THE SURVEY

We conducted a survey of women who study legislative politics to understand why so few women join and participate in the LSS. We took three steps to identify our population of women who study legislative politics. First, we conducted a search for women who presented conference papers related to legislative politics via a keyword search for the terms “legislatures,” “congress,” and “parliament” in recent conference programs (Midwest Political Science Association 2017, 2018; American Political Science Association 2017, 2018; Political Methodology 2017, 2018). Second, we identified women scholars from WomenAlsoKnowStuff (www.womenalsoknowstuff.com) who listed “legislatures,” “congress,” and “parliament” in their profile. Third, we identified women scholars who had published in LSQ in the past five years. These steps resulted in a population of 361 women studying topics related to legislative politics. We then sent all of those scholars an email invitation (and two follow-up reminder emails) to complete an online Qualtrics survey. This yielded a sample of 187 respondents and a response rate of 51.8% (Powell, Schwindt-Bayer, and Sin Reference Powell, Schwindt-Bayer and Sin2023).

We asked for a limited amount of demographic information because we were surveying a narrow population—women with or aspiring to a PhD. Education, occupation, and wealth are near constant. As shown in table 1, our sample is composed of slightly more than half American politics scholars and slightly less than half comparative politics scholars.Footnote ⁴ There was a small number of respondents who identified as studying international relations, methodology, and political philosophy as their primary field. Respondents were 76% white/non-Hispanic, 9% Latino/Hispanic, 2% Asian American, and 2% African American. There was similar representation across the academic ranks of assistant, associate, and full professors, as well as a small representation of graduate students and postdocs (mostly due to how we identified the population, as described previously).

Table 1 Respondents by Academic Rank, Subfield, and Race/Ethnicity

FINDINGS: WOMEN STUDY LEGISLATURES BUT DO NOT IDENTIFY AS SCHOLARS OF LEGISLATIVE POLITICS

Many women study legislatures but they do not always identify as scholars of legislative studies. Of the women in our survey, 94% stated that they had done work on or related to the study of legislatures. However, far fewer identified as scholars of legislative studies. As shown in table 2, 62% stated that they definitely or probably would consider themselves to be someone who studies legislatures; 30% stated probably or definitely not. Only 36% stated that they were definitely someone who studies legislatures. This contrasts sharply with the 94% of women who had done work on legislatures and our identification of all of them as studying legislatures.

Table 2 Do You Consider Yourself Someone Who Studies Legislatures?

Further reviewing this divergence, we asked scholars what percentage of their work is focused on legislatures; figure 1 shows that this correlated with a respondent’s identification as a legislative politics scholar. Those women who stated that they were not sure, probably not, and definitely not legislative politics scholars were those with less than 50% of their work focused on legislatures. We asked these women in an open-ended question why they felt that way. Responses were varied, but many of the answers nevertheless were associated with legislative politics. Some respondents stated that they study “…political representation in general” and “I study executive–legislative interactions” and “I think of myself as someone who studies women’s representation.” Other respondents spoke of legislatures but more as a vehicle to their work on something else; for example, “Legislative bodies are simply one venue for studying women’s representation” and “I am interested in Congress but consider myself more a gender person who looks at legislatures and legislative elections.” Interpretations of what “legislative studies” means were clearly varied, which may partially influence whether someone identifies as studying legislative politics. As one respondent noted, “I did not fully realize until taking this survey how much of my research is on legislatures, and yet I do not consider myself a legislative scholar. Instead, I label myself a scholar of [topic w], [topic x], [topic y], and [topic z]. But much of my research does involve legislative politics.”

Figure 1 How Respondents Describe the Proportion of Their Work Related to Legislatures by How They Self-Identify as Legislative Scholars

Two popular metrics that demonstrate women’s underrepresentation in legislative studies are their membership in the LSS and their publishing in LSQ. Our survey asked respondents about their LSS membership and LSQ experiences. Table 3 lists the percentage of the women sampled who were LSS members and had submitted studies to LSQ. We found that only 39% of the respondents (whom we identified as studying legislatures) were LSS members and 61% were not. Less than half of the sampled women who study legislatures had joined the LSS. Slightly more than half (54%) of respondents had ever submitted work to LSQ, and only 9% stated that LSQ typically is the first journal to which they consider sending their work. More popular journals were Journal of Politics (JOP), other subfield journals, American Journal of Political Science (AJPS), and American Political Science Review (APSR). These results show that women are not strongly identifying with, involved in, or using the structures that support scholars who are studying legislatures—that is, the section and the main journal of the subfield.

