Are Methods Gendered? Investigating Publication Paths in Western European Political Science

In recent decades, gender equality has become a prominent academic goal, yet European political science remains male-dominated. This chapter investigates whether gender differences among political scientists in Western Europe extend to methodological preferences and epistemological orientations. Drawing on the BOME dataset, the study explores three core questions: Do female scholars employ different methods than male scholars? Is there a combination of methods (mostly qualitative?) more frequently used by women? And are gender studies associated with specific methodological choices? Existing literature suggests a positive correlation between female authorship and the use of qualitative methods, with some evidence of increasing female engagement in quantitative approaches. However, assumptions that women prefer qualitative methods are also influenced by persistent gender stereotypes regarding women’s low aptitude for quantitative or “hard” sciences. The chapter shows that although the presence of female authors has grown since the 2010s, significant disparities remain: men still publish more, form male-only teams, and dominate the field, while women face exclusionary dynamics. Women tend to show more methodological rigour, often due to the “imposter phenomenon”, and are more likely to engage in empirical data collection, leading to heavier workloads. While men still favour quantitative methods, women—especially solo authors—use qualitative approaches more (especially interviews) and often combine multiple methods. In the “gender and politics” subfield, a clear association with female authorship persists, though methodological diversity is greater than expected. The study challenges stereotypes about gendered skills in methods, showing increasing methodological integration among women. However, choices may also reflect structural constraints, not only methodological freedom.