The American Political Science Association (APSA) is a formal organization that offers mentoring, research opportunities, network ties, and faculty development. It provides relational anchors for members such as peer-to-peer relationships cultivated at the Annual Meetings, communal connections promulgated by engagement activities at conferences, and solidarity ties associated with being part of the political science profession. Thus, APSA is a part of and essential to—but not the whole of—the political science community. APSA can influence inclusion in the profession of political science, in associational activities, and at the Annual Meetings. Its stakeholders are members and nonmembers, who as political scientists sometimes attend the Annual Meetings and are professional colleagues of members; organized section leadership, who organize the intellectual lives of members of their organized sections, including the bylaws, awards, programs, meetings, and receptions; membership leadership (including elected and appointed positions); and staff.
This article identifies ways for APSA to contribute to a more inclusive climate for people from minority and marginalized groups. Our findings and recommendations are grounded in a review of the extant literature; APSA’s self-studies and resources on diversity, equity, and inclusion; our own participant observation in section meetings and APSA-hosted meetings for section leadership beginning as graduate students in the 1990s and 2000s, respectively; and review of diversity statements and initiatives by organized sections and allied groups. Our recommendations focus on three changes: (1) better utilizing the membership and section infrastructure to improve conditions within APSA; (2) broadening membership among minority political scientists and fostering inclusive climate in political science departments; and (3) increasing the number of staff who support diversity and inclusion as well as related resources.
HISTORICIZING APSA’S CLIMATE AND CONTEXT EFFORTS
In academic departments, faculty and graduate students of color, women, and non–US citizens regularly feel bullied, silenced, and marginalized (Michelson and Wilkinson Reference Michelson and Wilkinson2022). Women of color, especially, experience intersectional marginalization—both race/ethnicity and gender—that silences their contributions and exposes them to labor-intensive practices not experienced by their white and male counterparts. Their colleagues belittle these effects by either not recognizing them or misunderstanding these experiences as similar to their own, thereby maintaining raced and gendered invisibility (Ghosh and Wang Reference Ghosh and Wang2022; Simien and Wallace Reference Simien and Wallace2022; Mershon Reference Mershon2022a).
APSA has made repeated attempts to document and enhance the workplace climate in the organization and in political science departments (American Political Science Association 2005; Assendelft et al. Reference Assendelft, Fortna, Gay and Sanbonmatsu2019; Mershon Reference Mershon2022b; Sapiro and Campbell Reference Sapiro and Campbell2018; Task Force on Political Science in the 21st Century 2011; Workplace and Family Issues Subcommittee 2004). Yet, addressing the climate and context means learning how to assess the culture across the discipline. APSA Past President Lucius Barker (Reference Barker2005, 327) argued that “political scientists can do much to confront our past failures in this regard through determined efforts to recruit, retain, and promote women and minorities as faculty and graduate students.” He affirmed that the discipline of political science at the leadership levels and in academic departments has the capacity to make changes—that is, if people have the political will and dedicated resources intended to promote inclusion.
These changes are necessary across the APSA political science ecosystem. Institutions that make concerted attempts to foster inclusion are likely to gain the confidence of women, people of color, and other historically marginalized groups. Mickey, Kanelee, and Misra (Reference Mickey, Kanelee and Misra2020) pointed to “small wins” that universities and academic departments can achieve, such as creating mentoring programs, scheduling research talks, organizing social events, and structuring departmental meetings that promote inclusion.
Inclusion must extend beyond the walls of universities. Grant writing, foundation awards, and selection to editorial boards of prestigious academic journals should allow women faculty and graduate students, faculty and graduate students of color, as well as other scholars to access resource networks that historically have excluded them (Simien and Wallace Reference Simien and Wallace2022). Accessing these resources impacts intradepartmental climates. It gives faculty and graduate students the standing and positional influence that are important to hiring and promotional opportunities.
Relatedly, APSA has made concerted attempts to diversify the organization and profession through initiatives such as the Ralph Bunche Summer Institute, Minority Student Recruitment Program, Diversity Fellowship Program, and Fund for Latino Scholarship. Additionally, status committees promote the scholarship and service of Blacks, Latinos, LGBTQ+ members, women, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and first-generation scholars (Mealy Reference Mealy2018). Nevertheless, as other contributions to this symposium find, the climate in the profession and in APSA still has a long way to go to achieve full inclusion (Mershon Reference Mershon2022a, Reference Mershon2022b; Michelson and Wilkinson Reference Michelson and Wilkinson2022; Ghosh and Wang Reference Ghosh and Wang2022; Simien and Wallace Reference Simien and Wallace2022).
Toxic masculinity, xenophobia, and racial discrimination are significant problems at political science conferences, especially APSA Annual Meetings. Although there are fewer incidents of blatant discrimination and overt bullying at political science conferences, political scientists from historically marginalized groups experience various forms of microaggressions and implicit bias (Ghosh and Wang Reference Ghosh and Wang2022). These encounters are pervasive at academic conferences and are experienced by both faculty and graduate students.
