The Political Science 400: With Citation Counts by Cohort, Gender, and Subfield

Abstract

This article updates the Masuoka, Grofman, and Feld 2002 dataset that identified the then-3,719 faculty in political science PhD-granting departments in the United States. That dataset contained information about each faculty member, including date and PhD-granting department, lifetime citation counts, fields of interest, and school of employment. We similarly create a database with the 4,089 currently tenured or tenure-track faculty, along with emeritus faculty, at US PhD-granting departments ca. 2017–2018. Using Google Scholar Profiles, along with manual counts for those who do not have a profile, we sort the dataset by citation count, PhD cohort, field of interest, and gender. This article identifies the 100 currently most-cited scholars, the 25 most-cited in each PhD cohort and subfield, the 40 most-cited women scholars, and the 25 most-cited emeriti. The full list of The Political Science 400 is available in an online appendix.

Job Mobility, Tenure, and Promotions in Political Science PhD-Granting Departments, 2002–2017: Cohort, Gender, and Citation-Count Effects

“…T h e P r o f e s s i o n : J o b M o b i l i t y , Te n u r e , a n d P r o m o t i o n s 12. Data from the PS 400 (Kim and Grofman 2019) shows that, based on the average citation numbers by gender among the tenured or tenure-track faculty at PhD-granting departments in 2017, men are almost always cited more than women in virtually all cohorts.…”

“…his research builds on and extends the database of 3,715 faculty created for "The Political Science 400: A 20-Year Update" by Masuoka, Grofman, and Feld (2007a) and used in subsequent work by these authors (Fowler, Grofman, and Masuoka 2007;Masuoka, Grofman, and Feld 2007b;c), later updated by Kim and Grofman (2019;hereafter KG). 1 The original Masuoka, Grofman, and Feld (hereafter MGF) dataset includes a record of all regular faculty members at the 132 US political science PhD-granting institutions ca.…”

“…2002 and provides supplementary information such as the date of PhD, the institution from which the PhD was awarded, and individual faculty citation counts from 1965 to 2005, 2 as well as gender coding. 3 We build also on the KG (2019) update of the original MGF database that identifies where the original set of scholars are ca. 2017.…”

Gender and Status in American Political Science: Who Determines Whether a Scholar Is Noteworthy?

“…These trends also exist in political science, where studies have documented that women publish less in general and in the profession’s top journals (Breuning and Sanders 2007; Young 1995; Teele and Thelen 2017; Samuels and Teele 2018; Key and Sumner 2019); that women often study different topics and the subjects women study are less valorized compared to the subjects men study (Maliniak, Oakes, and Tierney 2008, 123; Leahey 2007; Shames and Wise 2017; Key and Sumner 2019); that top journals more often publish topics that interest men compared to women (Key and Sumner 2019); that women are cited less when they do publish (Maliniak, Powers, and Walter 2013; Kim and Grofman 2019a; Dion, Sumner, and Mitchell 2018); that the gender patterns found in articles (lower publication rates and fewer citations) are even worse with respect to book publishing (Samuels and Teele 2018); that women are less likely to be lead authors (Evans and Moulder 2011); that co-authorship boosts submission rates more for men compared to women (Djupe, Smith, and Sokhey 2019); that female scholarship is less likely to appear on graduate syllabi (Colgan 2016; Phull, Ciflikli, and Meibauer 2018); women receive lower course evaluations compared to men (Martin 2016); that “women, although they win more awards today than previously, still are unable to match men in the scholarly recognition given their work” (Tatalovich and Frendreis 2018, 8); and that these findings are longstanding, replicated across vast stretches of time (Young 1995; Mathews and Andersen 2001; Breuning and Sanders 2007).…”

“…We code entries according to a scholar’s name, allowing us to trace and compare rates of men and women achieving higher-level status recognition. Later we bring in named data from Teele and Thelen’s study on publishing in top ten political science journals (Teele and Thelen 2017), and Kim and Grofman’s top 400 active political scientists, as measured by citation counts (Kim and Grofman 2019a). Online appendix 1 explains coding for all four data sources.…”