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

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Scholars continue to debate the relationship of academic international relations to policy. One of the most straightforward ways to discern whether policymakers find IR scholarship relevant to their work is to ask them. We analyzed an elite survey of US policy practitioners to better understand the conditions under which practitioners use academic knowledge in their work. We surveyed officials across three different policy areas: international development, national security, and trade. We also employed multiple survey experiments in an effort to causally identify the impact of academic consensus on the views of policy officials and to estimate the relative utility of different kinds of research outputs. We found that policymakers frequently engage with academic ideas, find an array of research outputs and approaches useful, and that scholarly findings can shift their views. Key obstacles to using academic knowledge include practitioners' lack of time as well as academic work being too abstract and not timely, but not that it is overly quantitative. Additionally, we documented important differences between national security officials and their counterparts who work in the areas of development and trade. We suggest that this variation is rooted in the nature of the different policy areas. Los expertos continúan con el debate acerca del vínculo entre los estudios académicos sobre relaciones internacionales y la política. Una de las formas más sencillas de determinar si los responsables de formular políticas consideran que los estudios de RI son relevantes para su trabajo es preguntándoles. Analizamos una encuesta de élite realizada a profesionales de la política en EE. UU. para comprender mejor las condiciones en las que utilizan los conocimientos académicos en su trabajo. Encuestamos a funcionarios de tres áreas políticas diferentes: Desarrollo Internacional, Seguridad Nacional y Comercio. También realizamos varios experimentos de encuestas para identificar la influencia del consenso académico en las opiniones de los funcionarios políticos y estimar la utilidad relativa de los distintos tipos de resultados de investigación. Comprobamos que, con frecuencia, los responsables de formular políticas se comprometen con las ideas académicas, consideran de utilidad toda una serie de resultados y enfoques de investigación, y que los hallazgos académicos pueden cambiar sus puntos de vista. Entre los principales obstáculos a la hora de recurrir a los conocimientos académicos se encuentran la falta de tiempo de los profesionales, así como el hecho de que los trabajos académicos sean demasiado abstractos y poco oportunos, pero no el hecho de que sean excesivamente cuantitativos. Además, documentamos importantes diferencias entre los funcionarios de Seguridad Nacional y sus colegas que trabajan en las áreas de Desarrollo y Comercio. Sugerimos que esta variación tiene su origen en la naturaleza de los diferentes ámbitos políticos.