Response to Women in the Profession? Assuming Gender in the Analysis of the Composition of UK Politics Departments
| Date | 01 February 2021 |
| Published date | 01 February 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1478929920920796 |
| Subject Matter | Special Issue: Gender in the Profession |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920920796
Political Studies Review
2021, Vol. 19(1) 39 –41
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1478929920920796
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Response to Women in the
Profession? Assuming Gender in
the Analysis of the Composition of
UK Politics Departments
We would like to thank Charlotte Heath-Kelly for her comments on our article and are
hopeful that this intervention might prompt a broader discussion within the discipline
about how to conduct such research without resorting to binary understandings of sex
and gender. First, we would like to respond briefly to two points she raises concerning
research design and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) compliance. We
would then like to respond in more depth to what we consider the most serious criticism
– that of the ethics of the research project – and to take the opportunity to apologise for
causing anyone hurt.
With regard to research design, Heath-Kelly (2020: 2) says that a survey ‘would pro-
vide more accurate data on the position of women, and others, in Political Science depart-
ments’ than our chosen method of gathering information from departmental websites.
While it is true that such a method might provide more accurate data on the individuals
who choose to respond to the survey, it would almost certainly not provide more accurate
data at the population level, which is the focus of our research. Nor, again almost cer-
tainly, would it allow us to make meaningful comparisons between departments. Surveys
are beset by low response rates. For example, the survey that Allen and Savigny (2016)
used in their article on experiencing gender in UK political science had a response rate of
10%. Moreover, the majority of their respondents were women (61%), which, as we
know, is not a reflection of their presence within the discipline as a whole.1 Therefore, it
would not be easy to draw meaningful conclusions about the state of the discipline as a
whole by using such a method if a similar response rate was achieved (which is more than
likely). If we continue to hold that researching issues of female representation at a disci-
plinary level is worthwhile (and in the public interest), then it is not easy to imagine
another method to the one we have employed thus far being more appropriate for under-
taking that task.
Heath-Kelly also states that she is unclear how the research complies with the GDPR
because, as she correctly assumes, no one who we studied as part of the research was
asked for their consent for the processing of their personal data. While there are other
ethical issues with our approach, to which we return below, we do not believe there is an
issue with GDPR compliance. Consent does not necessarily have to be obtained for the
processing of personal data to be compliant with the GDPR. Instead, personal data have
to be processed in a way that is ‘lawful’. From the six possible ways in which processing
personal data can be lawful, we believe our research is compliant on the basis that it is a
‘public task’ and that the processing was necessary for us to perform a task that is in the
public interest.2
Thus, we continue to believe both our research to be GDPR compliant and our research
design to be the most appropriate for the task we are undertaking. However, it has also
920796PSW0010.1177/1478929920920796Political Studies ReviewPflaeger Young et al.
research-article2020
Special Issue Article
To continue reading
Request your trial