By Chantal de Jonge Oudraat, Kayla McGill and Zi Xue

UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) called for greater participation of women in peace and security decision-making processes and underscored the importance of incorporating a gender perspective when addressing international peace and security challenges. In November 2017, the US Congress adopted the Women, Peace and Security Act, which posited that “the United States should be a global leader in promoting the meaningful participation of women in conflict prevention, management and resolution, and post-conflict relief and recovery efforts.”¹ While much progress has been made since 2000, the roles and numbers of women in foreign policy and security establishments remain underdeveloped, including in the United States.

In 2018, Women In International Security (WIIS)—as part of an effort to measure the gender disparities in the US foreign policy and security communities—surveyed 22 US foreign policy and international security think tanks.² This scorecard provides an update to that survey. This scorecard also spotlights the nuclear security community—both as a subset of the foreign policy and security community and as its own community.³

Foreign policy and international security experts in the United States have taken renewed interest in issues related to greatpower competition, including nuclear security, arms control and disarmament issues. In addition, at both international and national levels, policymakers and non-governmental actors have recognized the lack of women in nuclear security, arms control and disarmament issues. For example, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution in 2010 that urged UN member states to promote the equitable representation of women in the field of disarmament and to strengthen women’s effective participation.⁴ In 2018, the UN Secretary-General’s agenda for disarmament called for the full and equal participation of women in all decision-making processes related to disarmament and international security. The UN Secretary General also committed to gender parity on all panels, boards, expert groups and other bodies established under his auspices in the field of disarmament.⁵ These efforts are all part of the national and international commitments made under the WPS agenda.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have also undertaken a range of initiatives to raise awareness about the lack of women in the nuclear security, arms control and disarmament communities. For example, Article 36 (a UKbased NGO created in 2011) and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) have tracked women’s scant representation in multilateral disarmament fora.⁶ In November 2018, Laura Holgate, the former US ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), launched the Gender Champions in Nuclear Policy (GCNP) initiative to address gender imbalances in the field.⁷ As of July 2020, heads of 58 US and non-US organizations had committed to “breaking down barriers and making gender equity a working reality in their spheres of influence.”⁸ The International Gender Champions Disarmament Impact Group published a Gender and Disarmament Resource Pack in 2018 outlining what a gender perspective in arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament might look like.⁹ In 2019, New America examined the role of women in nuclear policy, including

how women navigated the nuclear security field and how gender diversity (or rather the lack thereof) affected US policymaking.¹⁰ The Ploughshares Fund committed $1 million to a Women’s Initiative Campaign in April 2019 to create greater gender diversity within the nuclear establishment.¹¹

There is thus progress in the advancement of the role of women in nuclear security. That said, there is very little data with respect to the representation of women in the nuclear security arena.

This WIIS Gender Scorecard seeks to fill this void.

To assess how well women are integrated into this community, we examined the number of women experts working on nuclear security issues in US think tanks. We also examined the number of women writing on arms control and nuclear security issues and being published in academic and specialized journals. Think tanks and journals play an important role in shaping foreign and defense policies, including nuclear security policies. Indeed, in the United States members of think tanks frequently move in and out of many critical positions in government. Together with their colleagues in academia, they also participate in policy debates in the media and in writing for specialized academic journals.

In sum, this scorecard does three main things:

Scoring the Tanks. We assess the gender distribution in 32 think tanks in the United States—22 foreign policy and international security think tanks and 10 think tanks and programs that are more specifically focused on arms control and nuclear security policy. We also examine the extent to which gender has been integrated into programming.¹²

*Table 1:* Washington, DC Think Tanks with Women at the Helm
Center for American Progress (CAP)	Ms. Neera Tanden, President and CEO	2011
German Marshall Fund (GMF)	Dr. Karen Donfried, President	2014
Heritage Foundation	Ms. Kay Coles James, President	2017
New America	Dr. Anne-Marie Slaugther, CEO	2013
Wilson Center for International Scholars	Ms. Jane Harman, President and CEO	2011
Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control	Ms. Valerie Lincy, Executive Director	2012

Scoring the Journals. We review the gender distribution in 11 major international security journals and five major arms control and nuclear security journals. In addition, we examine to what extent gender perspectives are represented in the journals.
Bringing into Focus the Nuclear Security Community. We examine the gender distribution of nuclear security experts in 32 think tanks. In addition, we consider the gender distribution of articles on arms control and nuclear security issues in 11 major international security journals and 5 major arms control and nuclear security journals. We also examine to what extent gender perspectives are represented in arms control and nuclear security articles.

The Headlines

Despite some progress, the national and international security field, including the nuclear security field, remains a maledominated field.

The percentage of women leading think tanks has declined, from 32 percent in 2018 to 19 percent in 2020.

(See Table 1)

The percentage of women on think tank governing boards has increased slightly, from 22 percent in 2018 to

25 percent in 2020. (See Figure 1)

The percentage of women experts working on foreign policy, national and international security issues has increased, from 27 percent in 2018 to 35 percent in 2020.¹³

(See Figure 2)

The nuclear security community is small. The majority of arms control and nuclear experts work in specialized think tanks and publish in specialized journals.

Of the foreign policy and international security think tanks surveyed, only 10 percent of experts (3 percent women and 7 percent men) focus entirely or in part on nuclear issues.¹⁴

(See Figure 3)

There are 162 nuclear experts working in the specialized arms control and nuclear security think tanks and programs—49 (30 percent) are women.¹⁵

Despite renewed interest in nuclear security issues, the percentage of articles devoted to these issues remains small, and few have women authors.

In the international security journals only 9 percent of articles published between 2015 and 2019 were devoted to nuclear security. Only 15 percent of those articles were written by women. (See Figure 6.)
In the arms control and nuclear security journals, women wrote 17 percent of the articles on nuclear security issues.

Gender perspectives remain largely ignored in the national and international security, including the nuclear security, community.

Only one out of 32 think tanks has integrated gender into its programming.
In the academic and specialized literature, most articles with a “gender” perspective focused on women in the field—very few articles examined how gender (and notions of masculinity and femininity) shapes thinking about national and international security, including about nuclear security.¹⁶

This scorecard shows that women in the international security field, including in the nuclear security field, remain severely underrepresented. The percentage of women experts and women authors remain well below the 60 percent of women enrolled for over a decade in graduate programs (master’s and doctoral programs) in the social and behavioral science (including political science and international relations); the over 55 percent of women students in the professional schools of international affairs; the 43 percent of women members of the International Studies Association (ISA); and the 38 percent of women members of the ISA’s International Security Studies Section (ISSS).¹⁷

While this scorecard does not incorporate any qualitative interviews in the community, there have been a number of studies that examine how women experience the international security and nuclear security field. A 2019 survey of the members of the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) of the International Studies Association (ISA) showed considerable problems within the international security community, of which the nuclear security community is a subset. The survey showed that women were more likely to report hostility and exclusion and to describe the section as “insular,” “clubby” and an “old boys’ network.”¹⁸ In her 2019 study of women in the nuclear arms control and nonproliferation field, Heather Hurlburt talked about the “gender tax” that women in nuclear policy face. She shows “how experiences of sexism, harassment, and gendered expectations translate into constant mental and emotional weight.”¹⁹ A 2019 report about the nuclear security field, even though not focused on gender, showed that early and midcareer women professionals found the field rife with

The lack of gender diversity (including ethnic and racial diversity) and the small number of women experts have serious implications not only for the field itself, but also for policy.²¹

One such implication is that a small group of mostly likeminded people monopolizes influence and shapes policies. The fact that the nuclear security field seems to live very much in its own bubble or ecosystem of think tanks and journals reinforces its insular nature. Only 10 percent of experts (7 percent men and 3 percent women) in the think tanks focus on nuclear security issues. Most of the knowledge production and action on nuclear security happens in the specialized institutes and journals. Carol Cohn has written about how language, particularly in the nuclear sphere, kept women and different perspectives out.²² Michèle Flournoy has talked about how women had to fit into a “consensual straitjacket” in the nuclear policy sphere.²³ Many early and midcareer professionals in this community defined the field as “old (in terms of both age and ideas) and static.”²⁴ “Most of the people who work in this field have been doing the same thing for 30 years, and their thinking has not evolved at all, especially in arms control. It’s the dogma. This community … hasn’t evolved with changes in the security environment.”²⁵

Scoring the Tanks

The scorecard reviews think tanks along five main axes:

Gender distribution of those who lead think tanks;
Gender distribution of governing boards of the think tanks;
Gender distribution of experts in the tanks’ foreign policy and international security programs;
Gender distribution of experts focusing on nuclear security issues;
Level of commitment to gender and/or women’s programming.