PROPOSALS
This article develops three sets of proposals that can improve the climate and context with regard to diversity and inclusion. First, we review the membership infrastructure, such as how members and organized sections can promote diversity. Second, we focus on APSA’s partners in the political science ecosystem (e.g., academic departments, regional associations, and other associations in which political scientists are active) and their involvement in diversity initiatives. Third, we examine the resource infrastructure of APSA’s diversity and inclusion programs.
Membership Infrastructure
Our first set of recommendations pertains to the membership infrastructure of APSA. Kim Mealy is the APSA Senior Director of Diversity & Inclusion. Her 2018 report indicated that most of the organized sections are “disproportionately and overwhelmingly white” and male (Mealy Reference Mealy2018, 5). Notably, the sections that have diverse populations are focused on topics for which attentiveness to race, gender, ethnicity, discrimination, and political status are central—for example, the Race, Ethnicity, and Politics (REP) and the Migration and Citizenship sections.
The report further indicated that the APSA membership team “encouraged organized section chairs to update their bylaws with a statement on diversity and inclusion” (Mealy Reference Mealy2018, 8). This statement may be in the form of a commitment to inclusion or a pledge to take active steps in dismantling oppression or promoting a safe work environment. It is important to note that the sections have different interpretations of diversity.
Table 1 is an overview of the bylaws of the APSA organized sections with the highest membership bases.
Table 1 Organized Sections: Diversity and Inclusion
Notes: *The dates of the bylaws are designated by the recent information on the organized sections’ websites. **“Not Available” means the information is not in the organized sections’ bylaws or websites. However, support for inclusive environments, climate safety, and diverse leadership may have been addressed in private deliberations and other correspondence. For example, the REP section is the most diverse entity in APSA. Although explicit language about inclusion and climate safety are not in its bylaws, these concerns are regularly addressed at the section’s events and sponsored panels and in internal communication.
The Elections, Public Opinion, and Voting Behavior section has an expressed commitment to “functioning as an inclusive community” and has endorsed APSA’s anti-harassment policy (American Political Science Association 2020b). The REP section has no explicit statement on diversity in its bylaws. However, the section is the most diverse in APSA. Its leadership structure has equal gender representation and celebrates scholars who embrace diverse methodological approaches. The Democracy and Autocracy section mandates that its executive committee nominations “are inclusive of a variety of different characteristics and backgrounds” (American Political Science Association 2020a). Whereas some organized sections interpret diversity based on race, gender, and sexual orientation, others expand the definition to include different academic interests, including varied methodological approaches such as qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods.Footnote 1
APSA’s Organized Section Handbook might guide sections to consider whether these latter interpretations of diversity support the former and encourage a broader understanding of diversity that entails citizenship status, language, Indigenous identities, and disability. In addition, the executive staff should consult regularly with the leadership of the organized sections to update APSA’s anti-harassment and inclusion policies. These policies and policy recommendations should be conveyed clearly to section membership and leadership, which may take the form of an ongoing climate survey or standing meetings to address this issue. This “inclusive management” approach (Moon Reference Moon2018) will instill confidence in the membership and signal that APSA has a sustainable and sustained commitment to inclusion and equity.
APSA’s Political Science Ecosystem
APSA’s political science ecosystem extends beyond its membership to include the hundreds of academic departments as well as regional associations and allied organizations, such as the National Conference of Black Political Scientists (NCOBPS).
A significant portion of the political science community is not participating in APSA. In 2019, NCOBPS identified at least 60 of the 107 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) that are not in the NCOBPS, Pi Sigma Alpha, and APSA’s orbits (Franklin Reference Franklin2020). These institutions are under-resourced, and some have no standalone departments that can effectively integrate political science majors and minors into mainline political science associations. Some HBCUs do not even offer courses in racial and ethnic politics and public-interest topics taught by NCOBPS and REP-affiliated faculty. Students at these colleges and universities typically are from disadvantaged backgrounds and often are first-generation college students. Creating and strengthening pathways of connection have begun, but this effort is under-resourced and understaffed.
Another way to improve the APSA political science ecosystem is to foster inclusive climates within departments. The Leadership in Academic Climate Excellence (LACE) proposal that emerged from APSA’s 2018 Annual Meeting Hackathon offered recommendations that affect APSA’s political science ecosystem (Ackerly et al. Reference Ackerly, Bednar, Blofield, Chwe, Contreras, Davis, Ewig, Sin, Singer, Soifer, Solomon and Williams2018). LACE rated academic departments based on their implementation of restorative practices for faculty members and graduate and undergraduate students. Bystander training, multiple channels for sexual-harassment and sexual-assault survivors to report complaints, diverse hiring practices, and the inclusion of gender and racial/ethnic politics’ scholars were suggested areas for rating academic departments (Ackerly et al. Reference Ackerly, Bednar, Blofield, Chwe, Contreras, Davis, Ewig, Sin, Singer, Soifer, Solomon and Williams2018).
