Pluralism and Political Studies in the UK: A Pilot Study into Who Gets What in the Discipline
| Author | Brenda Gonzalez Ginocchio,Liam Stanley,Andrew Hindmoor |
| DOI | 10.1177/1478929920971470 |
| Date | 01 February 2022 |
| Published date | 01 February 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Pluralism and Political Studies in the UK |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920971470
Political Studies Review
2022, Vol. 20(1) 3 –22
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1478929920971470
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Pluralism and Political
Studies in the UK: A Pilot
Study into Who Gets What
in the Discipline
Brenda Gonzalez Ginocchio,
Andrew Hindmoor and Liam Stanley
Abstract
How pluralist is political studies? How are resources distributed across the discipline? In this
article, we turn one of the fundamental questions of politics – who gets what, when, and
how – back on to the study of politics itself. Our focus is on two areas that are central
concerns to pluralism: gender and sub-discipline. We pose two specific questions: What is the
gender and sub-disciplinary composition of political studies? And how are various resources
– ranging from jobs to prizes – distributed along gender and sub-disciplinary lines? In addressing
these questions, we draw on a pilot and partial audit of departments, journals and other key
indicators from 1998 to 2018. The article contributes to long-standing debates about the
character of political studies and the extent to which the field is pluralistic or not.
Keywords
political studies, pluralism, diversity, gender, the UK
Accepted: 5 October 2020
Introduction
If you open up any textbook on politics and its study, you are likely to come across Harold
Laswell’s (1936) famous definition of politics as ‘who gets what, when, and how’. This
article turns this fundamental question of politics – the control, allocation, and use of
resources – inwards, and back on to the study of politics itself: how are resources distrib-
uted across the discipline? If the aim is to study politics and therefore understand and
explain it in all of its manifestations, then the field might have an obligation to ensure that
different perspectives and voices are able to substantively contribute to our collective
Department of Politics and International Relations, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Corresponding author:
Liam Stanley, Department of Politics and International Relations, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10
2TN, UK.
Email: l.m.stanley@sheffield.ac.uk
971470PSW0010.1177/1478929920971470Political Studies ReviewGinocchio et al.
research-article2020
Article
4 Political Studies Review 20(1)
knowledge. If so, then this kind of ‘pluralism’ is a prerequisite for rigour on a collective
scale. Who gets stable employment, who gets published, and who gets their research
funded are therefore key concerns. To start answering these questions, we require an audit
of the field: a basic, descriptive account of who gets what in political studies.
Within this context, this article reports on and discusses a pilot study into the composi-
tion – or audit – of political studies, with a focus on two important axes of pluralism in
the field: gender and sub-discipline. The two research questions are: What is the gender
and sub-disciplinary composition of political studies? And how are various resources –
ranging from jobs to prizes – distributed along gender and sub-disciplinary lines? In tack-
ling these questions, the article draws on an original pilot dataset – a partial audit – of
departments, journals and other key measures across 1998–2018. The dataset includes the
composition of academics, publications in a leading British political studies journal, jour-
nal editors, Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) grants, committee member-
ships and Political Studies Association (PSA) prizes. Although a partial audit, this pilot
dataset provides a basis to start analysing the shifting composition of British political
studies, with implications for how pluralist the field is.
The audit presents a mixed picture. With regards to gender, we confirm existing stud-
ies that highlight the incremental increase in the relative composition and absolute
increase of women in the field (see Bates et al., 2012; Pflaeger-Young et al., 2019). This
shift is mirrored in the gender composition of articles published in Political Studies, as
well as the composition of various boards, committees and panels (although PSA awards
and prizes perhaps buck this trend). With regards to sub-disciplines (e.g. political theory,
political economy, etc.), the overall trend we find is evolution rather than transformation.
Out of the sub-disciplines we coded, none have grown dominant, none have disappeared
and, nearly, all are growing in absolute terms. We do note, however, some uneven distri-
bution of resources, especially in terms of research funding. We discuss and interpret
these findings in the ‘Discussion’ section of the article, before concluding with some sug-
gestions for future research.
Political Studies in the UK
To make sense of pluralism in political studies – including with respect to gender and
sub-discipline – we need to appreciate and acknowledge the historical development of the
discipline in the United Kingdom (on which see Hayward, 1991; Hayward et al., 1999;
Johnson, 1989; Kenny, 2004). Key milestones in the development of the field include the
establishment of the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1895 and the
creation of a Chair in Political Theory and Institutions at the University of Oxford in
1912; followed in the same institution a decade later, with the launch of a degree in phi-
losophy, politics and economics (Grant, 2010: 6). Political studies was not, however,
properly institutionalised until the establishment of the PSA in 1950, the commencement
of an annual conference in 1951, and the launch of Political Studies a year later (Grant,
2010: 35–37). It is helpful to place the gender and sub-disciplinary composition of the
field in this context. We will review each in turn.
With respect to gender, it is notable that the 12 signatories to a letter proposing the crea-
tion of the PSA were men (Grant, 2010: 18). It was not until 1974 that a woman, Susan
Saunders, joined the PSA’s Executive Board. The PSA’s Women Group was established in
1977 and shortly after Jodi Lovenduski (1980) wrote a path-breaking report on the state of
the discipline. She disclosed unambiguous evidence of a pattern of disadvantage for women
To continue reading
Request your trial