchen, and Mellow, Nicole. 2000. “The State of Gender Studies in Political Science.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 571 (1): 121–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya Kumar. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Steve. 2000. “The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2 (3): 374–402.Google Scholar
Smith, Steve. 2002. “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline.” International Studies Review 4 (2): 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Steve. 2004. “Singing Our World into Existence: International Relations Theory and September 11.” International Studies Quarterly 48 (3): 499–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squires, Judith, and Weldes, Jutta. 2007. “Beyond Being Marginal: Gender and International Relations in Britain.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9 (2): 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staudt, Kathleen A., and Weaver, William G.. 1997. Political Science & Feminisms: Integration or Transformation? New York: Twayne.Google Scholar
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. “Forward Is As Forward Does: Assessing Neoclassical Realism from a Traditions Perspective.” James, Patrick, Freyberg-Inan, Annette, and Harrison, Euan eds. Realism Today: A Paradigmatic Inventory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Strober, Myra H. 1994. “Rethinking Economics through a Feminist Lens.” American Economic Review 84 (2): 143–47.Google Scholar
Waever, Ole. 1998. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52 (4): 687–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Christine L. 2000. “Preface.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 571 (1): 8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar