The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Substantive Representation of Women: What to Do with Conservative Claims?
Abstract
Recent developments in the gender and politics literature suggest that studying the substantive representation of women is much more complicated than counting the number of women present in a particular political institution and judging the actions of women representatives against a ‘feminist’ shopping list of demands. In brief, the substantive representation of women is no longer considered to be restricted to what happens in our parliaments or only by what women representatives do therein. Furthermore, what constitutes women's issues and interests – that which is to be represented – can also no longer be considered straightforwardly ‘out there’ to simply be acted upon by representatives; they are constructed as part of the representative process. Acknowledgement of the diversity and likely contested nature of claims to act ‘for women’ coincides with an emerging appreciation that the claims for women made by conservative representatives need to be brought more explicitly into our analytic frameworks and empirical studies. Together, these points not only undermine any assumption that the substantive representation of women equals the feminist substantive representation of women; they also raise the possibility of non- and anti-feminist representative claims and actions ‘for’ women. Against this backdrop, we review recent developments within the sub-field of the substantive representation of women literature and offer some reflections and suggestions about how to take conservatism seriously when studying the substantive representation of women both conceptually and empirically.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fenichel Pitkin, H. (1967) · doi:10.1525/9780520340503 · Cited by 5,162
The Concept of Representation, by Hanna F. Pitkin
Mansfield, H. C. (1969) · Political Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2147153 · Cited by 3,086
Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent "Yes"
Mansbridge, J. (1999) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.2307/2647821 · Cited by 2,939
Saward, M. (2006) · Contemporary Political Theory · doi:10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300234 · Cited by 1,471
Phillips, A. (1998) · Democracy · doi:10.1093/0198294158.001.0001 · Cited by 1,395
(2003) · Political Communications in Greater China · doi:10.4324/9780203417492-14 · Cited by 786
Women's Representation in Parliament: The Role of Political Parties
Caul, M. (1999) · Party Politics · doi:10.1177/1354068899005001005 · Cited by 703
The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress
Swers, M. L. (2002) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226772738.001.0001 · Cited by 621
Congressional Enactments of Race–Gender: Toward a Theory of Raced–Gendered Institutions
HAWKESWORTH, M. (2003) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055403000868 · Cited by 573
(1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-2409 · Cited by 565
Cited by
All Male Panels? Representation and Democratic Legitimacy
Clayton, A., O'Brien, D. Z., & Piscopo, J. M. (2019) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12391 · Cited by 322
Childs, S., & Lovenduski, J. (2013) · The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199751457.013.0019 · Cited by 166
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Celis, K., & Childs, S.
- Venue
- Political Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-11-04
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 213-225
- ISSN
- 0032-3217 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9248
- OpenAlex
- W1926436542
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 47
- FWCI
- 19.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Substantive Representation of Women: What to Do with Conservative Claims? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00904.x
- The paper
- Celis, K., & Childs, S. (2012). The Substantive Representation of Women: What to Do with Conservative Claims? Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00904.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.