A Response to Gonzalez Ginocchio,Hindmoor and Stanley

Abstract

A response to Pluralism and Political Studies in the UK: A Pilot Study into Who Gets What in the Discipline by Brenda Gonzalez Ginocchio, Andrew Hindmoor and Liam Stanley.

Brenda Gonzalez Ginocchio, Andrew Hindmoor and Liam Stanley focus on the question ‘who gets what, when and how’ to help us recognize the politics within discipline. This piece is a welcome contribution to a discussion about diversity in the profession – one that began with calls from second-wave feminists and now encompasses a wider range of voices articulating the benefits of pluralism.

Every research project has to set limits on data collection and I fully appreciate that to investigate the reach of pluralism, the authors have captured a snapshot of what is considered by some as the ‘top-layer’ of the discipline: Russell Group universities, two respected disciplinary journals and signifiers of recognition (e.g. journal editors, prize winners, Political Studies Association (PSA) leadership). As they note, the data are limited, with, for example, little representation of our IR/Security Studies colleagues. Their findings – lack of pluralism at this ‘top’ – come as no surprise. Such is the state of the discipline.

However, one should not take away from this that the discipline is all ‘pale, male and stale’. They note increasing evidence of a (slow) reduction in the gender gap as well as more equity in both journal editorships and PSA leadership positions. This echoes formal feedback from the PSA Annual Conference attendees of a recognizable shift in the demography of participants (more representation in gender, race and age) and a diversity of panel topics. While this piece provides compelling evidence of ‘who gets what, when and how’, it inevitably raises questions of ‘why?’ and ‘what can be done?’.

In answering the ‘why’, one must begin with the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Setting aside questions of its utility as a Higher Education (HE) funding allocation tool, the REF sets the tone for the discipline in way that can undermine recognition of sub-field excellence. The assessment criteria of ‘world leading’ and ‘internationally excellent’ push scholars to publish in journals ranked internationally that may not be interested in single country-based ‘British Politics’ research. Little surprise then than the composition of the British Politics sub-field has more than halved. Interestingly, the findings related to Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) grants in the sub-fields of British Politics and Elections, Public Opinion and Parties (EPOP) may indicate national, inward-facing political priorities of UK research investment. Research in discipline sub-fields suffers. Familiar concerns regarding which journals count as ‘leading journals’ for REF purposes are set against questions of which journals count as representative of excellent research in disciplinary sub-fields. Moreover, innovative work in the discipline previously could be found in edited collections. And such collections offered space for young scholars with unique research interests to publish. While this is still the case for the discipline globally, no Russell Group institution would advocate including such work in their REF return. In short, the REF as a driver of ‘who gets what, when and how’ in the discipline in the UK cannot be underestimated.

Growth in the sector sits alongside REF-related implications for teaching. Early career researchers can be overburdened with time-consuming teaching roles so that more senior colleagues can increase departmental REF scores. As the authors note, the gendered nature of teaching and related student care roles is well documented. The growth in student numbers has resulted in the streamlining of courses with fewer sub-fields included in ‘core’ teaching – making the call for decolonizing the curriculum even more important. The piece itself reflects the ‘agreed wisdom’ that individual recognition in the discipline is primarily through research, and this has implications for gender, for mutual collegiate respect and, importantly, for the signals we are giving to the next generation about what sub-fields, and what colleagues, ‘count’ in the discipline.

In an attempt to address the ‘what can be done?’, we must recognize two paths available. First, at the macro-level, we as a discipline may wish to question the direction of UK HE funding policy. The PSA works alongside the Academy of Social Sciences and the Campaign for Social Science to intervene in relevant policy debates, but this can have limited impact with regard to research funding. At a more micro-level, the PSA began a few years ago to work towards more pluralism, representation and diversity. Prize statistics (91% awarded to males) are particularly worrisome finding here. The PSA noted this previously and implemented a review of all prize criteria in 2016. One outcome was gender parity on all prize-judging panels. To award the best work in the discipline, we need judges willing to read and listen beyond the ‘core’. The PSA strategically reaches out along the educational pipeline to schools to encourage a diversity of students to study politics at university. Importantly, the Diverse Voices Scholarship Fund aims to assist a broader range of doctoral students. While it now has solid financial foundations, the benefits of this programme for the discipline will only be forthcoming when the scholarships begin to be awarded, their work is respected and scholars are nurtured and welcomed into the discipline.

There is more to be done. We need to do more to encourage decolonizing the curriculum, particularly to explain why this is important and offer practical, pragmatic guidance for unsure colleagues. Departments need to think about how to offset streamlined curriculum by truly valuing those at the margins of the discipline by, for example, encouraging a wide range of speakers for seminars, reading groups and so on – and then – attending (!), listening and learning. We need to work alongside early career researchers to ensure that the future leaders see the importance of pluralism in understanding politics. Too many doctoral students who are women, who are from working-class backgrounds, who are people of colour or who are working in marginal sub-fields or with innovative methodologies continue to be hassled by their peers and established faculty about research that sits outside the established core.

Those of us more seasoned in the politics of the discipline need to take seriously the obligations of pluralism. As the authors point out, there is a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. There are normative requirements to valuing something. Our professional associations need members’ assistance: Can you help raise funds for the Diverse Voices Scholarship? Can you assist school teachers and students to expand their politics curriculum? Can you contribute to continuing professional development programmes?

Power – as research funding, as leadership positions, as limited publication space – is a scarce resource that few give up easily. There will be a personal cost for those currently benefitting from the lack of pluralism. Progress on the gender pay gap has been slow. UK political studies, unlike many of our disciplinary counterparts in the West, have been slow to welcome a range of other diverse voices and to recognize the insight pluralism brings to the study of politics. Do we really believe that high-quality research pluralism benefits the discipline? If so, then those in positions of privilege have a responsibility to move over and make space at the table . . . and then to see who is still missing, send out invitations, actively lend a hand and make room.