What rulers are reading - Manel Watch

MANEL WATCH -- “Women are mysteriously missing from D.C. think tanks’ foreign policy panels. Here’s the data,” by Federiga Bindi and Mimosa Giamanco: “Although women make up half the world’s population and a growing proportion of scholars and analysts, they’re often absent in convenings of ‘experts.’ That’s true across a number of industries, according to an event management company’s report on gender diversity in about 60,000 events between 2013 and 2018 across 23 countries; the company found that 69 percent of all speakers were male. That’s close to what political scientists Tamara Cofman Wittes and Marc Lynch found when examining women’s participation in Middle East Policy panel events in 2014: Fewer than one-quarter of all the speakers at 232 events put on by six Washington think tanks were women — and 65 percent of the events included no women at all.

“That matters, for a variety of reasons. It means women with expertise aren’t getting the kind of exposure that helps their ideas spread and their careers advance. And it means that policies and decisions are made with only men’s input, depriving us all of women’s knowledge and insights.” WaPo

Link to original ‘‘What voters think Warren could do for women’’ in Politico here.

Women are mysteriously missing from D.C. think tanks’ foreign policy panels. Here’s the data.

By Dr. Federiga Bindi and Mimosa Giamanco

Although women make up half the world’s population and a growing proportion of scholars and analysts, they’re often absent in convenings of “experts.” That’s true across a number of industries, according to an event management company’s report on gender diversity in about 60,000 events between 2013 and 2018 across 23 countries; the company found that 69 percent of all speakers were male. That’s close to what political scientists Tamara Cofman Wittes and Marc Lynch found when examining women’s participation in Middle East Policy panel events in 2014: Less than one-quarter of all the speakers at 232 events put on by six Washington think tanks were women — and 65 percent of the events included no women at all.

That matters, for a variety of reasons. It means women with expertise aren’t getting the kind of exposure that helps their ideas spread and their careers advance. And it means that policies and decisions are made with only men’s input, depriving us all of women’s knowledge and insights.

In the past several years, however, observers have begun calling out all-male panels, now ridiculed with the term “manels.” We wanted to know whether that had made a difference in one particular area of expertise: public forums on foreign policy. Our research found that in 2018, women experts still made up only one-third of the speakers at public foreign policy events — a proportion that varied from one think tank to another.

Here’s how we did our research

Supported by an E.U. research grant at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, we studied women’s speaker participation at 2018 public foreign policy events hosted by 20 major think tanks based in Washington. We decided to look at the 20 think tanks captured by the WIIS Gender Scorecard, which in fall 2018 had released a report ranking think tanks according to the number of women scholars in foreign policy.

For foreign policy-focused think tanks such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, we included all public events listed on their websites in 2018. For multidisciplinary think tanks such as the Brookings Institution, we counted all public events that specifically dealt with foreign policy. For each event, we collected names from the published event schedule, such as speakers, chairs and moderators. We then used Internet searches to read bios and look at photos to determine which speakers were women.

In all, our data include 5,192 speakers who participated in 967 public events at these 20 major D.C. think tanks in 2018. These events included a former State Department official talking about strategy in a specific region at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), an Atlantic Council panel about the status of NATO cooperation in Europe, and more.

Women are still underrepresented on D.C. foreign policy panels, in some think tanks more than others

In 2018, women made up 34 percent of experts featured on D.C. foreign policy panels. Fully 27 percent of the panels in our study included only male speakers.

Of the panels that included women, those women often served as the panel moderator, not as a speaker. Women moderators in the absence of women expert panelists perpetuates the idea that women can be gracious hosts but are not actually experts.

There are a few exceptions, of course, as you can see in the figure below. Rand had slightly more than 50 percent women in its foreign policy panels, closely followed by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for American Progress, the U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP), the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and the Stimson Center. All these think tanks’ panels consisted of 40 percent or more women.

Only the liberal Center for American Progress avoided organizing single-gender panels. Half or more of the foreign policy panels were all-male at the libertarian Cato Institute, the liberal Institute for Policy Studies and the conservative American Enterprise Institute. One-third or more of the events were all-male at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, the nonpartisan Aspen Institute and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Bipartisan Policy Center. Of all the events we found, only a handful were women-only — and those were either held on International Women’s Day or focused on topics such as sexual violence.

In the world of D.C. think tanks, being visible is essential for professional advancement. The first step toward increased visibility is speaking on panels. If women are to have equal opportunities in foreign policy, think tanks must work to ensure gender parity on panels. Think tanks wishing to avoid “manels” can turn to a variety of sources to find female experts, including Women Also Know Stuff and the Brussels Binder.

Link to the Washington Post analysis here.

The Absence of Women Scholars On Foreign Policy Panels and How Men Are Still Running the Show

By Dr. Federiga Bindi and Mimosa Giamanco

Women in International Security (WIIS), an organization committed to advancing women in the field of international peace and security, recently issued a policy report analyzing the presence of women in D.C. think tanks, compiling a ranking of the presence of women scholars in the foreign policy community. The report, titled “The WIIS Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks 2018,” highlighted how men are still running the show in the foreign and security policy establishments. The D.C. think tank community is in fact far from being gender-balanced, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Expert-wise, only two out of the twenty-two think tanks reviewed have achieved gender parity among their scholars: the Stimson Center (52%) and the United States Institute for Peace (USIP, 49%). Only five think tanks have more than 40% female scholars: the Stimson Center (51%), Nuclear Threat Initiative (50%), the U.S. Institute for Peace (49%), the Institute for Policy Studies (44%), and the Rand Corporation (40%). The vast majority of the think tanks have less than 30% female scholars.

Picture1.png

These findings are consistent with the numbers in academia, where women scholars in International Relations are still a minority: 70 percent of International Relations (IR) faculty is male. The discrimination begins early in one’s career: for instance, among PhDs at the country’s top institution, Harvard, 5 percent of males are in IR as opposed to two percent of women. Discrimination continues to occur throughout one’s career: despite women constituting half of the graduate population in political science, they constitute only 40 percent of IR faculty. They are also less likely to work at research universities: more women IR scholars (48 percent) teach at liberal arts colleges or universities without Ph.D. programs than men (39 percent). Women also tend to be more junior and less likely to hold tenure than their male colleagues and just a minority achieve senior positions such as Full Chair.

Women IR scholars’ work is not as well-recognized as that of male IR scholars—a problem for the whole of political science, as women are significantly underrepresented on the list of the 400 most frequently-cited political scientists and are cited less often than their male colleagues. Men also out-publish women by a ratio of two to one. The majority of the research assigned in IR graduate courses is written by men.

In the peculiar D.C. environment, however, citations are only one part of the problem. In the nation’s capital. what counts above all else is visibility, and the first step toward increased visibility is being invited to speak on panels. This article thus explores gender equality on foreign policy panels in the Nation’s Capital think tanks community. 

From a methodological point of view, we started from the mentioned WIIS report and selected the top 20 institutions it cited. Our hypothesis was that think tanks that are more gender-balanced in terms of scholars would also be more gender-balanced in terms of panel composition. For foreign policy-focused think tanks, we considered each public event they listed on their websites in 2018. In the case of multidisciplinary think tanks, we only considered their panels on foreign policy. For each event, we looked at the roster listed on the program, such as speakers, chairs, and moderators, as well as the total number of speakers and number of women speakers.

We also looked into the ideological divide. To determine whether a think tank is leaning Democrat, leaning Republican or is Independent/Bipartisan, we looked at think tanks’ values and mission statements, in particular looking for terms such as “conservative”, “progressive”, and “bipartisan”. We are grateful to the European Commission’s Jean Monnet Action, for support in doing this research. This research project is part of a larger international research initiative on Women Leaders in Foreign Policy and International Relations led by the Institute for Women Policy Research.

Screen+Shot+2019-03-26+at+12.26.23+PM.png

The results are far from encouraging: in 2018, there was one woman for every three males on D.C. foreign policy panels. Additionally, 27 percent of the panels were in fact “manels”, a term used to refer to men-only panels. To make things worse, in most cases, the woman on the panel was the moderator, not a “real” speaker. This perpetuates the idea that women can be gracious hosts, but not experts.

