ABSTRACT Mentoring programs are widely assumed to benefit women’s advancement in professional settings, including political science. However, causal evidence is scarce. We conducted a randomized evaluation of the American Political Science Association’s flagship women’s mentoring program for PhDs, the most rigorous evaluation in political science to date. The program consisted of a workshop followed by periodic small-group meetings. We randomized applicants to the program or a control group. We administered surveys pretreatment, immediately after the workshop, and two to seven years afterwards, collecting curriculum vitae and publication data during each wave. The program was rated positively by participants, increasing their sense of belonging in the profession at year 2, but otherwise had null effects. The results hold when we account for treatment uptake and strength; for various cohorts and time frames; and for a range of attitudes, behaviors, and publication metrics. More comprehensive reforms may be needed to make a long-term difference for women in academia.
Mendelberg et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: