Assessing Racial/Ethnic and Gender Gaps in Political Science PhD Students’ Methodological Self-Efficacy

Abstract

Most research on diversity within political methodology focuses on gender while overlooking racial and ethnic gaps. Our study investigates how race/ethnicity and gender relate to political science PhD students’ methodological self-efficacy, as well as their general academic self-efficacy. By analyzing a survey of 300 students from the top 50 US-based political science PhD programs, we find that race and ethnicity correlate with quantitative self-efficacy: students identifying as Black/African American and as Middle Eastern/North African express lower confidence in their abilities than white students. These gaps persist after accounting for heterogeneity among PhD programs, professional and socioeconomic status, and preferred methodological approach. However, small bivariate gender gaps disappear in multivariate analysis. Furthermore, gaps in quantitative self-efficacy may explain racial/ethnic disparities in students’ broader academic self-efficacy. We argue that the documented patterns likely lead to continued underrepresentation of marginalized groups in the political methodology student body and professoriate.

Reflections on an Institutional Journey Toward Enhancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Political Science

“…Tormos-Aponte (2021) understands graduate school to be a “crucial battleground” for diversifying political science through admitting, retaining, and working to ensure the academic and professional success of underrepresented populations. URMs and women often experience isolation, discrimination, and limited access to information, sponsorship, mentorship, training opportunities, and professional recognition of their preferred research topics and methods (Almasri, Read, and Vandeweerdt 2022; Arnold, Crawford, and Khalifa 2016; Key and Sumner 2019; Kim and Grofman 2019; Means and Fields 2022; Mendez Garcia and Hancock Alfaro 2020; Monforti Lavariega and Michelson 2020; Shames and Wise 2017; Smith, Gillooly, and Hardt 2022; Teele and Thelen 2017).…”

Confirmatory and validation studies on experimental self-efficacy scale with applications to multiple scientific disciplines

“…However, other studies found no gender differences or even females having higher self-efficacy than males in certain fields. The studies which characterize the link between gender and science self-efficacy (Li and Singh, 2021 ; Bhati et al, 2022 ; Smith et al, 2022 ), have found that males reported possessing greater science self-efficacy than females (Anderman and Young, 1994 ; Lee et al, 2022 ). However, it seems to be discipline specific.…”

Hard Work and You Can’t Get It: An International Comparative Analysis of Gender, Career Aspirations, and Preparedness Among Politics and International Relations PhD Students

“…A range of issues in political science doctoral programs have recently been addressed in this journal, including students’ methodological self-efficacy (Smith, Gillooly, and Hardt 2022), mental health (Almasri, Read, and Vandeweerdt 2022), and the “hidden curriculum” (Barham and Wood 2022). However, at their core, all of the researchers question whether PhD programs are providing appropriate training and whether PhD students feel equipped for a future career.…”