Replication Data for: Gender and Status in American Political Science: Who determines whether a scholar is noteworthy?

This article investigates gender disparities in status construction in American political science, focusing on three questions: 1) Do institutions within the discipline of political science – including departments, APSA, editorial boards, academic honor societies – reflect or remedy gender disparities that exist in many forms of recognition, including appointments to top leadership and citations? 2) Are institutions with centralized and accountable appointment mechanisms less gender skewed compared to networked and decentralized selection processes where implicit bias may go unchecked? 3) Do efforts of women to lean in—to publish and to claim a seat at leadership tables—increase the likelihood that higher level status positions will follow? We find that the distribution of highest status positions is still gender skewed, that women are over-represented in positions that involve more service than prestige, that ‘leaning in’ by serving as section chair, on editorial boards or on academic councils is not necessarily a gateway to higher status appointments, and that accountability promotes greater gender parity. The study raises question about the goal of gender parity when it comes to lower-status service, and about the types of contributions our discipline rewards.