Heads of Think Tanks

Of the 32 think tanks surveyed, women lead only six (19 percent). (See Table 1)

Of the 22 foreign policy and international security think tanks, women lead only five (23 percent): The Center for American Progress (CAP), the German Marshall Fund (GMF), the

Heritage Foundation, New America, and the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars. Compared with 2018, this is a decrease.²⁶

Of the 10 arms control and nuclear security think tanks and programs, a woman heads one: the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

sexism and gender discrimination.²⁰

Figure 1: Gender Ratio – Think Tank Governing Boards Governing Boards

2018 and 2020

The gender gap remains stark at the level of the governing ²⁰¹⁸ boards. The James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies

^•• MENWOMEN is the only institution that has achieved parity on its governing board. It is followed by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS),

which has 44 percent women on its governing board.

On average, the percentage of women members of the board of directors or trustees is 25 percent, compared with 23 percent in 2018. (See Figure 1) The specialized arms control and

nuclear institutes do a little better, with 31 percent of women

2020 on their boards.

• MEN

• ^WOMENExperts

Compared with 2018, the overall gender balance in the think tanks has improved, from 27 percent of women experts in 2018 to 35 percent in 2020. (See Figure 2)²⁷ That said, very few think tanks have achieved parity. There is also great variation among the think tanks. (See Table 2 and Figure 4. See also the

Appendix)

Figure 2: Gender Ratio – Foreign Policy and National and International Security Experts in Think Tanks 2018 and 2020 Nuclear Experts

2018

•• MENWOMEN Of the 20 foreign policy and international security think tanks 28

surveyed, only 10 percent of experts (3 percent women and

7 percent men) focus entirely or in part on nuclear issues. (See Figure 3)

The gender distribution within this group of nuclear experts is slightly lower than the overall gender balance of these institutes. Of the 185 nuclear experts, 55 (30 percent) are

2020 women and 130 (70 percent) are men. (See Figure 5) ^•• ^MEN_WOMENThat said, many arms control and nuclear experts work in

specialized think tanks. We surveyed 10 major think tanks and programs that focus exclusively on arms control and nuclear security issues. Together they comprise 175 experts—162 of which focus on nuclear security issues as defined in this scorecard.²⁹ The percentage of women experts working on nuclear security issues in these 10 think tanks and programs is 30 percent.

Figure 3: Percentage and Gender Ratio of Nuclear Experts

_{in Think Tanks} There is, of course, great variation among the think tanks.

Out of the 10 think tanks, only one has achieved parity—the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). (See Table 3 and Figure 5.

Substantive Focus

We also examined the substantive focus of those working on nuclear security issues to explore whether gender has an impact on the types of issues people study.³⁰ Our survey found that the majority of nuclear experts focus on issues related to deterrence, followed by arms control. From their bios, we found no notable differences in terms of substantive focus between men and women.

Gender and Women’s Programming

Programming on gender within the institutes has seen little change since 2018.³¹ Most DC think tanks do not consider the role of gender in national and international security. For many in the traditional security think tank community— men and women—gender is often equated with women or a “woman’s point of view.” This lack of understanding of gender as a multilevel social construct that governs relations between men and women within societal structures and institutions is widespread within the DC foreign policy and security, including in the nuclear security, think tank community.

Figure 4: Gender Ratio – Foreign Policy and International Security Experts in all Think Tanks _{Measure Names}

Figure 5: Gender Ratio – Nuclear Security Experts in all Think Tanks

Measure Names

Of the think tanks surveyed only one—the US Institute of Peace (USIP)—has recognized gender as an important component of its programming. Since 2016, USIP has had a director for gender policy and strategy that oversees and advises all programs on gender. The director sits in the Policy, Learning and Strategy Center, which reports directly to USIP’s president. In addition, USIP functions as the Secretariat for the US Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace and Security (WPS).³²

Other think tanks have notable gender or women programs:

The Center for New America Security (CNAS) has a Women in National Security program.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has a Smart Women, Smart Power Program and a Women’s Global Leadership Program.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has a Women and Foreign Policy Program and a Women and Foreign Policy Program Advisory Council.

The German Marshall Fund (GMF) since 2017 has organized an annual Women of Color in Transatlantic Leadership Forum. In June 2020, it surveyed the gender balance of European thinks tanks.³³

New America has a Gender and Security program housed in its Political Reform Program.

The RAND Corporation has a web page called “RAND Women to Watch,” on which it addresses “Gender Equity in the Workplace” and “Gender Integration in the Military,” including issues related to women and transgender military personnel. In its work on female populations, RAND addresses issues faced by women and girls, including women refugees, migrants and gender-based and intimate partner violence.

In 2020, the Woodrow Wilson Center appointed a gender advisor. In addition, the center has a Middle East Women’s initiative, a Maternal Health Initiative and a Global Women’s Leadership initiative.

The other think tanks have occasional events and publications on gender and security and the WPS agenda. They may also have one or two individuals working on gender and security issues.³⁴

The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) houses the Gender Champions in Nuclear Policy initiative. All the heads of the 10 specialized arms control and nuclear security think tanks have signed on as Gender Champions. The heads of the Carnegie Endowment, Third Way and the Stimson

Center have also signed onto the Gender Champion in

Nuclear Policy Pledge.³⁵

Scoring the Journals

The influence of women in the national and international security field, including in the nuclear security field, can also be measured by how well they are represented in academic and professional journals.³⁶

We examined articles in 11 major peer reviewed international security journals, as well as articles in 5 major journals exclusively focused on arms control and nuclear security issues.

Women wrote 23 percent of the articles in the international security journals versus 64 percent written by men and 13 percent written by mixed gender teams.

That said, there is great variation amongst the journals. Critical Studies on Security is close to parity, with 45 percent of articles written by women versus 48 percent of articles written by men and 8 percent of articles written by mixed gender teams. Security Dialogue has 42 percent of articles written by women versus 47 percent written by men and 11 percent written by mixed gender teams. The Journal of Conflict Resolution is an outlier in the sense that it has the highest percentage of articles written by mixed gender teams—namely, 30 percent versus a 13 percent average. The Journal of Strategic Studies and Survival have the least amount of articles written by women. (See Table 4 and the Appendix.)

Articles on Arms Control and

Nuclear Security Issues

Our survey found that the majority of articles on nuclear security are published in specialized journals.³⁷ In the 11 international security studies journals surveyed, the percentage of articles that focused on nuclear security issues was only 9 percent. (See Figure 6 and Table 4. See also the Appendix) Of those articles, 15 percent were written by women.³⁸When we broaden our category and include other weapon and arms control issues, the percentage of articles rises to 16 percent, of which women wrote less than a quarter (21 percent).³⁹

In the arms control–specific journals, the percentage of articles on nuclear security issues written by women was even lower—17 percent.⁴⁰ If we broaden our category and include other weapon and arms control issues, the percentage

increased slightly, to 19 percent.⁴¹ (See Table 5 and the

Appendix)

That said, there is quite a bit of variation amongst the arms control journals. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists scores above the average, with 22 percent of articles written by women. At the other end, the Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament had only 11 percent of articles written by women.

Our analysis also confirms earlier studies that found that women coauthor less than men, and when they do coauthor, they are more likely to coauthor with men than with other women.⁴²

Figure 6: Percentage of Nuclear Security Articles in International

Security Journals – 2015-2019

Gender Perspectives

Of the 3,068 articles surveyed in the 16 journals, we found a mere 91 articles (3 percent) with a gender perspective. This number dropped to 2 percent when we considered only articles that focus on arms control and nuclear issues.

*Table 4:* Percentage of Articles written by Women in International Security Journals – January 2014-December 2019
Rank	Journal	% of Articles by Women
1	Critical Studies on Security	45%
2	Security Dialogue	42%
3	Cooperation and Conflict	30%
4	European Journal of International Security	27%
5	Journal of Global Security Studies	26%
6	International Security	23%
7	Security Studies	22%
8	Contemporary Security Policy	16%
9	Journal of Conflict Resolution	15%
10	Survival	14%
11	Journal of Strategic Studies	11%

The majority (71 percent) of the gender articles were penned by women. In the general security studies journals, women wrote 73 percent of those articles. In the arms control and nuclear security journals, they wrote 65 percent of genderfocused articles.

However, most of the articles with a gender perspective focused on the gender balance within the international security and arms control community and how to increase the number of women in the field. Very few examined how gender (and notions of masculinity and femininity) affects thinking about international security, including nuclear security issues.

Lastly, we examined whether men and women wrote about the same topics in the nuclear and arms control field. While we did not see a marked difference in our think tank analysis between the topics men and women studied, in the journals we did see some differences. Women were more likely to write about drones and unmanned aerial vehicles, chemical and biological weapons and nuclear energy and climate. Men were more likely to write about outer space, proliferation (including nonproliferation) and nuclear deterrence issues.

Concluding Thoughts

The nuclear security community is a subset of the national and international security community. Both communities are deeply entrenched male-dominated communities, in which “old-boy networks” continue to thrive. While we have seen the number of women experts in the think tanks increase from 27 percent to 35 percent, no progress was made in terms of governing boards, and the number of women heading think tanks has regressed. Both communities continue to struggle with the integration of women. It is also striking that while it is recognized by many in the international security, including the nuclear security, community that new approaches and new thinking are necessary, gender as a lens through which to analyze international, including nuclear, security challenges is not on think tank agendas. Too little thought is given in either the think tanks or the journals to how gender and notions of masculinity and femininity influence understanding of international and national security challenges, including challenges related to nuclear security policies.

Table 5: Percentage of Articles written by Women in Arms Control Journals – January 2014-December 2019 Rank Journal % of Women 1 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 22% 2 International Journal of Nuclear Studies 20% 3 Arms Control Today 19% 4 Nonproliferation Review 17% 5 Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament 11%

While patriarchal structures are difficult to take down, in recent years we have seen some progress in the amount of efforts to break down these structures.

First, the number of women interested in international security issues is increasing. Their enrollment in international affairs schools continues to surpass that of men. Second, a number of people and organizations, including funding organizations, have realized that the changed strategic landscape requires new approaches and new people. This need is apparent for the international security community and particularly for the small, somewhat atrophied nuclear security community. The Nsquare initiative, the Gender Champions in Nuclear Policy, and the Ploughshares Fund’s women initiative are explicitly geared toward creating a more diverse and open community. These efforts have also been supported by major funders of this community such as Carnegie Corporation New York and the MacArthur Foundation. Third, after the killing of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, organizations including foreign policy and international security think tanks expressed renewed commitment to building a more diverse workforce. Many think tanks in the international security and nuclear security have signed on to the Organizations in Solidarity initiative of WCAPS.⁴³

It is important to hold organizations accountable and to make sure that progress is measured not just in declaratory statements but also in actions. This scorecard provides numerical baselines.

Our analysis of the journals, even though it encompasses a broader group of experts, reinforces conclusions from the think tank analysis. Women authors remain grossly underrepresented. Journals, like think tanks, suffer from gender gaps.

Many of our 2018 recommendations still hold. Four stand out:

Thinks tanks should periodically carry out a gender analysis of their institutions. An inward gender analysis should be intersectional and must include collection and analysis of data related to gender, race, ethnic background, sexual orientation, age and disability. It must focus on knowledge production as well as recruitment, retention and promotion processes. It must also examine policies and practices related to issues such as remuneration, remote work, family leave and sexual harassment. Finally, the think tanks should make deliberate efforts to diversify their governing boards.
Think tanks should carry out an analysis of their partnerships and knowledge dissemination. Such an outward gender analysis should focus on whom they partner with and how content is disseminated. Among the questions one should ask: What type of publications are produced, what type of events are organized, who participates and attends these events, who is tapped for media appearances?
Think tanks should consider appointing a gender advisor and locate these advisors not in the human resource office but in the front offices with direct access to the leadership.
Journals continue to have gender gaps. One is expressed in terms of women authors published in the journals; the other is represented in the lack of gender perspectives. Editors and editorial boards should resort to periodic gender audits of their journals. Such audits would include issues related to the gender balances and substantive background of editorial staff, editorial boards and outside reviewers. It should also include an analysis of the readership—many of whom are also potential authors.