RAND exceeded gender parity on panels, closely followed by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for American Progress, the U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP), the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and the Stimson Center, all of whose panels consisted of 40 percent or more women. Only the Center for American Progress completely avoided organizing one-gendered panels. For the rest, out of 967 foreign policy panels, 217 were manels.

In other words, in 27 percent of the cases, the organizers were apparently unable—or unwilling—to put at least one woman on stage. At CATO, the Institute for Policy Studies, and the American Enterprise Institute, half or more of the panels were all-male. At CATO, the Heritage Foundation, Aspen Institute, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Bipartisan Policy Center, one third or more of the events were all-male, yet they did not organize one single all-women panel.   

It should also be mentioned that several of the women-only panels were either held on International Women’s Day or focused on topics like sexual violence or civil suffering. Another interesting finding is that there were only a few think tanks that would do an event around a single woman (such as a global leader), or a single female scholar, while there was an abundance of events revolving around one single male leader or scholar.

Picture2.png

The correlation between the presence of women experts and the percentage of women speakers exists, but is weaker than expected: the think tanks with the most women scholars are not always the ones featuring the most women speakers.

Picture3.png

While only 40 percent of scholars at RAND are women, RAND exceeded gender parity in panels (52 percent). The Center for Foreign Relations, with a figure of only 29 percent female scholars, almost reached gender parity on panels (44 percent). The same holds true for the Center for American Progress: with just 16 percent of female scholars, the panels averaged 44 percent of women. The United States Institute for Peace with 49 percent of its scholars being women, had panels that were 43 percent women, similar to the Stimson Center (51 percent female scholars, 40 percent on panels). At the lower levels of the ranking—that is the think tanks with 30 percent or less of female scholars—the correlation is somewhat stronger: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scored 29 percent in both categories with the German Marshall Fund closely behind with 27 percent in both categories. Heritage featured 22 and 24 percent respectively, and American Enterprise 21 and 20 percent. The Aspen Institute featured more female speakers than scholars (28 percent vs. 20 percent), while CATO did the opposite. With 27 female experts, only 20 percent of its speakers were women.

The correlation between female leadership and gender parity is promising. Seven out of the twenty-one think tanks (30 percent) considered in this study have a woman at the helm: Neera Tandem (CAP), Nancy Lindborg (USIP), Victoria Nuland (CNAS), Anne Marie Slaughter (New America Foundation), Jane Harman (Wilson Center), Karen Donfried (GMF) and Joan Rohlfing (NYI). Yet only three of these appear in the top-ten think tanks when it comes to women speakers on panels: Center for American Progress, U.S. Institute for Peace, and the Center for New American Security.

Screen+Shot+2019-03-26+at+12.26.36+PM.png

Finally, there appears to be a progressive-conservative divide, with openly-progressive think tanks clearly surpassing openly-conservative ones when it comes to gender parity of speakers: among conservative think tanks, just 18 percent of panel participants are women, as compared to 59 percent among progressive ones. Independent think tanks score in the middle.

Picture4.png

An article published in the Monkey Cage, a blog by The Washington Post, illustrates how, in 2014, only one in four panelists on foreign policy panels in D.C. were women. Increasing the percent of female speakers is admittedly easier than reaching gender parity among scholars. Given all the pledges to never again participate in manels that followed the Monkey Cage article, one would expect trends to have substantially changed, and to some extent, they have. Since 2014, the presence of women on foreign policy panels in Washington, D.C. has grown by nine percent, increasing from 25 percent to 34 percent. With this level of growth, gender parity on foreign policy panels in D.C. will be achieved by 2025. 

 

Missing in Action: The Absence of Women Scholars on Foreign Policy Panels

By Dr. Federiga Bindi and Mimosa Giamanco

Women in International Security (WIIS), an organization committed to advancing women in the field of international peace and security, recently issued a policy report analyzing the presence of women in D.C. think tanks, compiling a ranking of the presence of women scholars in the foreign policy community. The report, titled “The WIIS Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks 2018,” highlighted how men are still running the show in the foreign and security policy establishments. The D.C. think tank community is in fact far from being gender-balanced, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Expert-wise, only two out of the twenty-two think tanks reviewed have achieved gender parity among their scholars: the Stimson Center (52%) and the United States Institute for Peace (USIP, 49%). Only five think tanks have more than 40% female scholars: the Stimson Center (51%), Nuclear Threat Initiative (50%), the U.S. Institute for Peace (49%), the Institute for Policy Studies (44%), and the Rand Corporation (40%). The vast majority of the think tanks have less than 30% female scholars.

These findings are consistent with the numbers in academia, where women scholars in International Relations are still a minority: 70 percent of International Relations (IR) faculty is male. The discrimination begins early in one’s career: for instance, among PhDs at the country’s top institution, Harvard, 5 percent of males are in IR as opposed to two percent of women. Discrimination continues to occur throughout one’s career: despite women constituting half of the graduate population in political science, they constitute only 40 percent of IR faculty. They are also less likely to work at research universities: more women IR scholars (48 percent) teach at liberal arts colleges or universities without Ph.D. programs than men (39 percent). Women also tend to be more junior and less likely to hold tenure than their male colleagues and just a minority achieve senior positions such as Full Chair.

Women IR scholars’ work is not as well-recognized as that of male IR scholars—a problem for the whole of political science, as women are significantly underrepresented on the list of the 400 most frequently-cited political scientists and are cited less often than their male colleagues. Men also out-publish women by a ratio of two to one. The majority of the research assigned in IR graduate courses is written by men.

In the peculiar D.C. environment, however, citations are only one part of the problem. In the nation’s capital. what counts above all else is visibility, and the first step toward increased visibility is being invited to speak on panels. This article thus explores gender equality on foreign policy panels in the Nation’s Capital think tanks community.

Read the rest of the article here.

Cracks in the IR Glass: The Evolving Relationship Between International Relations & Gender Equality

By Dr. Federiga Bindi

It is often said that if more women were at the helm of foreign policy, there would be more peace in the world. However--and despite the fact that women have played important roles--there is little research about the actual foundations of this claim. While female leadership is increasingly gaining momentum, women involved in International Relations-related jobs, be it in academia, diplomacy, international organizations, government or international business, are still facing more difficulties than in other areas in climbing the seniority ladder. Also, despite evidence of women’s role in the diplomatic and international arena, the core historical narrative of international politics remained depleted of women.

 This article will review the status of women in International Relations (IR), discuss the main reasons why breaking the glass ceiling is more difficult in international relations than in other areas, and what can be done to change the situation.

Download full article at: https://www.academia.edu/34944136/Cracks_in_the_IR_Glass_The_Evolving_Relationship_Between_International_Relations_and_Gender_Equality

Harassment in the Workplace: Why the US and the EU Must Act

As we celebrate the International Day for the elimination of Violence against Women, it should not be forgotten that violence can happen in different forms: psychological violence — whether it is in the family or in the workplace — can be as dangerous as the physical one, in extreme cases leading to suicide or death, though in this case there will be hardly someone prosecuted for the crime.

Read More

Women Leaders in (EU) Foreign Policy: will Mrs Be Better than Lady?

On Halloween night, the European Commission — Europe’s “executive” — changed. At the helm of foreign policy, Lady PESC — as Catherine Ashton was known — gave way to Mrs PESC, as Federica Mogherini prefers to be called. Two different women leaders, two leadership styles in foreign policy. The right time for an assessment and for a preview of what it is possibly to come.

Read More

Women Leaders in Foreign Policy: When Federica Mogherini Found Her Voice

Women are still a minority at the helm of Foreign Policy and International Relations. In the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, only two members out of 18 are women, while in the House of Representative they are five out of 46. In the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, there were 20 women out of 73 in the 2009-14 legislature and they are today 13 out of 71.

Read More

Female Leaders in Misogynous Foreign Policy: An Example to Follow

“At times in foreign policy we make mistakes because we act too quickly without first properly understanding how things really are.” Sure enough, this is recurrent complain among foreign policy geeks, but it takes a certain bravery to say so — on the record and in the world’s most prestigious think tank — if you are one of those people that actually leads the world’s foreign policy.

Read More