My research interests developed after finding in my dissertation that women leaders initiate, but do not escalate, conflict more than men. The theory that most of my research examines is the political double bind women leaders face. Our traditional ideas of leadership tend to assume that good leaders are rational, competitive, aggressive, and decisive. However, these traits most closely align with societal ideas of masculinity and not femininity. This poses a unique challenge to women leaders. Specifically, I argue that women leaders must exhibit both masculine (traditional leader/man) and feminine traits while in office. I posit that they must do this because past research has found that women leaders are punished more frequently for violating gender stereotypes. In order to navigate this double bind, women leaders make certain policy choices to demonstrate certain qualities. They may be more aggressive in the international arena or with what has been dubbed high politics while more nurturing towards their domestic audiences and with low politics. Findings from my research have supported this assertion.
For example, my first publication is a co-authored piece that looks at whether women chief executives experience more terrorism than men chief executives. You can read it in the Journal of Terrorism Research. I also have a collaborative paper that looks at women chief executives and human rights in the Journal of Human Rights. We find that women chief executives do practice better human rights than men. Both of these publications assert that women must be more nurturing and compassionate (act like a woman) towards their own people. Myself and several co-authors also use a similar framework to better understand female leader's responses to the COVID19 pandemic in PLOS One. Furthering our knowledge of the political double bind, my co-author and I find that women leaders also navigate this 'double bind' with both cooperative and conflictual foreign policies. Women leaders tend to have more extreme foreign policies, particularly in terms of cooperation and more actionable conflictual foreign policies. You can read this article in the Journal of Women Politics and Policy. I also have research that finds that women leaders combat human trafficking in different ways from men, particularly emphasizing the impact of trafficking on victims while men leaders prioritize criminalizing the act. This research further contributes to our understanding of the double bind and how gender stereotypes might impact policy choices for both men and women. You can read it in International Studies Perspectives.
Another avenue of research examines the connections of gender equity/women's status on international processes. My co-author and I find, for example, that increases in women's status influence the actions of ethnonational, religious, and right-wing terrorist groups. You can read this article in the Journal of Peace Research.
For example, my first publication is a co-authored piece that looks at whether women chief executives experience more terrorism than men chief executives. You can read it in the Journal of Terrorism Research. I also have a collaborative paper that looks at women chief executives and human rights in the Journal of Human Rights. We find that women chief executives do practice better human rights than men. Both of these publications assert that women must be more nurturing and compassionate (act like a woman) towards their own people. Myself and several co-authors also use a similar framework to better understand female leader's responses to the COVID19 pandemic in PLOS One. Furthering our knowledge of the political double bind, my co-author and I find that women leaders also navigate this 'double bind' with both cooperative and conflictual foreign policies. Women leaders tend to have more extreme foreign policies, particularly in terms of cooperation and more actionable conflictual foreign policies. You can read this article in the Journal of Women Politics and Policy. I also have research that finds that women leaders combat human trafficking in different ways from men, particularly emphasizing the impact of trafficking on victims while men leaders prioritize criminalizing the act. This research further contributes to our understanding of the double bind and how gender stereotypes might impact policy choices for both men and women. You can read it in International Studies Perspectives.
Another avenue of research examines the connections of gender equity/women's status on international processes. My co-author and I find, for example, that increases in women's status influence the actions of ethnonational, religious, and right-wing terrorist groups. You can read this article in the Journal of Peace Research.
