This article investigates the extent to which citation and publication patterns differ between men and women in the international relations~IR! literature+ Using data from the Teaching, Research, and International Policy project on peerreviewed publications between 1980 and 2006, we show that women are systematically cited less than men after controlling for a large number of variables including year of publication, venue of publication, substantive focus, theoretical perspective, methodology, tenure status, and institutional affiliation+ These results are robust to a variety of modeling choices+ We then turn to network analysis to investigate the extent to which the gender of an article's author affects that article's relative centrality in the network of citations between papers in our sample+ Articles authored by women are systematically less central than articles authored by men, all else equal+ This is likely because~1! women tend to cite themselves less than men, and~2! men~who make up a disproportionate share of IR scholars! tend to cite men more than women+ This is the first study in political science to reveal significant gender differences in citation patterns and is especially meaningful because citation counts are increasingly used as a key measure of research's quality and impact+ In this article we use the term gender rather than sex to refer to our male0female variable+ We realize that the two terms are not synonymous, nor is gender dichotomous+ We prefer to use the term gender because the coding of the author of a publication is based heavily on the pronouns an author uses to identify him-or herself+ The result, however, is that we are unable to include a category for transgendered scholars+ We regret this+ Still, because of the fact that transgendered individuals make up such a small proportion of the total population of IR scholars, any analysis of citation patterns of articles authored by transgendered individuals would be unreliable at best+ International Organization 67, Fall 2013, pp+ 889-922

Using two new data sources to describe trends in the international relations (IR) discipline since 1980-a database of every article published in the 12 leading journals in the field and three surveys of IR faculty at US colleges and universities-we explore the extent of theoretical, methodological, and epistemological diversity in the American study of IR and the relationship between IR scholarship and the policy-making community in the United States. We find, first, that there is considerable and increasing theoretical diversity. Although US scholars believe and teach their students that the major paradigms-realism, liberalism, Marxism, and constructivism-define and divide the discipline, most peer-reviewed research does not advance a theoretical argument from one of these theoretical traditions. There is no evidence, moreover, that realism and its focus on power relations among states dominate, or since 1980 ever has dominated, the literature. Second, although three times as many IR scholars report using qualitative methods as their primary approach, more articles published in the top journals currently employ quantitative tools than any other methodological approach. Third, there exists little epistemological diversity in the field: American IR scholars share a strong and growing commitment to positivism. Finally, there is a disjuncture between what American scholars of IR think about the value of producing policy-relevant work and the actual research they generate: few articles in top journals offer explicit policy advice, but scholars believe that their work is both prescriptive and useful to policymakers.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract