Race and Racial Exclusion in Security Studies: A Survey of Scholars

Abstract

Increased attention to racialized knowledge and methodological whiteness has swept the political science discipline, especially international relations. Yet an important dimension of race and racism continues to be ignored: the presence and status of scholars of color in the discipline. In contrast to other fields, there is little research on (under)representation of scholars of color in security studies, and no systematic studies of race and racial exclusion that center their voices and experiences. Building on scholarship that contends with the fundamental whiteness of academia and knowledge creation, we present results from a 2019 survey of members of the International Security Studies Section of the International Studies Association. The data show that scholars of color and white scholars experience the field in dramatically different ways; scholars of color report at greater rates feeling unwelcome, experiencing harassment, and desiring more professional development opportunities. Dozens of studies across academia support these findings.

In early 2020, a slew of police killings of unarmed Black Americans triggered racial justice protests in the United States and around the world.¹ The mass demonstrations brought to the fore issues of systemic racism and institutional violence that are ignored and dismissed in various contexts and countries.² Attention to debates over racialized knowledge and methodological whiteness similarly intensified discussion around “decolonizing” international relations (IR), and security studies in particular.³ Another important issue emerged alongside these discussions: scholars of color raised concerns about experiences of marginalization and exclusion within these fields. As Black scholars shared harrowing experiences of discrimination using the Twitter hashtag #BlackInTheIvory, academics in a range of fields renewed their evaluations of racism in the professorate.⁴ Far from anecdotes and simple coincidences, disclosures about discrimination and discussions about race in academia showed the ubiquity of racialized experiences.

The academic context has been subject to intensifying critique regarding the ingrained patterns and practices that continue to marginalize and exclude scholars who come from marginalized backgrounds. For instance, studies have demonstrated the myriad ways gender (under)representation reflects biases that pervade the profession and undermine fair and equitable representation of women scholars within IR and security studies.⁵ Yet little research exists on (under)representation of scholars of color within IR, especially in security studies.⁶ To our knowledge, no survey research explores race and racial exclusion in security studies and centers the feedback and experiences of scholars from historically excluded groups.

Our research begins to rectify this oversight and directly addresses this research gap regarding how formal and informal barriers to participation have undermined professional advancement of scholars of color in security studies. We examine the results of a 2019 International Studies Association (ISA) International Security Studies Section (ISSS) membership survey. ISSS is the largest professional group of security studies scholars in the world, with over 1,600 members from more than 40 countries. In 2018, ISSS began a diversity task force to investigate continuing concerns about both demographic and intellectual inclusion within the section. For example, the ISSS Distinguished Scholar Award has never been awarded to a scholar of color at the time of writing in 2022. As part of its remit, the task force helped design a membership survey, which included general membership questions and specific items about race, representation, and discrimination.

The 2019 ISSS member survey went out to 1,613 members and 342 people responded to at least one question, reflecting a 21.2% response rate. Our findings reveal statistically significant differences between scholars of color and white scholars across four areas: the climate of security studies as a field; experiences of harassment and marginalization; interest in professional opportunities and advancement; and perceptions of diversity initiatives. Scholars of color were more likely to encounter a hostile climate within security studies: they were less likely to report feeling welcome compared to white scholars and more likely to report the security studies section as “clubby” and an “old boys’ network.” Scholars of color were almost twice as likely as white scholars to report experiences of harassment and discrimination at ISA events, and they reported experiencing such things far more frequently. In terms of professional opportunities, scholars of color were more likely than white scholars to express interest in initiatives such as policy workshops, academic skills workshops, and formal mentoring programs. Scholars of color were also almost twice as likely as white scholars to agree that diversity initiatives were needed and were more interested in participating in them.

We note that our findings are based on limited numbers: of survey respondents who identified their race/ethnicity (63.2%), 80% (173) indicated white/Caucasian, and the remaining 20% (43) identified a variety of racial/ethnic identities, grouped into the category of scholars of color.⁷ However, because we use statistical tests that compare groups (such as t-tests) rather than multiple regression, our sample size is more than adequate; for example, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky and R. Clifford Blair describe sample sizes of 25–30 for t-tests as “fairly large.”⁸ In addition, the findings from our data are well supported by dozens of studies across academia, as discussed below.

Our data indicate that scholars of color and white scholars experience security studies in dramatically different ways, making an important contribution to scholarship that contends with the fundamental whiteness of the academy and knowledge creation. We speculate this is due to academic and institutional structures and hierarchies of knowledge that marginalize and silence questions of race in the field. However, our survey did not reveal any significant differences between scholars of color and white scholars regarding scholarly choices (including epistemology, methodology, and theoretical approaches) or institutional location. Assumptions that scholars of color will work on issues of race and hierarchy and employ critical perspectives can thus be rejected, as the survey findings indicate scholars of color are no more likely to use critical perspectives or methods than white scholars. Our research supports conclusions from broader studies on exclusion in IR and academia at large that show practices in academic institutions are central to minoritized scholars’ different lived experiences.⁹ Our research has implications for efforts to improve representation and address concerns in academia and professional associations about diversity in new generations of scholars, and how to retain scholars of color currently working in security studies.

The article proceeds as follows. First, we situate the issue of race and racial exclusion in security studies within the larger discipline and academy. Across political science and IR, there is burgeoning work exploring gender bias and exclusion but relatively little research that examines race as an explicit category of analysis. This gap is even more explicit within security studies. Second, we describe the survey methodology and sample statistics. Third, we present our empirical findings on the security studies climate, harassment and exclusion, and professional opportunities and advancement, which provide insight into how scholars of color find their perspectives, scholarship, and identities pushed to the margins. We also discuss alternative explanations for our findings and explain why those accounts can likely be rejected. Finally, we discuss the broader implications of our findings for initiatives on diversity in security studies and the larger field, as well as provide recommendations for future research based on our study’s insights.

Race and Racism within Academia

The issue of race in academia—more specifically, the representation and lived experiences of scholars of color—has been increasingly explored as part of broader questions surrounding diversity and inclusion in higher education. The process by which the academy precludes and excludes certain types of individuals from developing knowledge that would benefit society as a whole is known as epistemic injustice. Epistemological racism is a form of social injustice that occurs when researchers are excluded from research, curriculum development, scientific credit, and pedagogy based exclusively on their race or ethnicity.¹⁰ Research in political science and other fields consistently demonstrates, despite an increasing number of initiatives aimed at retaining and promoting underrepresented or marginalized groups in academia, that scholars of color remain underrepresented and experience substantial barriers to career progression, all of which are manifestations of epistemic racism.¹¹ For example, studies have demonstrated that the number of scholars of color in political science has remained flat despite diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, notwithstanding evidence of growth among students of color at the university and college levels.¹² This is particularly evident for women, Latinos, and scholars of color.¹³ For example, even small increases in Black and Latina women faculty in some departments did not see similar increases in promotions or tenure among women scholars of color.¹⁴ This creates the double bind of “in/visibility,” wherein scholars of color are “often sought out and highlighted as representative of difference,” but paradoxically are “invisible in terms of their evaluation as persons able to completely fulfill their job responsibilities.”¹⁵ White privilege is therefore a foundational feature of the political science discipline, one that continues largely unaddressed and is best represented by white men’s continued dominance of the field.¹⁶

And indeed, scholars of color report feelings of being the “outsider” in the white space of higher education¹⁷ and the “subtle and invisible ways” that certain knowledges, perspectives, backgrounds, and bodies are valued over others.¹⁸ Other studies demonstrate that faculty of color report more frequent exclusion than white faculty and report a greater number of hostile workplace experiences, including incidences of harassment and assault.¹⁹ Faculty of color also report tokenism leading to unsupportive work environments, hypervisibility, and a comparative lack of recognition of their scholarship and accomplishments.²⁰ Similarly, research on race and gender pay inequality in academia has shown the existence of wide wage gaps, where Latino and other scholars of color are paid substantially less than their white counterparts.²¹

Within mainstream IR, questions of inclusion and exclusion based on race are largely considered in terms of the metanarratives of IR itself, rather than the lived experience of scholars of color who study and work in this field. The marginalization of research on race within IR institutionalizes an exclusionary approach that considers such issues nonessential to understanding global politics.²² This is despite a wealth of scholarship on the history of racism in IR practice and theory, such as its relationship to the international order, (de)colonization, state-making and diplomacy, and bias toward scholars from academies in the Global North.²³ Growing concerns about diversity in the field of IR often reflect a tension between what are seen as the most legitimate and authoritative conceptual and methodological tools for IR scholars, compared to the lived experiences of academic practice in a field where access, resources, and knowledge production are highly asymmetrical.²⁴

Within the subfield of security studies, these patterns of underrepresentation and experiences of discrimination are underresearched. Some scholarship attuned to race in security studies does explore how global racial hierarchies are a key organizing feature of great-power politics.²⁵ Key concepts in mainstream security studies, such as survival, are based on historiographies that privilege Euro-American values and beliefs over accurate portrayals of the extent to which colonialism and imperialism were constitutive features of world order beyond the West.²⁶ As Fiona B. Adamson argues, “Not only is race made invisible, but also the security effects of race—such as racialized violence and the legacies of colonial histories—are not defined as ‘security issues.’”²⁷ Even more so, work that explores the effects of social cleavages, ethnic conflict, race, and class on regional security in the Global South is not considered as mainstream international security and branded as comparative politics rather than security studies.²⁸

But whereas security studies scholarship highlights the gendered politics of inclusion and exclusion across security studies teaching and education²⁹—addressing women scholars’ lived, exclusionary experiences—very few studies have explored race as an explicit category of analysis or experience, to the point where “race is almost invisible as a salient factor in security studies.”³⁰ Most notably, almost no research has been conducted on the experiences of inclusion and exclusion in the field based on race.³¹ Scholars of color carry the burden of exposing how deeply racism runs within IR, which is in part reflective of how IR scholars have “carefully avoided the role race plays in our field.”³² For instance, Meg K. Guliford details powerfully her constant experiences of racial stereotyping as an early career academic woman of color, in which students, her peers, and senior scholars “refuse to see me as a member of the professional and intellectual community I’ve worked to join.”³³ Guliford reported that on three separate occasions, attendees of an evening reception at the ISA 2018 Annual Convention in San Francisco assumed she was hotel staff and inquired after canapés.³⁴ Such exclusion is institutionalized in professional associations: ISA lacks a research or conference section on race and has no caucus for scholars of color.³⁵ As Naazneen H. Barma documents, this broader structural racism continues to undermine the career development and prospects of people of color within security studies and the policy arena, despite “welcome initiatives to amplify, bolster, and expand the diversity of voices in the national security sphere.”³⁶ Nevertheless, experiences of exclusion and marginalization in the security studies subfield remain largely unaddressed, with almost no research on how both formal and informal barriers to participation have undermined professional advancement of scholars of color in security studies. Our article directly addresses this gap by examining the results of a 2019 survey of security studies scholars.

Data and Methods

To provide insights into the experiences of scholars of color within security studies, we use data from the 2019 ISSS membership survey. The survey invitation was emailed to all section members in February, with a reminder sent in March. The survey was administered via Qualtrics and was open for seven weeks between February and April 2019.³⁷ The survey garnered a response rate of 21.2%: of 1,613 members, 342 people responded to at least one question. In terms of survey content, approximately half the questions related to general membership issues, such as what members valued about the organization, and the other half involved questions about diversity and demographic questions. The survey was not advertised as a survey on diversity. Had it been, the pool of respondents may have been different, because members’ interest in diversity issues may have affected their willingness to respond.

Given the global nature of security studies, we did not want to offer a prescribed set of options for race/ethnicity, so respondents provided their race/ethnicity in an open-text field. More than one-third of respondents (36.8%) chose not to do so, with most of those leaving the answer blank, but others responding “human” or “not relevant.”³⁸ Of those who identified a race/ethnicity (63.2%), 80% (173) indicated white/Caucasian, and the remaining 20% (43) identified a variety of racial/ethnic identities, which can be broadly grouped into four categories: Asian, Black, Hispanic, and mixed. Following Kathryn B. H. Clancy et al., we grouped respondents into two categories: scholars of color and white scholars.³⁹

In terms of our ability to generalize from our survey data, our data sample is small; however, as explained above, our sample size is more than adequate given our use of statistical tests that compare groups, such as t-tests. In addition, respondents were self-selected from the entire population rather than randomly selected. However, respondents were generally representative of the broader population in terms of gender and race. Women made up 35% of respondents and 37.9% of section members. For race, though ISA does not provide breakdowns at the section level, 22% of ISA members identify as scholars of color, similar to 20% of our respondents.⁴⁰ Though random, representative samples are the gold standard, insisting on them incorrectly implies other sampling techniques lack value,⁴¹ and also overlooks the fact that truly random and representative samples are extremely difficult to collect.⁴² In addition, survey research on discrimination, exclusion, and climate within academia rarely uses random, representative samples, as illustrated by peer-reviewed articles in not only IR⁴³ and political science,⁴⁴ but also psychology,⁴⁵ archaeology,⁴⁶ dentistry,⁴⁷ earth and space sciences,⁴⁸ engineering,⁴⁹ and other STEM fields.⁵⁰ Without such statistical analyses, perceptions of systemic and structural inequities can be rendered invisible or dismissively reduced to anecdotal evidence, and without data collection, structural racism and sexism’s effects are difficult to quantify.⁵¹ Nevertheless, the self-selected nature of our sample, though representative in terms of gender and race, means generalizability to the larger population should not be assumed. Bolstering the wider applicability of our findings, however, is the fact that dozens of studies on race across a range of academic disciplines support them.

In addition to race and gender, the survey asked respondents about their highest level of education, academic rank, geographic information (including country of origin and country of current affiliation), and their scholarly choices (including epistemology, methodology, and theoretical approaches). Respondent academic rank is split across five categories: graduate student (14%), assistant professor (22%), associate professor (23%), full professor (23%), and “other” (which included postdoctoral fellows, casual lecturers, and policy positions). A slight majority of respondents were born in the United States (52%) and are currently affiliated with an American institution (57%). In terms of scholarly choices, 58% characterized their work as positivist. Theoretical approaches were split, with the top three choices being constructivism (27%), realism (24%), and nonparadigmatic analysis (22%). Respondents were asked for their top three methods, and qualitative analysis (79%), case studies (74%), and policy analysis (33%) were the most frequent choices.

Within our sample, many areas of similarity exist between scholars of color and white scholars. Respondents report similar rates of participation in relevant conferences and functions. The two groups also do not report significant differences in age, academic rank, epistemology, theoretical orientation, or research methods. Key differences emerged in three areas: perceptions of climate, experiences of harassment and exclusion, and interest in professional opportunities. To analyze these differences, we provide descriptive statistics and utilize statistical tests that compare groups. For interval variables, we use independent samples t-tests, and for ordinal variables, we use Mann-Whitney tests. For categorical variables, we use chi-square tests of independence. Levels of statistical significance are reported throughout.

Race and Racism in Security Studies

Our survey findings indicate important differences between scholars of color and white scholars on a range of measures related to race and racial exclusion, notably assessments of the security studies climate, experiences of harassment and marginalization, interest in professional opportunities and advancement, and perceptions of diversity initiatives. These results provide clear support for the claim that scholars of color and white scholars have different lived experiences within security studies and ISSS as a professional association. Although the limited nature of our data means our conclusions relate only to our sample population, the findings are consistent with those in the larger scholarly literature on the experiences of scholars of color across academia.

Security Studies Climate

The survey asked several climate-related questions to assess perceptions about security studies. While 73.9% of white scholars reported feeling welcome most or all of the time, only 59% of scholars of color did (see Figure 1). This finding is statistically significant at the 99% confidence level.⁵² Differences are especially apparent at the extremes: for example, scholars of color were almost six times more likely to say they “never” felt welcome in the security studies section than white scholars (17.9% versus 3.1%).

Figure 1. Do you feel welcome in ISSS?, by group.

Respondents were asked to classify both ISSS and security studies more broadly along a range of indicators—insular, clubby, old boys’ club, diverse, and inclusive—using rankings of “to a great extent,” “to some extent,” and “not at all.” On all measures, scholars of color were less likely to rank both ISSS and security studies positively than white scholars (see Figure 2). The racialized difference was statistically significant in two cases, with scholars of color more likely to report ISSS as clubby and an old boys’ club, both at the 95% confidence level.⁵³ The discrepancy in perceptions is especially noticeable in those answering “to a great extent”: clubby (45.2% of scholars of color compared to 28.6% of white scholars), and an old boys’ club (46.2% versus 23.2%). Taken together, these findings from our sample further evidence the hostile conditions that broader studies identify for scholars of color.⁵⁴

Figure 2. To what extent do “insular,” “clubby,” and “old boys’ club” describe ISSS?, by group.

A number of open-text responses further elaborate on the “clubby” nature of security studies leadership. Some noted that although the ISSS Governing Council is diversified in terms of gender, its racial diversity is quite limited. Over the past 25 years, 40% of ISSS section chairs have been women, but only approximately 15% have been scholars of color. Others noted that ISSS leaders tend to be drawn from similar institutions, and often members of its governing council run for additional terms. One respondent asked, “Can’t you come up with a more diverse slate of board members? Some sections do a mix of elected and appointed board members—why not something like that? Also, you should prevent the same people from getting on the board again and again—get some new blood.” Another respondent noted a more positive spin: “It’s a tight and friendly group, but more effort needs to be put in to make it more inclusive.”

One interesting finding is that scholars of color, more than white scholars, report security studies as an old boys’ club, given that this characterization seems to link to gender rather than race. However, some respondents explicitly linked racialized experiences to forms of exclusion practiced by some white men. One raised the issue in relation to governance structures: “The problem of course with the leadership is that the good old boys’ network self-perpetuates. Voting for leadership is a popularity contest. If you’re not already part of the network, even if you run for a leadership position, you’re not going to win. There’s no way for women, scholars of color and other underrepresented minorities to have a chance at leadership.” Another voiced concern about more informal gatekeeping: “I’ve felt lack of interest from old White Man Scholars from Northern countries who haven’t engaged in the discussion even when my theoretical and methodological appointments were addressed to their own work.” Based on their experiences, this academic believed Northern scholars are unlikely to consider theoretical work by scholars from the Global South.

Harassment and Exclusion

Racialized differences were prominent on issues related to harassment and exclusion. The survey asked, “At ISA/ISSS events and functions, have you ever experienced verbal or nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status?” Almost a third of scholars of color reported such experiences, at a rate almost double that of white scholars (32.5% versus 16.5%) (see Figure 3). This difference is significant at the 95% confidence level (see Figure 4).⁵⁵ These findings are consistent with scholarship on race and racism in the wider academy, particularly confirming experiences of exclusion, ostracism among peers, and epistemic racism.⁵⁶

Figure 3. Experiences of harassment and exclusion at ISA/ISSS events, by group.

Figure 4. Mean scores of harassment and exclusion, by group.

Respondents could select factors they believed led to the experiences of exclusion or harassment (checking all that they felt applied). Scholars of color were almost eight times more likely to indicate they believed race played at least a part than white scholars (85% versus 11%). Of those respondents who reported these types of negative incidents, the survey asked how many times they had experienced them, from once to more than five times. More than 30% of scholars of color reported experiencing harassment or exclusion more than five times, compared to 4% of white scholars, representing an almost eightfold difference for scholars of color.

These findings link to extensive research about racial microaggressions, defined as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.”⁵⁷ Research documents how microaggressions appear in the negative feedback scholars of color receive after presenting their work, as well as in prejudices and attitudes to which they are subject in social gatherings, such as panels, receptions, and networking meetings.⁵⁸ While an individual microaggression may seem small, their cumulative effect on scholars of color can be dramatic, including feelings of self-doubt, frustration, and battle fatigue, which can lead to reduced performance, feelings of isolation, and a higher likelihood of leaving the academy.⁵⁹

Numerous respondents gave insight into their experiences of racialized mistreatment and microaggressions at academic events. One scholar, who noted they do not “pass for white” and have a “marked ethnic accent,” relayed an experience in which a panel chair “basically ignored my existence beyond allowing me to present.” The scholar said they had not done anything to warrant this treatment and believed that perhaps their being from Western Asia explained the incident. Another respondent indicated they felt excluded from opportunities that arose from panels: even when others showed an interest in their work, “there never is any follow-up—no invitations for organized books, special [issues], anything, unlike others at the same event who, though less complex or less grounded, sound more familiar both in terms of English accent/vocabulary and of content.”

Other respondents reported incidents of being openly ignored by others. One said, “When reading the name and university off my badge, people just walk away. Having been treated this way as a junior scholar on my first ISA panel, I decided ISSS events wouldn’t be a welcoming space to participate for an ethnic minority female working on non-quant, non-traditional security.” Yet another participant told a similar story, saying, “When I try to strike up conversations with new people, they talk to me extremely briefly and are constantly looking over my shoulder for someone that looks like a more typical security scholar (aka white male). No one introduces themselves to me. I feel sick every time I go to ISSS receptions because I know I should attend but I always get patronized or ignored. It’s NOT a welcome environment for scholars who are not white men.”

Professional Opportunities and Advancement

Perhaps because scholars of color find security studies less welcoming than white scholars, they express greater interest in opportunities for professional development and diversity initiatives. When asked to what extent they would be interested in a variety of initiatives, scholars of color were significantly more likely than white scholars to show enthusiasm for policy workshops, academic skills workshops, and formal mentoring programs.⁶⁰

The survey also asked respondents how important a variety of section benefits were to them, and whether they felt they had sufficient access to those opportunities. These benefits included networking, a community of like-minded individuals, mentoring, opportunities to present research, and opportunities to receive feedback on research. For all but mentoring, more than 90% of scholars of color, and more than 80% of white scholars, said these benefits were important. For mentoring, 75% of scholars of color felt this was an important benefit, whereas only 44% of white scholars did. This difference between groups is statistically significant at the 99% confidence level.⁶¹ In addition, for each of these five benefits, most white scholars indicated they had sufficient opportunities.

However, at least half of scholars of color reported they wanted more opportunities for networking, accessing a community of like-minded individuals, and mentoring. The differences between groups in desiring more opportunities were statistically significant for three of the benefits: accessing a community of like-minded individuals, mentoring, and presenting research.⁶² For example, scholars of color were 1.5 times more likely to desire more opportunities for mentoring than white scholars (71% versus 46%). These survey responses affirm broader findings about visibility and opportunities for scholars of color, many of whom identify a lack of support, investment, and recognition for scholarly accomplishments.⁶³

Our survey also found major differences between scholars of color and white scholars regarding diversity initiatives. Scholars of color were almost twice as likely to say yes, diversity initiatives are needed (86% versus 48%) and, while more than 10% of white scholars said diversity initiatives are not needed, not a single color of scholar expressed this opinion. Scholars of color were also much more interested in participating in diversity initiatives: 70% said they were interested, compared to 40% of white scholars (see Figure 5). Over 20% of white scholars indicated no interest in participating in diversity initiatives, whereas no scholars of color indicated this. These differences are statistically significant at the 99.9% confidence level.⁶⁴

Figure 5. Need for, and interest in, diversity initiatives, by group.

Survey respondents offered numerous suggestions about how ISSS, and security studies more broadly, could enhance professional development opportunities for scholars of color. Promoting greater participation in the field should be a priority, according to several respondents. Funding is important, both for PhD students and for conference participation; one noted, “Figuring out ways to help the grad students attend ISA would be a concrete and significant step toward inclusion and diversity.” Publishing was another often-mentioned area for assistance. One participant said, “It is very much the case that while my writing is not bad, it bears some markings of having been written by a non-native speaker of English. I believe that this fact alone harms my chances.” Another focused on equalizing access to contributing to special issues of journals and edited volumes, saying: “Leadership should think about ways to encourage or even directly incentivize senior scholars to include underrepresented scholars.” Others mentioned the importance of recognizing the work of scholars of color, for example, by holding workshops and gatherings that highlight their scholarship. Another was critical of the lack of diversity among recipients of ISSS’s top honor, the Distinguished Scholar Award, saying, “The section should be dreadfully ashamed of the distinguished scholar award list. Are there really so few women and non-American scholars that deserve the award?” In addition, several respondents argued for initiatives that focused on Global South issues, including, for example, security studies in Latin America and recognition of security issues within developing countries.

Alternative Explanations: Scholarly Choices and Institutional Location

Our findings indicate that scholars of color feel marginalized in the field of security studies—results echoed by dozens of studies about scholars of color in other academic fields. However, we also consider two alternative explanations for these findings: scholarly choices and institutional location. With regard to the former, if scholars of color use theoretical or methodological approaches outside the security studies mainstream, that may provide an alternative explanation for reported marginalization. However, we can safely reject this explanation: although our sample did indicate statistically significant differences between scholars of color and white scholars along a range of climate, harassment, and professional opportunity indicators, it did not reveal any significant differences between scholars of color and white scholars regarding scholarly choices. Indeed, we find that scholars of color are no more likely to use critical perspectives or methods than white scholars. For example, the most preferred theoretical approach among scholars of color was realism, at almost 30%, which was only the third choice among white scholars (22.2%), whereas the preferred theoretical approach of white scholars was constructivism (30.4%), which was the third choice of scholars of color (16.7%).⁶⁵ Epistemological choices also reveal no significant differences between the groups.⁶⁶ This lack of difference between scholars of color and white scholars in terms of scholarly choices is also present in the much larger sample collected by the Teaching and Research in International Relations (TRIP) team at William & Mary, with only minor differences between the two groups in terms of epistemological and theoretical choices.⁶⁷

Another important alternative explanation for marginalization relates to institutional affiliations in the Global South, where levels of funding, connections to journals, and other factors that enhance professional success may be less available. To what extent does institutional location influence a sense of exclusion? Because survey respondents provided the country of both their Ph.D.-granting institution and their current institution, we were able to investigate this question. As with scholarly choices, we can likely reject this explanation: on almost all climate- and hostility-related measures, scholars who received their Ph.D.s from, or who were currently affiliated with, institutions in the Global South were no more likely to report exclusion than scholars who received their Ph.D.s from, or who were currently affiliated with, institutions in the Global North. For example, in answering the question, “Do you feel welcome?,” while scholars of color differed significantly compared to white scholars, neither the location of a respondent’s Ph.D. institution, nor their current institution, exerted a statistically significant influence.⁶⁸ Regarding experiences of harassment and hostility, although scholars of color differed significantly compared to white scholars, neither the location of a respondent’s Ph.D.-granting institution, nor their current institution, exerted a statistically significant influence on the likelihood of reporting such experiences.⁶⁹ For multiple questions asking respondents to rate both ISSS and security studies more generally in terms of diversity, inclusivity, insularity, clubbiness, and being an old boys’ club, there were no statistically significant differences between scholars currently affiliated with institutions located in the Global North and Global South. For scholars receiving a Ph.D. in the Global North versus Global South, the only statistically significant difference across the ten items was to what extent ISSS was diverse.⁷⁰

Implications

Despite a stated interest by gatekeepers to increase the representation of racial and ethnic minorities in the political science discipline, scholars of color remain underrepresented. Too few enter the academic pipeline as undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty, and those who do enter are more likely to exit than their white peers.⁷¹ Though explanations for “why” have proved elusive for some, our research offers important insights.

Our data show that scholars of color are more likely than white scholars to report security studies as an old boys’ club in which they experience harassment and exclusion, and enjoy fewer opportunities for professional development, even at conference panels and networking events. This indicates that discursive overtures to diversity, equity, and inclusion by professional associations, and by academic institutions more generally, do not necessarily correspond to changes in culture, operation, and policy. Furthermore, it also suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature and extent of the problem from the vantage points of different scholars.

Our survey findings also raise questions about what security studies is and who defines its parameters. The discipline has significantly evolved since the end of the Cold War, with rich theoretical approaches and empirical concerns, but the absence of racial perspectives is puzzling.⁷² Demands for racial inclusion are not simply posed for the sake of diversity, but for the advancement of the discipline. There are increasing concerns about the relevance of the security studies field to explain and understand the recent global reckoning over race. Exclusion of scholars of color and the narrow research queries addressing race in security studies raise the questions if the field is part of the problem or incapable of adjusting our theoretical frameworks to the rapidly shifting times. Claims for racial inclusion are thus framed as an opportunity to reshape security studies’ disciplinary boundaries by incorporating new research questions and perspectives. Failure to respond to these demands could make security studies not only unwelcoming, but also more insular and one day obsolete.

The survey results have important implications for the knock-on effects of racial homogeneity, epistemic injustice, and racism in security studies classrooms and professional associations, which do not end in academia. Racial exclusion exists also in the practice of national security and in policymaking circles. For instance, a recent survey of United Nations staffers in Geneva indicated that experiences of racial discrimination were prevalent within the world organization.⁷³ A study conducted among nuclear threat professionals likewise found systemic barriers to innovation, collaboration, and inclusion across gender, race, and age.⁷⁴ The US armed forces are also in the midst of a cultural self-appraisal to reduce institutional biases against soldiers of color, who are overwhelmingly underrepresented in positions of military leadership and receive unequal treatment in the military justice system.⁷⁵ While public opinion surveys consistently report experiences of institutional racism, its causes and possible solutions remain contentious, requiring profound structural reforms. Feminist scholars’ research explained the political and economic structural conditions that render women insecure through the gendered division of labor in the global market.⁷⁶ Scholars of color go through similar experiences of social degradation; they are not only underrepresented in the profession, but they also face higher barriers for success once they enter the field.⁷⁷ This raises questions about how prevailing economic and social structures affect the composition of ISSS membership. For instance, unconscious racial biases in academic hiring and recruitment could contribute to the lack of representation of scholars of color in security studies. Salary gaps between white scholars and scholars of color can increase racial inequalities and undermine equity.⁷⁸ Facing racial microaggressions on a regular basis can undermine self-confidence, increase a sense of isolation, generate stress, and reduce performance.⁷⁹

In the United States, where the preponderance of security studies research is published, federal policymakers and policy practitioners similarly lack racial diversity. When security studies is practiced, there are very few nonwhite people in the room. For example, in 2018, 68% of all Department of State employees were white.⁸⁰ Most nonwhite employees are concentrated in lower-ranking roles: the more senior the role, the greater the proportion of employees who are white. As a result, 87% of the most senior people in civil service are white. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report concludes that “racial or ethnic minority” women and men “in the Civil Service had statistically significantly lower odds of promotion than White men.”⁸¹ This is an issue even among those who most intensively cultivate US foreign relationships. According to the GAO, between 2002 and 2018, the percentage of Black Americans in the Foreign Service only increased by 1%, from 6% to 7% (compared to Black individuals accounting for 13% of the US population).⁸²

Who shapes, creates, and practices security policy matters for two reasons. First, people of color bring valuable perspectives on issues that predominantly white teams may overlook. Second, the dearth of people of color in policymaking reflects larger, structural issues of racism and related blocks to advancement and opportunity in the United States. Racially exclusionary structures, practices, and attitudes in the domestic sphere reverberate internationally, and they shape the face of security threat. For example, the African Union issued a statement condemning George Floyd’s murder at the hands of Minneapolis police officers. The statement notes that African heads of state have long criticized US treatment of Black Americans, officially since 1964, and it condemns continuing violence.⁸³

Addressing Diversity in the Security Studies Field

Given our findings on disparate experiences of exclusion between scholars of color and white scholars in security studies—all of which are affirmed by the larger scholarly literature on exclusion of people of color in IR and the broader academy—we have seven key recommendations for how higher educational institutions might more effectively meet calls for diversity and inclusion in the IR field in general and in the security studies subfield in particular.

The first recommendation we draw from our research relates to the collation of data on representation by professional associations, publishers, and universities. For example, ISA does not currently publish or publicize data on scholars’ race and ethnicity, which produces an incomplete picture of its membership. Relatedly, we have a poor understanding of the representation of people of color, women, and people from the Global South by research area. This dearth of data undermines the field’s ability to devise and execute remedies and target them where they are most needed. We suggest a membership dashboard like the American Political Science Association (APSA) has, which has data on race, ethnicity, gender, and geographic region, including by research area. However, we recognize that some scholars will be uncomfortable providing data on race: over 30% of the ISSS respondents did not respond to this question in the survey or wrote “human” or “not relevant.” Nevertheless, providing the option to list race as part of demographic data is important.

A second and related recommendation is data sharing throughout professional associations and academic networks. Surveys should be fielded across association sections and caucuses, and the findings shared broadly. We admit that we were troubled by the numerous accounts of harassment and exclusion of our colleagues of color in security studies and IR more generally. Collecting and sharing data can raise awareness of this unjust mistreatment. Harassment and exclusion isolate colleagues, making them feel like they are alone in their experiences, when in fact they are not alone. Acknowledgment can reduce feelings of isolation and possibly decrease the likelihood of colleagues exiting the field due to bias. Too often, when colleagues share their experiences, they are interrogated: “Are you sure that’s what happened?” “I know him, and he’s been very helpful to me and others. What exactly did he say? Is it possible that you misunderstood?” “She’s an ally; I’ve never heard anyone say what you’re saying.” Acknowledgment would help stem these unfair lines of questioning that persistently hold down marginalized individuals and hold up privileged individuals, reinforcing structures and systems of inequality. What is more, quantitative data and methods allow the field to recognize patterns so that discrimination is not dismissed as a one-off occurrence rather than the pervasive and corrosive reality that it is. Acknowledgment would also help us confront shortcomings in disciplinary efforts to produce change.

Building on this, a third recommendation relates to a notable shortcoming of the absence of a Scholars of Color Caucus in ISA and sister associations such as the European Consortium for Political Research. This is striking, given that several identity-related caucuses, sections and regions exist within ISA, including the Women’s Caucus for International Studies, the Latin America and Caribbean Region, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer & Allies Caucus.⁸⁴ There is the Global South Caucus of International Studies. And the Global Development Studies Section has for many years served as an informal hub for scholars of color in ISA. In late summer 2020, ISA also surveyed members about support for a possible organized section on Critical Race IR. There is now also a new Global International Relations Section. But these collectives are not enough. Not all scholars of color hail from Global South countries; not all scholars of color study global development; and not all scholars of color are critical theorists or study decolonization. In fact, scholars of color who responded to our survey were more likely to be positivist and apply quantitative methods than white scholars in the section (although the differences were not statistically significant). There remains a notable gap in not only ISA, but the larger field, in attempts to recruit, incorporate, support, and serve members from diverse backgrounds.

A fourth recommendation emerges whereby, across a range of indicators, respondents of color consistently expressed a greater interest than white scholars in opportunities for mentoring within and outside professional associations, indicating an unmet need in security studies. Scholars of color similarly expressed a greater interest in opportunities to present research and receive feedback, and to build community with like-minded people. Several complementary options are available to meet this need among our membership. For instance, for professional associations, dedicated networking meetings and mentoring programs for scholars of color could be held not only at annual meetings, but at related conferences around the world. Publishers and editors should be part of this conversation because they too can make a difference by ensuring that publication venues are open to new ideas and willing to review research conducted by scholars of color. In addition, a handful of Washington, D.C.-based organizations, such as the Association of Black American Ambassadors and Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security, and Conflict Transformation, run leadership, training, mentoring, and networking programs focused specifically on practitioners of color. Professional associations can replicate these experiences or invite these organizations to share lessons learned, join efforts, and build coalitions, using online forums to allow participation from scholars of color around the world. Moreover, funding can and should be made available to support graduate students from groups historically excluded from academia working in security studies. This could include seed money for research projects, as well as conference and travel grants.

The fifth recommendation we draw from our research is the importance of associations, publishers, and individual scholars setting high standards for inclusion and equality. Improving representation in security studies, IR, and the academy writ large, as well as creating a more welcoming and supportive environment for all, will not be a quick or easy task. Racial inequality entails institutionalized and socialized practices of discrimination that organizations and communities rarely address. For example, the issue of microaggressions can be addressed through awareness campaigns, diversity training, codes of conduct, and socialization.⁸⁵ This is the area where professional associations can be most impactful by making explicit efforts to socialize its members through workshops and conferences. But these have their own challenges, especially if they are perceived as “token efforts” to improve representation to give the appearance of being fair or to avoid criticism.⁸⁶ The practice of inviting just one scholar of color into panels and editorial boards is a concrete example of tokenism, intended mostly for appearances without making any substantial improvements on equity or diversification. Tokenism undermines representation because the overall experience of serving as a so-called token is negative for the scholar of color and perpetuates microaggressions. The point is to be more proactive in cultivating an environment of racial inclusion. Association statements condemning racial discrimination, such as those delivered by ISA, the European International Studies Association, and the APSA, are important but only the beginning. A more compelling response by the British International Studies Association (BISA) highlighted the “perniciousness of institutionalised inequality, racism, and injustice” and argued for the importance of standing in solidarity with the now-global Movement for Black Lives while working to realize systemic change. BISA also urged colleagues to understand and address issues related to the leaky pipeline, mentorship and professional development, outreach and coproduction, and best practices for teaching and learning, among others.⁸⁷ Publishers can contribute to this task by openly grappling with race and racism in scholarship and in the world. For example, we can point to a series of essays on race and IR in Foreign Policy and a Black Lives Matter topic guide curated from articles published in the Washington Post.⁸⁸

While our research focuses on security studies, our findings generalize to other areas within IR and, more generally, to political science and the academy.⁸⁹ Structural conditions and social practices create an environment that is both discriminatory and toxic for the profession. It affects not only representation per se, but the discipline as a whole. Scientific progress becomes limited if only certain forms of knowledge, produced by a narrow set of professors, are considered as “acceptable.” New discoveries, innovative thinking, and creative explanations are more likely to emerge when challenging the conventional wisdom. In this vein, we invite colleagues in professional associations and academic institutions to survey their members in order that we might all better understand the nature and extent of the problem of racial exclusion and devise and implement solutions.

A sixth recommendation involves how the academy rewards good mentorship and service. It is not unusual for scholars of color to have heavier service burdens than their white counterparts, a phenomenon associated with tokenism, described above. Research from the social sciences has found that scholars of color and those who are immigrants, queer, and from working-class backgrounds tend to spend a disproportionate amount of time serving on diversity committees, mentoring students of underrepresented backgrounds, and overall serving as academic advisors to mostly students of color.⁹⁰ From this perspective, the root of epistemic racism lies in the unequal and unfair division of labor in the academy, which puts a premium on research productivity but gives little or no credit to service. We call on the academic community to carefully review the ethical standards we have created to measure scientific contributions and grant merits. Service and mentorship are essential tools to reorganize our field and train the next generation of scholars, which is why both practices should be rewarded and acknowledged, especially when delegated to underrepresented scholars.

Our seventh and final recommendation takes us back to where all our journeys as scholars begin: the classroom. We recommend integrating critical IR perspectives into undergraduate and graduate curricula; this includes discussing feminist, queer, and critical race theories with the same seriousness we have treated dominant IR paradigms, such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism.⁹¹ Evidence from recent surveys shows that opening spaces to discuss critical issues about race has yielded concrete positive results, such as incorporating more diverse perspectives into required readings for undergraduate and graduate programs globally.⁹² Incorporating critical and diverse perspectives into our curricula can also incentivize classroom engagements, allow for civic conversations about race and racism, and even recruit more individuals from historically excluded backgrounds into our still exclusive field and discipline.

How a More Racially Inclusive Field Could Benefit Security Studies

We conclude by asking: How might a more racially inclusive security studies field affect the way we study security? We speculate at least three positive changes could result. First, greater inclusivity is likely to increase the number of scholars of color who specialize, and choose to stay, in the field. We cannot be sure this would change the type of work currently being done within security studies: in both our sample and the TRIP survey, a person’s race was not highly correlated with their epistemological or theoretical approaches. However, it may be that scholars of color conform in their scholarly choices to maximize acceptance—a conformity that would not be required in a more inclusive environment. In the same vein, scholars who do take different approaches may leave the field due to its current hostile climate. If either or both of these are true, then greater numbers of scholars of color within security studies are likely to broaden the field’s perspectives. Second, a more inclusive security studies field would make the issue of race more acceptable to study, potentially reshaping our disciplinary boundaries. Students and scholars would be free to explore how race and ethnicity shape international security, as security studies scholars. Third, a more inclusive security studies would produce higher-quality, and more innovative, research. Diverse teams produce better work, and our discipline is no exception. Indeed, without barriers erected by racial discrimination and exclusion, our field would be closer to evaluating ideas on their own merit, rather than by who produced them.

To take up the promise of a more inclusive field, we reiterate the need for accountability and collective action. As argued in a recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

While no single person can change everything, each of us has the power to take antiracist action based on our own unique position, privilege, and influence… . only leaders with decision-making power can make changes to admissions, hiring, and promotion structures … But individuals at all levels of an organization can commit to “calling in”—as opposed to calling out—their peers when they hear racist ideas or actions being perpetuated.⁹³

Anti-racism campaigns are much more effective at promoting change when supported and endorsed by a multiracial, multiethnic coalition. Hence, denouncing individual and structural racism and improving equity in our field entail collective social and moral responsibilities.

Data Availability Statement

The data and materials that support the findings of this study are available in the Security Studies Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ROOSKG.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by a grant from the International Security Studies Section of the International Studies Association. Kelebogile Zvobgo’s contribution to this article is made possible in part by fellowships from the University of Southern California (Provost Fellowship in the Social Sciences) and William & Mary (Global Research Institute Pre-doctoral Fellowship). In addition, material provided by Kelebogile Zvobgo is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE-1418060. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the above-listed funders.

Notes on contributors

Kelebogile Zvobgo

Kelebogile Zvobgo is an assistant professor of government at William & Mary, a faculty affiliate at the Global Research Institute, and the founder and director of the International Justice Lab.

Arturo C. Sotomayor

Arturo C. Sotomayor is an independent analyst and an affiliate faculty of the Cisneros Hispanic Leadership Institute at George Washington University.

Maria Rost Rublee

Maria Rost Rublee is an associate professor of international relations at Monash University, chair of the International Security Studies Section Diversity Task Force, nonresident fellow with the Sea Power Centre, and a research affiliate at the Monash Gender, Peace & Security Centre and the Monash Better Governance and Policy Research Centre.

Meredith Loken

Meredith Loken is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Amsterdam.

George Karavas

George Karavas is an independent researcher and research associate at Monash University.

Constance Duncombe

Constance Duncombe is an associate professor and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow in the Department of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen, and adjunct lecturer at Monash University. Authors are listed in reverse alphabetical order. All authors contributed equally to this article.

Notes

1 Jamila Michener, “George Floyd’s Killing Was Just the Spark,” Monkey Cage (blog), Washington Post, 11 June 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/11/george-floyds-killing-was-just-spark-heres-what-really-made-protests-explode/.

2 Adrienne Brown, “Seeing Race in a Pandemic,” Foreign Policy, 1 July 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/physical-built-environment-affects-perceptions-race/; LaGina Gause, “Black People Have Protested Police Killings for Years,” Monkey Cage (blog), Washington Post, 12 June 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/12/black-people-have-protested-police-killings-years-heres-why-officials-are-finally-responding/.

3 Gurminder K. Bhambra et al., “Why Is Mainstream International Relations Blind to Racism?” Foreign Policy, 3 July 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/ 07/03/why-is-mainstream-international-relations-ir-blind-to-racism-colonialism/; Robbie Shilliam, “When Did Racism Become Solely a Domestic Issue?” Foreign Policy, 23 June 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/23/racism-ir-international-relations-domestic/; Kelebogile Zvobgo and Meredith Loken, “Why Race Matters in International Relations,” Foreign Policy 237 (2020): 11–13; Robbie Shilliam, Decolonizing Politics: An Introduction (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2021).

4 Nidhi Subbaraman, “How #BlackInTheIvory Put a Spotlight on Racism in Academia,” Nature, News Q&A, 11 June 2020, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01741-7.

5 Daniel Maliniak, Ryan Powers, and Barbara F. Walter, “The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations,” International Organization 67, no. 4 (October 2013): 889–92; Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, Samantha Lange, and Holly Brus, “Gendered Citation Patterns in International Relations Journals,” International Studies Perspectives 14, no. 4 (November 2013): 485–92; Kiran Phull, Gokhan Ciflikli, and Gustav Meibauer, “Gender and Bias in the International Relations Curriculum: Insights from Reading Lists,” European Journal of International Relations 25, no. 2 (June 2019): 383–407; Christina Fattore, “Nevertheless, She Persisted: Women’s Experiences and Perceptions within the International Studies Association,” International Studies Perspectives 20, no. 1 (February 2019): 46–62.

6 Geeta Chowdhry and Shirin M. Rai, “The Geographies of Exclusion and the Politics of Inclusion: Race-Based Exclusions in the Teaching of International Relations,” International Studies Perspectives 10, no. 1 (February 2009): 84–91; Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver, eds., International Relations Scholarship around the World (New York: Routledge, 2009).

7 We follow standard practice in grouping respondents into the two categories of white scholars and scholars of color. See, for example, Kathryn B. H. Clancy et al., “Double Jeopardy in Astronomy and Planetary Science: Women of Color Face Greater Risks of Gendered and Racial Harassment,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 122, no. 7 (July 2017): 1610–23; Leonora King et al., “Diversity in Geoscience: Participation, Behaviour, and the Division of Scientific Labour at a Canadian Geoscience Conference,” FACETS 3, no. 1 (October 2018): 415–40.

8 Shlomo S. Sawilowsky and R. Clifford Blair, “A More Realistic Look at the Robustness and Type II Error Properties of the t test to Departures from Population Normality,” Psychological Bulletin 111, no. 2 (March 1992): 359. See also G. E. P. Box and S. L. Andersen, “Permutation Theory in the Derivation of Robust Criteria and the Study of Departures from Assumption,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 17, no. 1 (1955): 1–26; C. Alan Boneau, “The Effects of Violations of Assumptions Underlying the t Test,” Psychological Bulletin 57, no. 1 (1960): 49–64; J. C. F. de Winter, “Using the Student’s t-Test with Extremely Small Sample Sizes,” Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 18, no. 10 (August 2013): 1–12.

9 Daniel Maliniak et al., “Is International Relations a Global Discipline? Hegemony, Insularity, and Diversity in the Field,” Security Studies 27, no. 3 (July–September 2018): 448–84.

10 Shaun R. Harper, “Race without Racism: How Higher Education Researchers Minimize Racist Institutional Norms,” Review of Higher Education 36, no. 1 (Fall 2012): 9–29; James Joseph Scheurich and Michelle D. Young, “Coloring Epistemologies: Are Our Research Epistemologies Racially Biased?” Educational Research 26, no. 4 (May 1997): 4–16.

11 Karina L. Walters et al., “‘Before They Kill My Spirit Entirely’: Insights into the Lived Experiences of American Indian Alaska Native Faculty at Research Universities,” Race Ethnicity and Education 22, no. 5 (September 2019): 610–33; King et al., “Diversity in Geoscience”; T. Elon Dancy II and M. Christopher Brown II, “The Mentoring and Induction of Educators of Color: Addressing the Impostor Syndrome in Academe,” Journal of School Leadership 21, no. 4 (July 2011): 607–34; Valeria Sinclair-Chapman, “Leveraging Diversity in Political Science for Institutional and Disciplinary Change,” PS: Political Science & Politics 48, no. 3 (July 2015): 454–58; Lee Ann Fujii, “The Real Problem with Diversity in Political Science,” Duck of Minerva, 27 April 2017, https://duckofminerva.com/2017/04/the-real-problem-with-diversity-in-political-science.html; Rebecca A. Reid and Todd A. Curry, “Are We There Yet? Addressing Diversity in Political Science Subfields,” PS: Political Science & Politics 52, no. 2 (April 2019): 281–86.

12 Ann M. Beutel and Donna J. Nelson, “The Gender and Race-Ethnicity of Faculty in Top Social Science Research Departments,” Social Science Journal 43, no. 1 (2006): 111–25; José F. Moreno et al., The Revolving Door for Underrepresented Minority Faculty in Higher Education: An Analysis from the Campus Diversity Initiative (San Francisco: James Irvine Foundation, 2006); Sinclair-Chapman, “Leveraging Diversity.”

13 Natasha Behl, “Diasporic Researcher: An Autoethnographic Analysis of Gender and Race in Political Science,” Politics, Groups, and Identities 5, no. 4 (2017): 580–98.

14 Nikol G. Alexander-Floyd, “Women of Color, Space Invaders, and Political Science: Practical Strategies for Transforming Institutional Practices,” PS: Political Science & Politics 48, no. 3 (July 2015): 464–67; Cathy A. Trower and Richard P. Chait, “Faculty Diversity: Too Little for Too Long,” Harvard Magazine, March–April 2002, 33–37.

15 Nirmal Puwar, Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies Out of Place (Oxford: Berg, 2004), 58; Alexander-Floyd, “Women of Color”; Sara McLaughlin Mitchell and Vicki L. Hesli, “Women Don’t Ask? Women Don’t Say No? Bargaining and Service in the Political Science Profession,” PS: Political Science and Politics 46, no. 2 (April 2013): 355–69.

16 Jessica Blatt, Race and the Making of American Political Science (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018); Fujii, “Real Problem”; Reid and Curry, “Are We There Yet?”

17 Kalwant Bhopal, Hazel Brown, and June Jackson, “Should I Stay or Should I Go? BME Academics and the Decision to Leave UK Higher Education,” in Dismantling Race in Higher Education: Racism, Whiteness and Decolonising the Academy, ed. Jason Arday and Heidi Safia Mirza (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 125–39.

18 King et al., “Diversity in Geoscience”; Heidi Safia Mirza, “Decolonizing Higher Education: Black Feminism and the Intersectionality of Race and Gender,” Journal of Feminist Scholarship 7, no. 7 (Fall 2014/Spring 2015): 1–12; Sara Ahmed, On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012); Isis H. Settles, NiCole T. Buchanan, and Kristie Dotson, “Scrutinized but Not Recognized: (In)visibility and Hypervisibility Experiences of Faculty of Color,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 113 (August 2019): 62–74.

19 Clancy et al., “Double Jeopardy”; Carla A. Zimmerman, Adrienne R. Carter-Sowell, and Xiaohong Xu, “Examining Workplace Ostracism Experiences in Academia: Understanding How Differences in the Faculty Ranks Influence Inclusive Climates on Campus,” Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016): 1–9.

20 Settles, Buchanan, and Dotson, “Scrutinized but Not Recognized.”

21 Linda A. Renzulli, Linda Grant, and Sheetija Kathuria, “Race, Gender, and the Wage Gap: Comparing Faculty Salaries in Predominantly White and Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” Gender and Society 20, no. 4 (August 2006): 491–510; Zawadi Rucks-Ahidiana, “The Inequities of the Tenure-Track System,” Inside Higher Ed, 7 June 2019, https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/06/07/nonwhite-faculty-face-significant-disadvantages-tenure-track-opinion; Olivia P. Tallet, “Latino Faculty Face ‘Gross’ Pay Disparity at UT Austin,” Houston Chronicle, 6 January 2020, https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/education/article/Latino-professors-confront-grotesque-14948691.php.

22 Roxanne Lynn Doty, “The Bounds of ‘Race’ in International Relations,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 22, no. 3 (December 1993): 443–61; Amitav Acharya, “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies,” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 4 (December 2014): 647–59.

23 Audie Klotz, “Norms Reconstituting Interests: Global Racial Equality and U.S. Sanctions against South Africa,” International Organization 49, no. 3 (Summer 1995): 451–78; Robert Vitalis, “The Graceful and Generous Liberal Gesture: Making Racism Invisible in American International Relations,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29, no. 2 (June 2000): 331–56; Errol A. Henderson, “Hidden in Plain Sight: Racism in International Relations Theory,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 26, no. 1 (2013): 71–92; Adom Getachew, Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019); Vanessa E. Quince, “Racism by Design: The Role of Race and Ethnicity in the Design of International Trade Agreements” (PhD diss., University of Washington, 2018); Paige Sechrest, “Violence by the People, for the People: Torture and Brutality in Democratic States” (paper presented at the University of Washington International Security Colloquium, 30 September 2016); Sankaran Krishna, “Race, Amnesia, and the Education of International Relations,” Alternatives 26, no. 4 (October–December 2001): 401–24; Siba N. Grovogui, “Come to Africa: A Hermeneutics of Race in International Theory,” Alternatives 26, no. 4 (October–December 2001): 425–48; Henderson, “Hidden in Plain Sight”; Alexander Anievas, Nivi Manchanda, and Robbie Shilliam, eds., Race and Racism in international Relations: Confronting the Global Color Line (London: Routledge, 2015); Cecelia Lynch, “The Moral Aporia of Race in International Relations,” International Relations 33, no. 2 (June 2019): 267–85; Meera Sabaratnam, “Is IR Theory White? Racialised Subject-Positioning in Three Canonical Texts,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 49, no. 1 (September 2020): 3–31; David L. Blaney and Arlene B. Tickner, “International Relations in the Prison of Colonial Modernity,” International Relations 31, no. 1 (March 2017): 71–75; Bruce Russett and Taylor Arnold, “Who Talks, and Who’s Listening? Networks of International Security Studies,” Security Dialogue 41, no. 6 (December 2010): 589–98.

24 Ole Wæver and Arelene B. Tickner, “Introduction: Geocultural Epistemologies,” in Wæver and Tickner, International Relations Scholarship, 3.

25 Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey, “The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies,” Review of International Studies 32, no. 2 (April 2006): 329–52; Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit, “Racism in Foucauldian Security Studies: Biopolitics, Liberal War, and the Whitewashing of Colonial and Racial Violence,” International Political Sociology 13, no. 1 (March 2019): 2–19; Christian Davenport, Media Bias, Perspective, and State Repression: The Black Panther Party (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

26 Randolph B. Persaud, “Security Studies, Postcolonialism and the Third World,” in Race, Gender, and Culture in International Relations: Postcolonial Perspectives, ed. Persaud and Alina Sajed (New York: Routledge, 2018), 155–79.

27 Fiona B. Adamson, “Pushing the Boundaries: Can We ‘Decolonize’ Security Studies?” Journal of Global Security Studies 5, no. 1 (January 2020): 131. Critical approaches to terrorism studies have meanwhile recognized the role that securitized racialized narratives play in state policymaking and counterterrorism and immigration practices and legislation. See, for example, Marysia Zalewski, “Thinking Feminism and Race through the War on Terror,” Critical Studies on Terrorism 6, no. 2 (2013): 313–15; Sanne Groothuis, “Researching Race, Racialisation, and Racism in Critical Terrorism Studies: Clarifying Conceptual Ambiguities,” Critical Studies on Terrorism 13, no. 4 (2020): 680–701; David Moffette and Shaira Vadasaria, “Uninhibited Violence: Race and the Securitization of Immigration,” Critical Studies on Security 4, no. 3 (2016): 291–305.

28 Steven R. David, “Explaining Third World Alignment,” World Politics 43, no. 2 (January 1991): 233–56; Brian L. Job, ed., The Insecurity Dilemma: National Security of Third World States (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992); Mohammed Ayoob, The Third World Security Predicament: State Making, Regional Conflict, and the International System (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995).

29 Renee L. Buhr and Nicholas Sideras, “Finding the Invisible Women: Gender Stereotypes versus Student Interest in Foreign Policy and Security Subfields,” PS: Political Science & Politics 48, no. 3 (July 2015): 473–77; Maria Rost Rublee et al., “Do You Feel Welcome? Gendered Experiences in International Security Studies,” Journal of Global Security Studies 5, no. 1 (January 2020): 216–26; Steven T. Zech et al., “Active Learning and the Graduate Classroom: How Gender and International Student Status Affect Preferences and Experiences,” Journal of Political Science Education 18, no. 1 (2022): 22–34.

30 Adamson, “Pushing the Boundaries.” See also Shampa Biswas, “‘Nuclear Apartheid’ as Political Position: Race as a Postcolonial Resource?” Alternatives 26, no. 4 (October–December 2001): 485–522.

31 Barkawi and Laffey, “Postcolonial Moment”; Nicola Pratt, “Reconceptualizing Gender, Reinscribing Racial–Sexual Boundaries in International Security: The Case of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on ‘Women, Peace and Security,’” International Studies Quarterly 57, no. 4 (December 2013): 772–83.

32 Shilliam, “When Did Racism.” For examples of professional experiences of racial and gendered inequality in IR, see Christian Davenport, “The Dark Side of International Studies: Race, Racism, and Research in International Studies,” International Studies Perspectives 9, no. 4 (November 2008): 445–49; Minion K. C. Morrison, “Reflections of a Senior Scholar on the Profession of International Studies,” International Studies Perspectives 9, no. 4 (November 2008): 459–63; Brandon Valeriano, “The Lack of Diverse Perspectives in the International Relations Field: The Politics of Being Alone,” International Studies Perspectives 9, no. 4 (November 2008): 450–54.

33 Meg K. Guliford, “Even Progressive Academics Can Be Racist. I’ve Experienced It Firsthand,” Washington Post, 11 September 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/11/even-progressive-academics-can-be-racist-ive-experienced-it-firsthand/.

34 Guliford, “Even Progressive Academics.”

35 Zvobgo and Loken, “Why Race Matters.”

36 Naazneen H. Barma, “The Leaky Pipeline,” Defense 360, 27 October 2020, Center for Strategic and International Studies, https://defense360.csis.org/the-leaky-pipeline/. See also Katlyn M. Turner et al., “A Call for Antiracist Action and Accountability in the US Nuclear Community,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 24 August 2020, https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/a-call-for-antiracist-action-and-accountability-in-the-us-nuclear-community/.

37 Ethics approval was granted through Monash University.

38 Nonresponse rates are a much smaller risk to survey estimates than previously assumed; for a review of the research, see Robert M. Groves, “Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys,” in “Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys,” special issue, Public Opinion Quarterly 70, no. 5 (2006): 646–75. However, two key assessments of the threat of nonresponse bias—comparisons with population and with external data—indicate that the potential of nonresponse bias within our survey is low. See, for example, Jonathan R. B. Halbesleben and Marilyn V. Whitman, “Evaluating Survey Quality in Health Services Research: A Decision Framework for Assessing Nonresponse Bias,” Health Services Research 48, no. 3 (June 2013): 913–30.

39 Clancy et al., “Double Jeopardy.”

40 ISA Headquarters, email to Maria Rost Rublee, 21 January 2021.

41 Milo Schield, “Random Sampling versus Representative Samples,” American Statistical Association 1994 Proceedings of the Section on Statistical Education (August 1994): 107–10.

42 Giampietro Gobo, “Sampling, Representativeness and Generalizability,” in Qualitative Research Practice, ed. Clive Seale et al. (London: SAGE, 2004), 405–26.

43 Marie T. Henehan and Meredith Reid Sarkees, “Open Doors and Closed Ceilings: Gender-Based Patterns and Attitudes in the International Studies Association,” International Studies Perspectives 10, no. 4 (November 2009): 428–46; Rublee et al., “Do You Feel Welcome?”; Fattore, “Nevertheless, She Persisted”; Maliniak et al., “Is International Relations a Global Discipline?”

44 Marijke Breuning et al., “The Great Equalizer? Gender, Parenting, and Scholarly Productivity during the Global Pandemic,” PS: Political Science & Politics 54, no. 3 (July 2021): 427–31.

45 Malachi Willis, Ana J. Bridges, and Kristen N. Jozkowski, “Gender and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Rates of Publishing and Inclusion in Scientific-Review Processes,” Translational Issues in Psychological Science 7, no. 4 (December 2021): 451–61.

46 Dana N. Bardolph and Amber M. Vanderwarker, “Sociopolitics in Southeastern Archaeology: The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship,” Southeastern Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2016): 175–93; Hugh D. Radde, “Sexual Harassment among California Archaeologists: Results of the Gender Equity and Sexual Harassment Survey,” California Archaeology 10, no. 2 (December 2018): 231–55.

47 B. Heaton et al., “Survey of Dental Researchers’ Perceptions of Sexual Harassment at AADR Conferences: 2015 to 2018,” Journal of Dental Research 99, no. 5 (May 2020): 488–97.

48 Andrea L. Popp et al., “A Global Survey on the Perceptions and Impacts of Gender Inequality in the Earth and Space Sciences,” Earth and Space Science 6, no. 8 (August 2019): 1460–68.

49 Jennifer Dengate et al., “Selective Incivility, Harassment, and Discrimination in Canadian Sciences & Engineering: A Sociological Approach,” International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 11, no. 2 (2019): 332–53.

50 Erin D. Reilly et al., “The Relationship among Stigma Consciousness, Perfectionism, and Mental Health in Engaging and Retaining STEM Women,” Journal of Career Development 46, no. 4 (August 2019): 440–54.

51 Gail Crimmins, “Don’t Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater: Statistics Can Create Impetus to Address Educational Inequity,” in Strategies for Supporting Inclusion and Diversity in the Academy: Higher Education, Aspiration and Inequality, ed. Crimmins (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020), 3–26.

52 An independent samples t-test indicated a statistically significant difference in feeling welcome between white scholars (3.11, most of the time) and scholars of color (2.56, some of the time), t(198) = 3.462, p = .001***.

53 Independent samples t-tests results for “clubby,” t(194) = −2.054, p < .05*; and “old boys’ club,” t(192) = −2.054, p < .05*.

54 Gabriella Gutiérrez y Muhs et al., Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia (Logan: Utah State University Press, 2012); Kalwant Bhopal, “The Experiences of BME Academics in Higher Education: Aspirations in the Face of Inequality,” Leadership Foundation for Higher Education Stimulus Papers (July 2014): 1–24; Jason Arday, “Understanding Racism within the Academy: The Persistence of Racism within Higher Education,” in The Fire Now: Anti-Racist Scholarship in Times of Explicit Racial Violence, ed. Azeezat Johnson, Remi Joseph-Salisbury, and Beth Kamunge (London: Zed Books, 2018), 26–37; Nadena Doharty, Manuel Madriaga, and Remi Joseph-Salisbury, “The University Went to ‘Decolonise’ and All They Brought Back Was Lousy Diversity Double-Speak! Critical Race Counter-Stories from Faculty of Colour in ‘Decolonial’ Times,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 53, no. 3 (March 2021): 233–44.

55 A chi-square test of independence was performed, indicating that scholars of color were more likely to report such incidents, χ² (1, N = 205) = 5.338, p < .05.*

56 Zimmerman, Carter-Sowell, and Xu, “Examining Workplace Ostracism”; Janice Witt Smith and Toni Calasanti, “The Influences of Gender, Race and Ethnicity on Workplace Experiences of Institutional and Social Isolation: An Exploratory Study of University Faculty,” Sociological Spectrum 25, no. 3 (2005): 307–34; Cydney H. Dupree and C. Malik Boykin, “Racial Inequality in Academia: Systemic Origins, Modern Challenges, and Policy Recommendations,” Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8, no. 1 (March 2021): 11–18.

57 Derald Wing Sue et al., “Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice,” American Psychologist 62, no. 4 (May–June 2007): 271.

58 Remi Joseph-Salisbury, “Institutionalised Whiteness, Racial Microaggressions and Black Bodies Out of Place in Higher Education,” Whiteness and Education 4, no. 1 (May 2019): 1–17; Azeezat Johnson and Remi Joseph-Salisbury, “‘Are You Supposed to Be in Here?’ Racial Microaggressions and Knowledge Production in Higher Education,” in Arday and Mirza, Dismantling Race in Higher Education, 143–60; Pat Mahony and Gaby Weiner, “‘Getting In, Getting On, Getting Out’: Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Staff in UK Higher Education,” Race Ethnicity and Education 23, no. 6 (November 2020): 841–57.

