The course is Contemporary International Security, and my semi-final tally seems to have 15 pieces written by either a female or a team of others including a female out out of 37 or so, which is about 40%. Had I not been thinking about inclusion of women, I probably would have had four or so pieces less. I don't think I sacrificed anything, as I found interesting and relevant pieces without sacrificing depth or breadth or significant content.
I don't think 38% is bad, especially given that this particular area has a history of male domination, unlike perhaps the study of contentious politics or ethnic conflict (no facts about the latter, just going on anecdata). I am not sure we need to aim for 50% in every class or every syllabus, particularly as some areas of research tend to have more or less women working in them.
This particular class, like the Civil-Military Relations course I am teaching now,* is in an area where a lot of the most interesting work is by women, so I did not have to go far out of my way to find relevant stuff.
* I wrote that syllabus before the events of this fall raised my awareness about the gender citation problems. I will think a bit more next time.
The course is constructed as a survey of different issue areas in this subfield, so some weeks did not require any thinking or searching
- Work that opens up the idea of security
- Alliances and Coalitions
- Identity, Religion and Nationalism
- Canadian military stuff
I am sure that my syllabi have plenty of holes that I have not addressed in method, in other biases (mostly North American stuff), entirely English stuff. The joy of teaching is that syllabi keep changing, and I keep learning. I would appreciate any suggestions for the new class as I will be revising it for 2015.