The issue of mentorship for women in political science has gained traction and prominence in recent years. Conceptualized initially as a “leaky pipeline” (Blickenstaff Reference Blickenstaff2005), Crawford and Windsor (Reference Crawford and Windsor2021) suggest that a “chutes and ladders game” is a better metaphor for the twists and turns of academic careers given endogenous bias and exogenous life events. The pioneering leadership of female scholars in the Women’s Caucus for Political Science and the Women’s Caucus in International Studies, for example, have provided professional support that has helped women to navigate male-dominated academic spaces (Akos and Kretchmar Reference Akos and Kretchmar2016; Claypool et al. Reference Claypool, Janssen, Kim and Mitchell2017; Crawford and Windsor Reference Crawford and Windsor2019; Hesli, Lee, and Mitchell Reference Hesli, Lee and Mitchell2012; Mitchell and Martin Reference Mitchell and Martin2018; Mitchell, Lange, and Brus Reference Mitchell, Lange and Brus2013). Programs including Visions in Methodology, Journeys in World Politics, and Pay It Forward have continued these efforts, providing best practices for tangible skills such as bargaining and negotiations (Mitchell and Hesli Reference Mitchell and Hesli2013), navigating the job market (Kim and Grofman Reference Kim and Grofman2019), achieving balance amid the competing demands of work and family formation (Kim, Fitzsimons, and Kay Reference Kim, Fitzsimons and Kay2018), and maximizing their research productivity (Hancock, Baum, and Breuning Reference Hancock, Baum and Breuning2013). Led by women for women, these groups have been a necessary first step for validating the legitimate concerns of women in our profession.
Women initially embraced the message of “lean in” promoted by Sandberg (Reference Sandberg2013) as a call to support one another, but the movement quickly lost favor given its reliance on classism and sexism (Kim, Fitzsimons, and Kay Reference Kim, Fitzsimons and Kay2018). Women can lean in when they have ample support systems, social safety nets, financial security, and often stay-at-home spouses (or surrogates in the form of nannies, personal assistants, or other support staff). Leaning in also places the burden of responsibility on women, reflected in the collective silence of male colleagues toward this policy.
Even worse, leaning in can backfire and foster an antagonistic workplace, such as women suffering professional penalties for bargaining and negotiating (Mitchell and Hesli Reference Mitchell and Hesli2013; Tinsley et al. Reference Tinsley, Cheldelin and Amanatullah2009). Men receive no formal training about how to be deliberate allies and advocates for their female colleagues. They are excluded from the conversation about actively working to achieve gender parity in academia. Most conference panels on gender and bias in academia speak to a predominantly female audience. The lack of male participation in promoting gender parity may be self-censorship in some cases: they may not see a logical and responsible entry point into the conversation.
We offer several propositions about why this may be the case: (1) men do not see how it explicitly applies to them; (2) men feel that they have nothing substantively to contribute to the conversation; and (3) “woke” men may have concerns about the perception of “mansplaining” in a space geared toward women’s advancement. In the first case, men may have come to understand that experiences in academia are gendered; however, given that women began the movement to manage their differential experience, they should be left to pursue it. Relatedly, in the second case, because women created the various caucuses and programs for mentoring other women, many men may feel that their advice is not needed. In the third case, men who are concerned about women in academia may feel that their advice is not wanted. The responsibility for creating a culture change regarding gender bias in academia should not be the exclusive purview of women; neither should it fall on men to individually change their behavior. There are proven institutional strategies for reducing biases and changes at the systemic level that can be implemented from the top down from the provost offices through colleges and academic units. There also are classroom and interpersonal strategies that men and women can adopt, many of which were outlined in the American Political Science Association (2018) Hackathon.
We offer several propositions about why this may be the case: (1) men do not see how it explicitly applies to them; (2) men feel that they have nothing substantively to contribute to the conversation; and (3) “woke” men may have concerns about the perception of “mansplaining” in a space geared toward women’s advancement.
To summarize, male colleagues need to “lean in” to their roles in addressing biases in academia. At the institutional and systemic levels, we argue that mentorship tracks—for example, at conferences—should include mentorship training and best practices for male colleagues. At a roundtable discussion at the 2019 International Studies Association Midwest Annual Conference, senior male scholars debated best practices in mentoring women+ graduate students. We need more of these open discussions to compare, assess, and promote strategies that will benefit women+ in the profession. Other strategies include learning to write gender-unbiased letters of recommendation (Madera, Hebl, and Martin Reference Madera, Hebl and Martin2009), increasing gender balance in syllabi (Sumner Reference Sumner2018), refusing to participate in “manels,”and setting the standard that women speak first in seminars (Carter et al. Reference Carter, Croft, Lukas and Sandstrom2018). Conferences such as PolMeth began encouraging chairs and discussants to make a statement before the question-and-answer portion of conference presentations—citing Carter et al. (Reference Carter, Croft, Lukas and Sandstrom2018)—that they commit to calling on women+ in the audience first. All panels and roundtables at conferences can and should adopt this policy as a necessary step toward transforming academic culture.
In our institutions of higher education, more women+ should be hired and not penalized for family formation. Do not tell women+ when to start a family. Do not sexually harass women+ colleagues. Senior colleagues can model ideal behavior, call out other male peers for inappropriate and biased behavior, and be the standard bearers for junior colleagues. When men take parental leave, it should be for active parenting and not used for bonus research time (Antecol, Bedard, and Stearns Reference Antecol, Bedard and Stearns2018). Many men in our discipline have had long histories of mentoring women to success in obtaining a PhD, landing a tenure-track job, and achieving tenure and promotion. Their knowledge can be a useful bridge between the many caucuses and programs designed by women for women and the growing group of men who want to help the cause but may not know how. We need systemic initiatives developed through professional associations and institutions of higher education that will commit resources to increasing the number of male allies and their capacity to effectively advocate for women+ colleagues and students in our discipline.
As this experience suggests, at the individual level, we now can identify a subset of male allies who are positioned to make measureable strides in promoting gender equity in the workplace. The “men in the middle”—that is, the younger generation of scholars with tenure and job security—are the fulcrum between the historical status quo and a more equitable future workplace. The reality is that pre-tenure faculty—both men and women—are often hesitant to take a strong stance for fear of retaliation during their probationary period and reviews for promotion. Men in the middle can make a significant difference as mentors to younger faculty and students, as search committee and tenure and promotion committee members, and as potential future administrators in creating a culture change.
