Gender and bias in the International Relations curriculum: Insights from reading lists

791690EJT0010.1177/1354066118791690European Journal of International RelationsPhull et al.
research-article2018
EJ R
I
Article
European Journal of
International Relations
Gender and bias in the
2019, Vol. 25(2) 383 –407
© The Author(s) 2018
International Relations
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066118791690
DOI: 10.1177/1354066118791690
curriculum: Insights from
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
reading lists
Kiran Phull
London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Gokhan Ciflikli
London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Gustav Meibauer
London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Abstract
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
Corresponding author:
Gustav Meibauer, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London,
WC2A 2AE, UK.
Email: g.m.meibauer@lse.ac.uk

---

384
European Journal of International Relations 25(2)
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.
Keywords
Gender, International Relations, methods, pedagogy, syllabi
Introduction
To what extent are gender imbalances embedded within university reading lists in the
discipline of International Relations (IR)?1 Furthermore, what can patterns of male and
female author inclusion (and exclusion) in reading lists across a spectrum of undergradu-
ate (UG), graduate (MA) and post-graduate (PhD) course syllabi tell us about the state of
the discipline?
Inclusion and diversity in teaching are crucial concerns that the discipline has only
more recently begun to think about in earnest. Student campaigns (such as ‘Decolonising
the academy’ or ‘Why is my curriculum white?’) and institutional debates challenging
the male-centric structures that dominate the disciplinary development of fields such as
Politics, IR and Western Philosophy are gaining momentum. Initiatives such as
#WomenAlsoKnowStuff, Genderize.io, GenderizeR (Kamil Wais) and the Gender
Balance Assessment Tool (Jane Sumner) have built awareness around the under-repre-
sentation of female scholars. While much research has (rightfully) focused on publica-
tion, citation and hiring patterns, the materials of teaching themselves play a role in
perpetuating gender imbalance. Indeed, something as ‘standard’ as a course syllabus can
reveal the state of the discipline. This holds not only at the post-graduate and early-career
levels, but also during the earliest stages of disciplinary training when students are intro-
duced to central concepts, theories and texts.
On the heels of growing scholarly interest in gender and diversity issues with regards
to those who practise and represent IR (Owens, forthcoming), instances of publication
and citation bias (Breuning et al., 2005; Evans and Moulder, 2011; Maliniak et al., 2008,
2013; Teele and Thelen, 2017; Young, 1995), and gender biases in course syllabi (Colgan,
2015a, 2017; Hardt and Smith, 2018), this study examines patterns of gender bias at one
of the UK’s leading institutions for the study of IR: the department of International
Relations at the London School of Economics (LSE).
In addition to small sample sizes, existing studies focusing on the taught discipline have
been limited by concentrating only on post-graduate teaching, ‘core’ disciplinary courses
or journal publications. By contrast, our study investigates the taught discipline holistically,
combining core and elective courses and including book, chapter and journal publications
regardless of publisher rank or type. To do so, we use an original data set of 43 IR syllabi
across sub-disciplines and degree levels. This comprises the entire IR curriculum as taught

---

Phull et al.
385
at the LSE’s IR department in 2015/2016, with a total of 12,399 non-unique textual sources
(11,199 unique sources). While our data set contains publication dates reaching as far back
as 1651, we focus on IR texts published from 1960 onwards to minimise the skew.
We code for the gender of author and co-author combinations, integrating this with
publication details (dates of publication, publication type and publisher) and the gender
of the course convener. Based on literature surrounding issues of gender, gender bias and
processes of inclusion and exclusion as they pertain to the taught discipline, we develop
and test hypotheses relating to the inclusion of female scholars in university reading lists.
This allows us to assess some of the patterns of gender bias that students of IR are
exposed to. It also sheds light on how these patterns intersect with degree level, subfield,
publication type, authorship decision-making and course convener information.
We find that LSE reading lists suffer from gender bias: far from equity, they neither
reflect the representation of female scholars in the professional discipline, nor the repre-
sentation of female authors in the published discipline. This is thus the first study to
uncover systematic gender bias in a full disciplinary curriculum at a leading institution
for the study of IR. Only 20.8% of all assigned readings include at least one female
author (and, conversely, 79.2% are written exclusively by men), while female-only con-
tributions make up 14.2%.
These results vary based on level of study as well as disciplinary subfield. First, the
inclusion of female scholars increases from undergraduate to graduate and PhD level. We
argue that this is suggestive of specialisation and exploration as education advances, but
also of the persistence of a male-dominated ‘traditional canon’ at the undergraduate
level. Second, the Security and Regional Studies subfields perform particularly poorly in
terms of the male–female balance, while texts associated with Gender, Feminist and
Queer Studies are overwhelmingly produced by female scholars. We interrogate how this
might relate to the gender stereotyping of disciplinary subfields. Third, texts by women
are assigned less frequently by male and/or more senior conveners. This suggests that
gender bias must be addressed within and alongside debates about hiring practices, syl-
labus production and what constitutes appropriate measures for gender inclusivity.
Finally, we provide indirect insights into patterns of co-authorship: the female inclusion
rate is much higher in co-authored pieces (33.3%) than on average. However, on our
reading lists, women are less likely to have co-authored with each other and less likely to
hold first-author position in mixed teams than their male counterparts.
The holistic, in-depth study of an entire curriculum, spanning all levels of study and
subfields, allows us to unpack patterns of gender bias that might otherwise go unnoticed.
It thus illustrates the potential ways in which institutional, disciplinary and (possibly)
individual biases, syllabi production processes, and stereotypes around gender and
knowledge interact to create an intricate web of systemic exclusion of female scholars in
the taught discipline.
Gender inclusion and exclusion in the teaching of IR
The study of gender inclusion and exclusion in disciplinary teaching is rooted in broader
theoretical debates relating to the origins and trajectories of, as well as the power rela-
tions inherent to, the (re)production and dissemination of disciplinary knowledge. The

---

386
European Journal of International Relations 25(2)
dominance of male scholarship has unequivocally shaped the intellectual contours of the
taught discipline over time. Despite efforts to diversify teaching practices with a mind to
gender, race, positionality and lived experience, biases inherent in the taught discipline
remain ubiquitous. In recent years, growing levels of awareness and activism from within
and outside of academia...