The Future of Canadian Political Science: Boundary Transgressions, Gender and Anti-Oppression Frameworks

Abstract

In light of theCanadian Journal of Political Science(CJPS) self-reflexive “50thAnniversary” issue on the state of Canadian political science (CPS), this article maps the discipline's engagement with intersectional anti-oppression scholarship. Analyzing abstracts inCJPSand theCanadian Political Science Review,we argue while these journals—and mainstream CPS more generally—tackle questions of diversity, there remains a gap between conversations recognized in these particular forums and the incorporation of what we term an intersectional anti-oppression lens. In its deconstruction of systems of power and privilege, we explore analytic and pedagogical possibilities this lens presents for mainstream CPS.

The Qualifying Field Exam: What Is It Good For?

“…However, the percentage of lists dedicated to subheadings that consider marginalized voices (i.e., gender, Indigenous, class, race, ethnicity, multiculturalism, immigration, religion, interest groups, and social movements) was small (3.95%, ranging from zero to 18.6%; median=0.88%). This is consistent with recent research that suggests the presence of a hidden curriculum in political science that silos marginalized topics and voices while privileging approaches that use gender and race as descriptive categories rather than as analytic or theorized categories (Cassese and Bos 2013;Cassese, Bos, and Duncan 2012;Nath, Tungohan, and Gaucher 2018).…”

“…In terms of external threats, scholars have expressed concerns about the Americanization of the discipline (Albaugh 2017;Cairns 1975;Héroux-Legault 2017) and a comparative turn (Turgeon et al 2014;White et al 2008). Others are concerned about internal threats, lamenting the fact that white, male, and English-Canadian voices have long dominated the scholarly community at the expense of French, Indigenous, and other racial and ethnic minority voices (Abu-Laban 2017;Ladner 2017;Nath, Tungohan, and Gaucher 2018;Rocher and Stockemer 2017;Tolley 2017). This introspection, coupled with the limited size of the community, is likely to increase consistency across departments; therefore, we expect the core set of readings identified in the reading lists to be more unified and comprehensive than in other subfields.…”

Academic Absences, Disciplinary Siloes and Methodological Prejudices within the Political Science Discipline in Canada

“…This trend has led Vickers to argue that "more women professors, robust politics and gender fields and feminist subfields haven't resulted in transformative change in how conventional political scientists think" (Vickers, 2015: 749; see also Nath et al, 2018). To a large part, this is because the discipline remains siloed and the gender-related work is not routinely read by male political scientists (Vickers, 2015: 750).…”

“…Even then, many scholars, myself included, continue to examine the same types of questions that preoccupy our male colleagues, but with a gender twist (Nath et al, 2018). Thus, by continuing to privilege research on political elites and institutions like parliament, parties, and the courts, even feminist scholars like myself could be accused of reproducing systems of power within the discipline rather than truly unsettling them (Nath et al, 2018). These are legitimate arguments, and they are ones that relate to scholarship not just on women but also for work on other marginalized groups including LGBTQ+, Indigenous and racialized individuals.…”

“…This is supported by Tolley's (2020) analysis of Canadian politics textbooks, in which she finds that content dealing with immigrants and minorities is siloed in the textbooks' chapters on "diversity," and these individuals rarely appear as key political actors in their own right. In other words, like feminist political science, research on race and Indigenous politics has also been siloed in subfields which are perceived to be of little relevance to the "core" of the discipline (Nath et al, 2018).…”