Which are your principal areas of research?
I primarily study gender, race and American politics. I’m interested in why
women and minorities are underrepresented in elective office, how they reach
office, and how factors such as political parties and public opinion shape
elections. I’m also interested in the behavior of women in office and how they
navigate legislative institutions. 

What is the main relation between gender and politics?
We know that women in the United States are much less likely than men
to seek and hold office. More women are running for office than ever before,
but they are still very underrepresented. As data from the Center for American
Women and Politics (cawp.rutgers.edu) reveal, only a handful of women serve as
governors of their states. In the 2016 elections, the first major party nominee
for president, Hillary Clinton, lost her race and the elections failed to
significantly enhance women’s presence in state and federal offices. Women have
gained seats in the U.S. Congress through the years but have always held fewer
than one in four seats.

For me personally, women must be involved more in politics all over the
world, but politics for me means socio-political engagement in society. What do
you think about it?
Women often bring new perspectives into politics because they are
disproportionately the caregivers in their families. And because of gender
inequality, women officeholders often feel a connection to other women and a
determination to elevate the status of women in society.
Interestingly, although women in the United States do not hold office at the
same rates as men, women are more likely to vote than men. Clearly, women are
interested in politics and care about politics. They could play an even larger
role throughout all aspects of politics.

Tell us about the principal ideas of your books concerning women and
politics?

Tell us about your recent work.
My most recent book is More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to
the State Legislatures, coauthored with Susan J. Carroll (2013, Oxford
University Press). Our book analyzes nationwide surveys of state legislators
conducted by the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) in 2008 and
1981. We argue for a new approach to the study of women’s election to office,
challenging the assumption that women must assimilate to men’s pathways to
office. We argue that a relationally embedded model of candidate emergence
better captures women’s decision-making than an ambition framework in which
candidacy is self-initiated. We contend that more women could run if more
efforts were made to recruit women of varying backgrounds.
We also find that gender differences in pathways to office have persisted over
time and that women legislators continue to emerge from traditionally
female-dominated occupations. Women legislators also are more likely than men
to run for office because they were recruited. Family, parties, and
organizations play a more important role in women’s decisions. Moreover, we
argue that women need not possess prior ambition before deciding to run. 
Because women’s representation is produced by the presence of encouragement and
support and not simply the absence of impediments to running, we must look to
political—as well as societal—factors to understand the gender gap in
officeholding.

You are an expert of women in politics in the USA. How much do you think
that culture and religion influence the behavior of women in political life?
We often see gender differences in how officeholders reach office and
in the types of public policies that officeholders champion. But gender is only
one feature of politics. We know that gender intersects with other categories,
such as race/ethnicity, religion, and ideology. Precisely because women are not
a monolithic group, it’s important that more women become active in politics
and serve in leadership positions in order to represent women’s diversity.