Table 3 LSS Membership, LSQ Submissions, and Journal Preferences

Table 4 shows that women who did not join the LSS often join other sections instead. Almost half are in related sections, including Women and Politics Research, Representation and Electoral Systems, and Comparative Politics. Many join Elections, Public Opinion, and Voting Behavior; Political Organizations and Parties; and State Politics and Policy. Race and Ethnic Politics was another popular section for non-LSS members. All of these other sections overlap with legislative studies. Yet, women are joining those sections rather than the LSS.Footnote ⁵

Table 4 The APSA Sections That Non-LSS Members Join

Note: Sections with less than 5% are omitted from the table.

FINDINGS: WHY ARE WOMEN NOT JOINING THE LEGISLATIVE STUDIES SECTION?

To understand why women are not joining the LSS, we asked the question directly. Table 5 reports the most common reasons given for not joining the LSS. The responses in the table total more than 100% because we asked women to select all of the reasons that applied to them. The main reason (selected by 50% of respondents) was that they never considered joining. It is not clear if those respondents did not know about the section or simply did not think it was a fit for them, but they reported that they never considered the section. An additional 18% of respondents stated that they did not join because they do not identify as a legislative politics scholar.Footnote ⁶

Table 5 Why Women Do Not Join the LSS

Beyond never considering joining and not identifying as a legislative scholar, several respondents noted exclusion-related concerns—the section being perceived as too male-dominated (12%), too exclusive (8%), not welcoming (7%), not methodologically diverse (7%), and not racially and ethnically diverse (6%).Footnote ⁷ Other reasons selected were the LSS is too focused on the US Congress (21%) and section membership was not viewed as being important (17%).

Belonging and community were important to the women that we sampled. One respondent noted “[I] see my primary field as REP because that is where I have always felt the most comfortable.” Another stated that “while I was in graduate school and the first few years of my TT job, I did think of myself as a comparative legislatures’ scholar. But it was hard to find a community to engage with….Eventually, I started working on projects on gender, and the feel of that community was completely different. Very welcoming and prosocial.” Improving perceptions of inclusivity in legislative studies is key for diversifying the field.

Moreover, the exclusion-related concerns that respondents raised about why they have not joined the LSS were echoed by respondents (both LSS members and nonmembers) when we asked about what problems that they perceive with the LSS. Table 6 lists common concerns that the respondents raised about the section.Footnote ⁸ The most common critique was the perception that the section is male-dominated (37%); however, many respondents also raised concerns about cliquishness and exclusivity (28%), the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the section (21%), and that it was not a welcoming section (15%). These findings of women’s concerns about exclusivity and unwelcomeness in male-dominated environments are consistent with previous studies in political science (American Political Science Association 2004, 2022; Claypool and Mershon Reference Claypool and Mershon2016; Hesli and Burrell Reference Hesli and Burrell1995; Kinsella and Sanchez Reference Kinsella and Sanchez2023; Michelson and Montforti Reference Michelson and Monforti2021).

Table 6 Problems That Women Perceive with the LSS

The only other critiques that garnered more than 10% support were concerns that the LSS was too focused on the US Congress as well as quantitative methods.

SOLUTIONS

Women are underrepresented in legislative studies. What can be done about it? We identify several strategies for building a legislative studies community more welcoming to women. First, we think it is important to conceive “legislative studies” in a broader sense than simply internal legislative processes to involve more and diverse scholars. Legislative studies often has been associated strictly with the US Congress and what happens inside of Congress, but the field of legislative studies is much broader than that. It includes US state legislatures, legislatures at all levels in other countries, and international legislative bodies. It is not only about how politics occurs inside legislatures but also how people are elected to legislatures and how legislatures interact with other political entities (e.g., executives, bureaucracies, and interest groups). Legislative studies is not only about homogenously studying elites, implicitly assuming that they are all men from the majority race/ethnicity in a society, but rather recognizing the social diversity among individuals running for and winning legislative offices. If we can reconceptualize legislative studies in this way, we open the door to many scholars who believe that their work on legislatures is not part of “legislative studies.”

