Until the 1970s neither Australian nor New Zealand political studies gave much attention to issues of diversity. This reflected both the makeup of the profession and the majoritarian nature of the political systems that was the major object of its attention. We argue that feminist organising on both sides of the Tasman had led to greater pluralism within the discipline. Using a comparative institutional approach, we trace the relationship between organising within the professional associations and the acceptance of greater diversity of approach and standpoint. We find, however, that while both countries’ Associations have become somewhat more inclusive, a hierarchy of knowledge still exists that may prove an obstacle to feminist and Indigenous political scientists joining discipline-based departments and programmes.

Research about political science in Latin America shows good progress on issues such as the extension of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, the quality of academic production and the social recognition of the profession. Still, the status of women and diversity in the field has been scarcely contemplated. This fact is striking considering that Latin America is characterised by great inequalities, and scientific communities are not isolated from prevailing social prejudices. The article provides a first approach to the question of the status of women and diversity in the discipline in Latin America, examining women’s presence in professional associations, universities and national research systems. Journals and congresses are also examined in order to assess the participation of women as authors and panellists, as well as the extent to which diversity and gender-related issues are addressed in academic production. The findings point to the existence of a ‘critical mass’ of women in the field, although they are outnumbered by their male counterparts. This feature makes the profession in Latin America more similar to political science communities elsewhere and less like other social sciences in the region, which are feminised disciplines.

The purpose of this article is to provide a platform to converse on barriers and challenges faced by three marginalised groups – women, black minority ethnic (BME) groups, and students living with a disability – throughout the course of doctoral study in political science in the United Kingdom. Much of the literature devoted to inequalities in academia tends to focus on established academics already in a post; the experiences of PhD researchers as the future of the profession have largely been neglected. However, in order to understand the underrepresentation of structurally disadvantaged groups, more insight into what is taking place earlier in the career pipeline is necessary. Based on an online survey and a small number of qualitative interviews, the article’s findings are split into seven different themes, reflecting both challenges that are faced by all PhD researchers, such as financial pressures, as well as those such as isolation, institutional support, and perceptions of disadvantage, that were found to be much more pronounced among minority groups. The article is a preliminary reflective discussion that aims to start a broader conversation about equality and diversity experiences among PhD researchers across the discipline, not just in the UK but on a global scale.

This article examines Canadian political science and responses to diversity both in terms of who is included in the profession and their reported experiences. Utilizing extant national surveys, including from the Canadian Political Science Association, the findings show that in comparison to the 1970s, the profession today is clearly more “diverse” both in terms of its demographics, as well as what is researched and taught. This in turn relates to changing perspectives affecting policy, practice and research both in Canada and internationally. However, as will also be shown, there are evident and persistent structural inequities in the Canadian academy and the discipline of political science that have deep roots in Canada. Of particular importance in explaining these patterns is Canada’s foundation and legacy as a settler-colony, a feature thrown into sharp relief in light of current efforts at “reconciliation” between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. It is therefore argued that the state of diversity in Canadian political science needs to be understood in relation to both evolving ideas as well as the historical formation of the Canadian state and social power.

This article explores the way in which the UK Political Studies Association (PSA) has sought to tackle issues of inclusion within the profession. UK political science is dominated by white males, and while women have made progress, we argue this is less so for black, Asian and minority ethnic colleagues. In both cases, we view progress as likely to be limited without proactive intervention strategies. We draw on work that we have recently been doing with the PSA and offer some positive strategies for embedding this agenda within the profession. We argue that for a vibrant, pluralist and healthy political science, a diversity of academics is needed, and that learned societies and professional organisations have a key role to play in advancing this agenda.

Area Studies, that is, academic work focused on a specific geographic area and its phenomena, exists in the form of study programmes, institutes and departments in many European universities and research centres. European political scientists preoccupied with theoretical abstraction have also engaged, within the frame of Area Studies, with the production of context-rich knowledge. Although Area Studies have followed distinctive and non-linear paths of development, this approach to the study of social science is present in a considerable number of academic spaces in Europe. A debate on the value of Area Studies is also active in the context of a discussion on its capacity to dismantle ethnocentrism in science. Despite the dynamism of this discussion, little has been done to explore empirically how Area Studies have contributed or not to the diversification of Political Science. This paper seeks to remedy that omission and analyse whether an Area Studies approach to the study of Political Science, in particular, European Political Science, has contributed or not to making the discipline more diverse. To address this question, the paper presents some considerations that emerge from a review of the literature and from interviews with twenty researchers working in the field of Political Science in two European countries: Germany and Portugal.

Japan combines demographic challenges of decreasing childbirths and an ageing population, yet political unwillingness to use immigration to ease labour market and caregiving shortages. Paying attention to gender, diversity, and inclusion would seem to be a ‘rational’ political choice. Although Prime Minister Abe (Abe II) understands the need to appear to be responding to Japanese women qua equal citizens, women remain more an ‘object’ of LDP policy than a substantive beneficiary. To improve his image, Abe has incorporated ‘Womenomics’ into his strategy of economic revitalisation; the result has been a rather incoherent blend of ‘equal participation’ and ‘women’s utilisation’. In 2016, the dearth of diversity and anti-feminist sentiment within Japanese politics continues to be mirrored in both passive and active ways within the discursive and institutional political climate, including within academia. It is largely premature to assume a shared normative or scientific commitment to inclusion and diversity in Japan. Japanese Political Science (JPS) is no exception, and this has obvious implications for what constitutes a ‘serious’ political issue worthy of study, what gets funded, who gets hired, and the extent to which critical debates within feminist political science (FSP) on gender, race, and diversity are taken seriously. In this article, I offer a preliminary evaluation of JPS in light of three indicators: the under-representation of women in Japanese academia generally and political science specifically; the access of FPS to large-scale government funding grants (2003–2013) and its impact on the discipline; and recent efforts by feminist political scientists in Tokyo to create a ‘home’ for debates on gender, diversity, and political representation. I conclude with a hopeful expectation that increasing numbers of political scientists in Japan will begin to genuinely problematise the dearth of diversity in Japanese politics and to approach this fundamental puzzle of Japanese democratisation with the intellectual curiosity that it deserves.