LACE’s proposal created a non-monetary process for rewarding departments that have inclusive work environments. Departments that are awarded high LACE ratings can gain reputational advantages, such as national recognition in “job ads and recruitment literature” (Ackerly et al. Reference Ackerly, Bednar, Blofield, Chwe, Contreras, Davis, Ewig, Sin, Singer, Soifer, Solomon and Williams2018, 2). Overall, the implementation of LACE would create a national platform for coordinating restorative practices and could be a model for other academic associations.
Furthermore, LACE should be expanded to provide a roadmap for caregiver responsibilities that affect academic careers. Family caregiving may fall disproportionately on the shoulders of junior faculty and graduate students who are women, those who are from disadvantaged backgrounds, and those who are first-generation scholars (Simien and Wallace Reference Simien and Wallace2022; Berg-Weger and Tebb 2003–Reference Berg-Weger and Tebb2004; Lin, Fee, and Wu Reference Lin, Fee and Wu2012; Maryam, Spriggs, and Feldman Reference Maryam, Spriggs and Feldman2002). In some cases, tenure clocks along with research demands conflict with urgent and unexpected caregiver responsibilities that fall outside of the Family Medical Leave Act coverage. At the very least, APSA should provide guidance for academic departments to evaluate students and faculty members who have burdensome caregiving responsibilities.
Establishing or updating grievance procedures also may improve the APSA political science ecosystem. As a result of the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements, other associations in which political scientists participate (e.g., Midwest Political Science Association and Southern Political Science Association) have updated formal grievance processes for addressing allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault at academic conferences. However, grievance procedures only address what happens after an allegation has occurred.
Furthermore, grievance procedures may not stop long-term reprisals or retaliation against people who file complaints with APSA or another association if, for example, they are harassed at an annual conference. They may suffer retaliation during an employment search, experience character defamation, and be excluded from professional-development opportunities if the alleged offender has influence in these networks—or deal with the distraction of worrying that they might be.
Academic associations should make concerted attempts to develop protocols that can preempt discriminatory incidents from occurring. Proposals include pre-conference screening procedures that curtail toxic behavior and bullying; conference hotlines that allow for anonymous complaints; a rate reduction in conference registration fees for attendees who attend pre-conference ethics workshops; and active advertising of the EthicsPoint platform and the APSA Ombuds at the Annual Meeting and through APSA to association members. Another recommendation is for APSA to fund and staff an inter-associational group composed of representatives from regional and identity-centered professional associations (e.g., NCOBPS) with the specific task of developing front-end protocols.
Resource Infrastructure
These proposals and taking the diversity and inclusion climate seriously more generally require financial as well as staffing resources. The third area affecting this climate is APSA’s resource infrastructure. The Office of Diversity & Inclusion coordinates the Ralph Bunche Summer Institute, Minority Student Recruitment Program, and Diversity Fellowships; the diversity-based status committees; and the Diversity & Inclusion Research Advancement Awards. It provides staff support at regional and allied academic conferences. Moreover, it runs the new initiative coordinating outreach to Minority Serving Institutions such as HBCUs, Tribal Colleges, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and some community colleges.
APSA’s Office of Diversity & Inclusion has only two full-time staff members assigned to coordinate at least a dozen initiatives. Thus, the main challenge facing diversity and inclusion activities is the limited staff and resources to address the wide net of these activities. Upgrading the resource infrastructure would alleviate the task load of APSA diversity and inclusion projects; expedite interventions for addressing equity in the APSA political science ecosystem; and enable staff to support other initiatives emanating from its membership, sections, and divisions. Additionally, a recruitment coordinator devoted to expanding APSA’s work with Minority Serving Institutions could integrate this outreach throughout the association’s activities.
Investing more resources in the Office of Diversity & Inclusion can help its staff link diversity and inclusion agendas across all of the dynamic parts of the association: divisions, sections, standing committees, and working groups.
CONCLUSION
This analysis identifies three broad contexts in which to consider how APSA can improve its practices to institutionalize further its commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion. In summary, APSA needs a robust plan for binding stakeholders to diversity and inclusion principles that are championed by the association’s leadership and for reaching out to political scientists who are not currently APSA members or who work in departments with few APSA members. With APSA’s Presidential Task Force on Systemic Inequalities in the Discipline and many previous reports, there are numerous recommendations on how to accomplish this. Furthermore, other political science associations and academic professional associations have been piloting innovations and may provide innovative insights about what is possible within the organizational institution of these associations.
APSA needs a robust plan for binding stakeholders to diversity and inclusion principles that are championed by the association’s leadership and for reaching out to political scientists who are not currently APSA members or who work in departments with few APSA members.
Finally, changes in the diversity and inclusion climate cannot be made unless APSA devotes more resources to its programs. This means hiring more full-time staff that can support the work of the national office. This is how the association can demonstrate its commitment to changing its climate for all political scientists.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there are no ethical issues or conflicts of interest in this research.