A second strategy to improve this underrepresentation is to create a network for women working on legislative studies, with the objectives of building collaborative mentoring environments, constructing professional identity, and increasing retention rates (American Political Science Association 2004, 2011, 2022; Bos and Schneider Reference Bos and Schneider2012; Briscoe-Palmer and Mattocks Reference Briscoe-Palmer and Mattocks2021; Cassese and Holman Reference Cassese and Holman2018; Hesli, Fink, and Duffy Reference Hesli, Fink and Duffy2003; Monroe Reference Monroe2003). One strategy emphasized in the literature is Collaborative Mentorship Networks (CMN).Footnote ⁹ Mentoring networks are substantially different from traditional departmental one-on-one, supervisory, senior–junior mentoring. Instead, CMN encourages reciprocal, collaborative work with each person making a unique contribution to the network in terms of research, professional stage, experiences, teaching, or other expertise. This type of networking is especially important for the career progression of women and underrepresented minorities (American Political Science Association 2022; Bennion Reference Bennion2004; Cassese and Holman Reference Cassese and Holman2018; Kinsella and Sanchez Reference Kinsella and Sanchez2023; Lavariega Monforti and Michelson Reference Lavariega Monforti and Michelson2008, Reference Lavariega Monforti and Michelson2020; Michelson and Lavariega Monforti Reference Michelson and Monforti2021; Michelson and Wilkinson Reference Michelson and Wilkinson2023; Sinclair-Chapman Reference Sinclair-Chapman2015; Yanow Reference Yanow2020). In the April 2023 PS: Political Science & Politics Symposium on Equity in Political Science, Simien and Wallace (Reference Simien and Wallace2023) recommend more opportunities for peer mentoring, arguing that they “provide vitally important information and offer influential professional networks and mentoring relationships that are crucial to scholars….Although they can result in segregated social and professional networks, women academics and faculty of color who are invited speakers and panelists as well as participants attest to the fact that women and people of color belong in academe.” Writing groups composed of peer mentors who encourage research productivity comprise one form of CMN. For example, Cassese and Holman (Reference Cassese and Holman2018, 401) argued that “peer mentoring…can fill some of the gaps that traditional mentoring leaves for female faculty and bolster the pipeline for women in the profession.”

The WiLS initiative was created precisely to encourage peer mentoring. It hosts a monthly online professional development seminar on topics including strategies for women on the job market; how to publish; balancing teaching, research, and service; engaging with social media; and fighting the midcareer blues. It runs a monthly research seminar online where women scholars of all ranks can present their work in progress. A writing group meets monthly to help scholars schedule research time, get writing done, and interact with other women conducting legislative studies research. The initiative held its first annual in-person conference for women studying legislatures in October 2022, which included opportunities for sharing research, networking, and professional development. With these efforts, the WiLS initiative can facilitate peer mentoring among women doing research on legislatures, help women build legislative studies networks, and improve their career experiences.

A third strategy is to work with the LSS to address some of the concerns raised by the women we surveyed. The WiLS initiative is working with others in the section to create an inclusive environment for diverse scholars. The LSS already is representing women and minorities in leadership positions and trying to represent diversity better in conference organizing and on panels. The LSS newsletter recently has been highlighting diverse topics and should continue doing so. The LSS could expand its efforts and find other ways to increase diversity in section membership. For example, the structure of the annual business meeting and reception could be redesigned to be more welcoming to new participants. Poster sessions could be incorporated into the meeting and reception, short presentations from award winners could replace prewritten descriptions of papers by committees, and announcements from those on the job market and those hiring could facilitate conversations and networking.

The LSS also could organize an annual legislative studies conference that broadly focuses on legislative studies topics and encourages participation from diverse scholars across ranks and institutions. The section could build a more active listserv for members and greater interaction with other APSA sections that often also include scholars studying legislatures (e.g., Women and Politics Research, Race and Ethnic Politics, and Representation and Electoral Systems). These sections could cosponsor panels, organize smaller workshops, coordinate on newsletters, and advertise one another’s events on listservs, thereby diversifying several sections at once. The professional development and research seminars that WiLS hosts could be adopted by the LSS for a more diverse audience. Mentoring workshops and relationships could be facilitated by the section for the benefit of all. Many options are available for improving diversity in legislative studies and making the subfield more inclusive for newcomers.