59 Mark S. Giles and Robin L. Hughes, “CRiT Walking Race, Place, and Space in the Academy,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 22, no. 6 (2009): 687–96; Jason Arday, “No One Can See Me Cry: Understanding Mental Health Issues for Black and Minority Ethnic Staff in Higher Education,” Higher Education 83 (2022): 79–102; Chavella T. Pittman, “Racial Microaggressions: The Narratives of African American Faculty at a Predominantly White University,” Journal of Negro Education 81, no. 1 (Winter 2012): 82–92; Fay Cobb Payton, Lynette (Kvasny) Yarger, and Anthony Thomas Pinter, “(Text)Mining Microaggressions Literature: Implications Impacting Black Computing Faculty,” Journal of Negro Education 87, no. 3 (Summer 2018): 217–29; Nicola Rollock, “Unspoken Rules of Engagement: Navigating Racial Microaggressions in the Academic Terrain,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 25, no. 5 (2012): 517–32.

60 Independent samples t-tests results for policy workshops, t(74.211) = −2.090, p < .05*; academic skills workshops, t(82.134) = −2.887, p < .01**; and formal mentoring programs, t(200) = −2.249, p < .05*.

61 A chi-square test of independence was performed, indicating that scholars of color were more likely to say that mentoring is an important benefit, χ² (1, N = 193) = 11.355, p < .01**

62 Results from chi-square tests of independence are as follows: more opportunities for community of likeminded individuals, χ2 (1, N = 181) = 5.295, p < .05*; more opportunities for mentoring, χ2 (1, N = 174) = 6.390, p < .05*; and more opportunities to present research, χ2 (1, N = 185) = 6.770, p < .01**.

63 Settles, Buchanan, and Dotson, “Scrutinized but Not Recognized”; Robbie Shilliam, “Black Academia: The Doors Have Been Opened but the Architecture Remains the Same,” in Aiming Higher: Race, Inequality and Diversity in the Academy, ed. Claire Alexander and Jason Arday (London: Runnymede Trust, 2015); Kalwant Bhopal, The Experiences of Black and Minority Ethnic Academics: A Comparative Study of the Unequal Academy (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2016).

64 Mann-Whitney tests indicated higher levels of agreement and interest among scholars of color than white scholars for whether diversity initiatives are needed: U = 2,148, p < .000***, r = .30; and interest in participating in such initiatives: U = 2,132, p < .000***, r = .27.

65 The largest difference between scholars of color and white scholars in theoretical approach was in the likelihood of selecting constructivism. However, this difference is not statistically significant; chi-square test of independence, χ² (1, N = 171) = 3.18, p = .075.

66 A chi-square test of independence indicated that scholars of color were no more likely to report a positivist orientation than white scholars, χ² (1, N = 165) = .222, p = .638.

67 For these two questions, the 2017 TRIP dataset included more than 2,300 respondents (varying slightly between questions). The TRIP data include scholars from across international relations, rather than only security studies; data for only security studies scholars were not available. TRIP team, email to Maria Rost Rublee, 7 May 2021. See also Daniel Maliniak et al., TRIP 2017 Faculty Survey, Teaching, Research, and International Policy Project (Williamsburg, VA: Global Research Institute, 2017), https://trip.wm.edu/.

68 Independent samples t-tests indicated no statistically significant difference in feeling welcome between scholars currently located in the Global North and scholars currently located in the Global South, t(231) = −1.280, p = .20, as well as between those who received their PhD at a Global North institution and those who received their PhD at a Global South institution, t(239) = .000, p = 1.0.

69 Fisher’s exact tests indicated there was not a significant association between likelihood of reporting incidents of harassment and discrimination, and whether one’s current institution was located in the Global North or South (two-tailed p = .770), as well as whether one’s PhD-granting institution was located in the Global North or South (two-tailed p = 1.000).

70 An independent samples t-test indicated a statistically significant difference in to what extent respondents believed ISSS was diverse between scholars who received their PhD from a Global North institution (1.80, to a great extent) and scholars who received their PhD from a Global South institution (2.25, to some extent), t(226) = 2.566, p = .011*.

71 Megan Becker and Kelebogile Zvobgo, “Smoothing the Pipeline: A Strategy to Match Graduate Training with the Professional Demands of Professorship,” Journal of Political Science Education 16, no. 3 (2020): 357–68; Megan Becker, Benjamin A. T. Graham, and Kelebogile Zvobgo, “The Stewardship Model: An Inclusive Approach to Undergraduate Research,” PS: Political Science & Politics 54, no. 1 (January 2021): 158–62; Fernando Tormos-Aponte and Mayra Velez-Serrano, “Broadening the Pathway for Graduate Studies in Political Science,” PS: Political Science & Politics 53, no. 1 (January 2020): 145–46; Jessica Lavariega Monforti and Melissa R. Michelson, “Diagnosing the Leaky Pipeline: Continuing Barriers to the Retention of Latinas and Latinos in Political Science,” PS: Political Science & Politics 41, no. 1 (January 2008): 161–66.

72 Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams, eds., Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (New York: Routledge, 2002).

73 Thalif Deen, “Staff Surveys Reveal Widespread Racism at the United Nations,” Inter Press Service, 21 August 2020, http://www.ipsnews.net/2020/08/staff-surveys-reveal-widespread-racism-united-nations/.

74 N Square, Greater Than: Nuclear Threat Professionals Reimagine Their Field (December 2019), https://nsquare.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/N-Square_Greater-Than_ExecSummary_Mar20.pdf.

75 Helene Cooper, “African-Americans Are Highly Visible in the Military, but Almost Invisible at the Top,” New York Times, 25 May 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/us/politics/military-minorities-leadership.html.

76 V. Spike Peterson, ed., Gendered States: Feminist (Re)visions of International Relations Theory (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992).

77 Patricia A. Matthew, ed., Written/Unwritten: Diversity and the Hidden Truths of Tenure (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2016).

78 Diyi Li and Cory Koedel, “Representation and Salary Gaps by Race-Ethnicity and Gender at Selective Public Universities,” Educational Researcher 46, no. 7 (October 2017): 343–54.

79 Gloria Wong et al., “The What, the Why, and the How: A Review of Racial Microaggressions Research in Psychology,” Race and Social Problems 6, no. 2 (June 2014): 181–200.

80 US Government Accountability Office, State Department: Additional Steps Are Needed to Identify Potential Barriers to Diversity (Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office, 2020), https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/704049.pdf.

81 White staff are also overrepresented in the US Congress. In the House of Representatives, staff are less diverse than congressional leadership. In 2018, around 40% of members had at least one nonwhite staffer in their office, while between 80%–90% of legislative directors and chiefs of staff were white. Members in the Congressional Black Caucus are most likely to hire nonwhite aides. See Bridget Bowman, “House Members Are More Diverse, but Does the Same Go for Staff?” Roll Call, 25 January 2019,

https://www.rollcall.com/2019/01/25/house-members-are-more-diverse-but-does-the-same-go-for-staff/.

82 US Government Accountability Office, State Department, 48.

83 African Union, “Statement of the Chairperson Following the Murder of George Floyd in the USA,” press release, 29 May 2020, https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20200529/statement-chairperson-following-murder-george-floyd-usa.

84 Zvobgo and Loken, “Why Race Matters.”

85 Derald Wing Sue, Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010); Kathryn Young, Myron Anderson, and Saran Stewart, “Hierarchical Microaggressions in Higher Education,” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 8, no. 1 (2015): 61.

86 Doharty, Madriaga, and Joseph-Salisbury, “University Went to ‘Decolonise’”; Usree Bhattacharya, Lei Jiang, and Suresh Canagarajah, “Race, Representation, and Diversity in the American Association for Applied Linguistics,” Applied Linguistics 41, no. 6 (December 2020): 999–1004.

87 BISA, “Black Lives Matter–A BISA Statement on Recent Events,” 9 June 2020, https://www.bisa.ac.uk/news/black-lives-matter-bisa-statement-recent-events.

88 APSA, “Race, Capital & Empire Toolkit,” https://educate.apsanet.org/race-capital-empire-toolkit; Monkey Cage Topic Guides, Black Lives Matter, last modified 15 September 2022, https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSV9TLBppljTmIVGnkblCUrpkOVAFXLXKXJKPkHtl_SAYx61-7LAkBAnEu-Xo7AUslzmSLsGJ00idag/pub; Bhambra et al., “Why Is Mainstream International Relations Blind to Racism?”; Shilliam, “When Did Racism”; Zvobgo and Loken, “Why Race Matters.”

89 Alexander-Floyd, “Women of Color”; Beutel and Nelson, “Gender and Race-Ethnicity”; Monforti and Michelson, “Diagnosing the Leaky Pipeline”; Reid and Curry, “Are We There Yet?”; Sinclair-Chapman, “Leveraging Diversity.”

90 Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group, “The Burden of Invisible Work in Academia: Social Inequality and Time Use in Five University Departments,” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 39 (2017): 228–45.

91 Zvobgo and Loken, “Why Race Matters.”

92 Kelebogile Zvobgo, “Did America’s Racial Awakening Reach IR Professors?” Foreign Policy, 25 June 2021, https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/25/america-race-racial-justice-george-floyd-protests-international-relations-ir-professors-universities-teaching/.

93 Turner et al., “Call for Antiracist Action.”