Whose American Government? A Quantitative Analysis of Gender and Authorship in American Politics Texts

Abstract

American government textbooks signal to students the kinds of topics that are important and, by omission, the kinds of topics that are not important to the discipline of political science. This article examines portrayals of women in introductory American politics textbooks through a quantitative content analysis of 22 widely used texts. We find that textbook coverage of women is scarce, tends to disregard important sources of diversity among women, reinforces traditional gender roles, and gives scant attention to women as political actors. Typical presentations of women thus reinforce women's status as political outsiders, mirroring their marginalization in American political life. We argue this content depresses interest in the academic study of political science and engagement with American political life more generally. However, we find that textbooks with one or more female author have significantly more gender-related content. Female political scientists better integrate gender into their textbooks and, thus, may be more likely to engage female students, who are underrepresented in the political science major.

Keywords:

• American government
• content analysis
• gender
• textbooks

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Marie Courtemanche, Lisa Dilks, Christina Fattore, Kasi Jackson, Melissa Latimer, Cyanne Loyle, and Karleen West for providing feedback on an earlier draft of this article. Thanks also to Megan Denny, Scott Harris, Lauren Santoro, Noah Smith, Ronny Thompson, and Andrew Wassmann for their assistance with data collection.

Notes

Note. Entries are percentages.

Note. Standard deviations are provided in parentheses. Reported p values are obtained from a one-tailed independent-samples t test comparing texts with at least one female author to texts with no female authors.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Note. Standard deviations are provided in parentheses. Reported p values are obtained from a one-tailed independent-samples t test comparing texts with at least one female author to texts with no female authors.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Note. Standard deviations are provided in parentheses. Reported p values are obtained from a one-tailed independent-samples t test comparing texts with at least one female author to texts with no female authors.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

The textbook provides only a small window into what occurs in the classroom. Instructors exercise a great deal of discretion in terms of opting not to use a textbook, teaching directly from the text, and assigning supplemental readings. Factors such as variation in teaching ability, examination styles, and use of active-learning exercises also play an important role in the transmission of knowledge. While the classroom experience is undoubtedly complex and composed of many dimensions warranting further study, the textbook offers a concrete entry point for curricular analysis.

Many books combine these two chapters, so a distinction is not always made between them as Olivo (2012) does here.

In seeking out the set of texts employed by Wallace and Allen (2008), we observed that a significant number of texts by more minor presses are either no longer in print or have been acquired by major publishing houses. Four major publishing houses now produce the overwhelming majority of introductory American politics textbooks. Twenty of the 22 books sampled are published by Pearson (10), Wadsworth (5), W. W. Norton (3), and CQ Press (2). The other two texts are published by Routledge (1) and McGraw Hill (1). This concentration of the market necessitates a careful look at these bestselling textbooks.

The percent substantive mentions differed across the textbooks, ranging from 86%–95%.

See also Olivo's (2012) thoughtful discussion of intersectionality in textbooks.

We excluded Michelle Bachman and Mercy Otis Warren from this calculation because they were outliers—the only women mentioned in a single text.

Men's political activities do not exceed women's activities in all cases. For example, women tend to vote at higher rates than men but contribute at lower rates (e.g., Conway, Steuernagel, and Ahren 2004). Women do report lower levels of psychological engagement with politics (interest, knowledge, and efficacy) that largely accounts for observed differences in rates of political activities (Burns, Schlozman, and Verba 2001).