Gendered mundanities: gender bias in student evaluations of teaching in political science

Abstract

Much research has been undertaken on gender bias in student evaluations of teaching (SETs) in universities, with inconsistent findings. We undertake a qualitative analysis of the comments in four years of SETs in a school of political science and international relations in a highly regarded Australian university. We ask, can the same evaluations produce different results when analysed qualitatively rather than quantitatively? And do students evaluate male-identified and female-identified teachers differently, and if so what are the differences? We show that qualitative analysis can reveal gender bias that is invisible in quantitative analysis. We find that female-identified staff are evaluated more positively than their male counterparts for undertaking time-intensive, stereotypically feminine, emotional labour. Male-identified staff are evaluated more positively for their technical expertise and teaching style. This suggests SETs evaluate gender-stereotypical behaviour rather than only teaching quality, and has significant implications for their use in universities.