![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The United States (US) government has played an active role in developing the global agenda on Women, Peace and Security (WPS), though it has not always been at the leading edge of WPS initiatives. What factors explain the apparent disconnect between public professions of support for WPS by the government and the realities of implementation? Drawing on interviews with 35 current and former government officials tasked with the implementation of WPS mandates across different government agencies, I argue that progress on WPS goals has been hindered by gendered labor dynamics and neoliberal logics that stereotype and devalue work related to the agenda. At the same time, I argue that interviewee comments suggest that there are opportunities for change, with some interviewees steering agencies toward implementation plans that are focused both inward and outward.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge the Duke University Program in American Grand Strategy and the Faculty Development Committee at Troy University, USA, which provided funding for this research. The author also thanks Peter Feaver, Jacqui True, Karin Aggestam, Marijke Breuning, A. Cooper Drury, and participants in the 2017 workshop “Toward Comparative Gender and Foreign Policy Analysis” and the 2019 ISA Junior Scholar Symposium for their assistance in developing this project. A final thanks to the anonymous reviewers and interviewees for their time and insights.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, sponsored the WPS Act in the Senate with two Democratic and two Republican co-sponsors.
2 The Department of Homeland Security is omitted from the analysis of this article, in part because of its primarily domestic-facing mission and in part because the agency did not appoint a senior official for WPS until May 2020.
3 Interviews were initially conducted from February through August 2018 with approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Duke University. Subsequent interviews were conducted with approval from the IRB at Troy University, using the same interview script. In the references, I note the date of the interview and the affiliation of the individual, categorized as DoS, DoD/Military, USAID, Civil Society Working Group (CSWG), Other, or Multiple. Individuals referenced as “Other” are those who indicated to me that their position was unique to their agency, suggesting that reporting their affiliation could compromise their anonymity.
4 Some interviews were conducted via phone or videoconference, including those in early 2020 during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
5 See also Cohn (Citation2006) on the nuances of navigating interviews within the US bureaucracy.
6 Interview (Multiple), March 2018; Interview (CSWG), June 2019.
7 Interview (DoD/Military), May 2018; Interview (Other), June 2019; Interview (Multiple), May 2020; Interview (Multiple), May 2020.
8 Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020.
9 Interview (DoD/Military), February 2018; Interview (DoS), June 2019; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020.
10 Interview (DoS), June 2019; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020.
11 Interview (DoS), December 2019; Interview (DoS), February 2020.
12 Interview (USAID), September 2019; Interview (DoS), February 2020.
13 Interview (DoS), June 2019.
14 Interview (CSWG), June 2019; Interview (CSWG), July 2019.
15 Interview (CSWG), July 2019.
16 “Formal expertise” here refers to prior academic or professional training on gender issues.
17 Interview (DoD/Military), May 2018.
18 Interview (DoD/Military), April 2020; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020; Interview (Multiple), May 2020.
19 One interviewee mentioned that a period of maternity leave had impacted WPS staffing in their current department. Interview (Multiple), March 2018.
20 Interview (CSWG), July 2019; Interview (DoS), February 2020.
21 Interview (DoS), June 2019.
22 Interview (DoS), December 2019.
23 Interview (DoD/Military), February 2018; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2018.
24 Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020.
25 In January 2020, a report from the DoS’ Office of the Inspector General concluded that “staffing gaps, frequent turnover, poor leadership, and inexperienced and undertrained staff frequently contribute to the Department’s other management challenges. Workforce management issues are pervasive, affecting programs and operations domestically and overseas and across functional areas and geographic regions” (OIG Citation2020, 20). From January 2017, the DoS was also subject to multiple periods of hiring freezes, which the DoS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) said “contributed to excessive workloads” and added to overall stress among employees at the DoS (OIG Citation2020, 22).
26 Interview (CSWG), March 2018; Interview (Other), June 2019; Interview (Other), June 2019; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020.
27 Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020; Interview (Multiple), May 2020.
28 Interview (Other), June 2019.
29 Interview (Multiple), March 2018; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2018, Interview (USAID), March 2018; Interview (Other), June 2019; Interview (DoS), December 2019; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020.
30 Although Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tenure was referred to as a “unique moment” in which WPS had high visibility, some interviewees who worked in WPS-relevant positions during the Obama administration argued that her influence was blunted by other leaders who “blocked” access to her. There was also a sense that her overall interest in WPS was not shared by other high-level figures, and that that interest diminished when she left. Interview (DoS), June 2019; Interview (Other), July 2019.
31 Interview (DoS), June 2019; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020.
32 Interview (Multiple), June 2019; Interview (Other), June 2019; Interview (DoS), 2019.
33 Interview (Multiple), March 2018.
34 Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020.
35 Interview (Multiple), March 2018; Interview (DoS), June 2019; Interview (DoS), July 2019.
36 Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020.
37 Interview (DoD/Military), April 2020.
38 Interview (Multiple), March 2018; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020.
39 Their list includes Canada, Norway, Sweden, the UK, Australia, and South Africa (Aggestam and True Citation2020).
40 Interview (Other), June 2019.
41 Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020.
42 Interview (Multiple), May 2020.
43 Interview (DoD/Military), February 2018; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020; Interview (Multiple), June 2020.
44 Interview (Multiple), March 2018.
45 Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020.
46 Interview (DoD/Military), April 2020; Interview (Multiple), May 2020; Interview (Multiple), May 2020; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020; Interview (DoD/Military), May 2020.
47 This article was first submitted to the journal in August 2020. As a result, the interviews and text predate the election of President Joseph Biden. While the Biden administration’s approach to the WPS agenda is still taking shape, a report from the White House to Congress in June 2021 outlined progress on implementation at the four agencies named in the WPS Act. In a letter accompanying the report, President Biden notes that he has “instructed departments and agencies across the Federal Government to prioritize gender equity and equality” (The White House Citation2021). The report itself is focused on “common milestones and metrics” identified by the DoS, the DoD, the Department of Homeland Security, and USAID. These include the number of WPS-relevant programs or training sessions, the number of women participating in sessions, and the number of women reached by WPS programming. The report further notes that both the milestones and metrics themselves and the capacity for collecting associated data are still being refined by the relevant agencies (The White House Citation2021).
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Alexis Henshaw
Alexis Henshaw is Assistant Professor in Political Science at Troy University, USA. She is the author of Why Women Rebel: Understanding Women’s Participation in Armed Rebel Groups (Routledge 2017) and co-author of Insurgent Women: Female Combatants in Civil Wars (Georgetown University Press 2019). Her work on gender and IR has also appeared in the Journal of Global Security Studies, Small Wars & Insurgencies, and Studies in Conflict & Terrorism.