References

US Congress, Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115-68 (10/06/2017). In accordance with the law, the White House published its WPS Strategy in June 2019. See White House, United States Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security (Washington, DC: White House, June 2019).
See Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Soraya Kamali-Nafar, The WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks – 2018, WIIS Policy Brief (Washington, DC: WIIS, September 2018-1).
This scorecard was supported by a grant from the Ploughshares Fund.
See UN General Assembly A/Res/65/69 (2010). See also UN General

Assembly resolutions A/Res/67/48 (2012); A/Res/68/33 (2013); A/ Res/69/61 (2014); and A/Res/71/56 (2016). In addition, the Genevabased Conference on Disarmament held its first informal meeting on gender and disarmament in August 2015. In May 2016, it held a second informal plenary on Women and Disarmament, in which delegations restated their support to increase the role of women in the disarmament field.

See UN Secretary-General, Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament (New York: United Nations, October 2018).
See Renata Hessmann Dalaqua, Kjolv Egeland and Torbjorn Graff Hugo, Still Behind the Curve: Gender Balance in Arms Control, NonProliferation and Disarmament Diplomacy (Geneva: UNIDIR, 2019).
See GCNP website at gcnuclearpolicy.org. See also Pamela Hamamoto and Laura Holgate, “Gender Champions,” in Tom Z. Collina and Cara Marie Wagner, eds., A New Vision: Gender, Justice, National Security (Washington, DC: Ploughshares Fund, April 2019), pp. 40-45.
See GCNP website and GCNP, Gender Champions in Nuclear Policy, Impact Report 2019 (Washington, DC: NTI, May 2020), p. 2.
International Gender Champions Disarmament, Gender and Disarmament Resource Pack (Geneva: UNIDIR, 2018 and updated in January 2020).
See Heather Hurlburt et al., The Consensual Straitjacket: Four Decades of Women in Nuclear Security (Washington, DC: New America, March 2019).
SeeTom Z. Colinna and Cara Marie Wagner, eds., A New Vision: Gender, Justice, National Security (Washington, DC: Ploughshares Fund, April 2019).
While gender is generally defined and discussed as meaning more than just whether one is a man or a woman, this scorecard takes the binary approach. We identified experts and authors as either women or men by examining their bios, photographs and use of pronouns.
This scorecard tallies national and international security experts, including foreign policy and international affairs experts. Definitions of national and international security differ from institution to institution, some use an expanded definition of security, including human security, others have a narrow definition of security. For more on who is included within each of the think tanks see the methodology section on p.15.
This corresponds to 185 experts (55 women and 130 men) out of a total of 1,931 experts.
These institutes employ a total of 175 experts, but only 162 (113 men and 49 women) work on nuclear security issues.
For more on gender and security, see Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Michael E. Brown, eds., The Gender and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21st Century (London: Routledge, 2020).
See Hironao Okahana and Enyu Zhou, Graduate Enrollment and Degrees: 2006-2016 (Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools,

2017); website of the Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs (APSIA); and the website of the International Studies Association (ISA).

Maria Rost Rublee et al., “Do You Feel Welcome? Gendered Experiences in International Security Studies,” Journal of Global Security Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2020), pp. 216-226.
Hurlburt et al., Consensual Straitjacket, pp. 6 and 18-28.
See Nsquare, Greater Than: Nuclear Threat Professionals Reimagine Their Field (Washington, DC: NSquare, December 2019). See also Bonnie Jenkins, “Diversity Makes Better Policy,” in Tom Z. Collina and Cara Marie Wagner, eds., A New Vision: Gender, Justice, National Security (Washington, DC: Ploughshares Fund, April 2019), pp. 34-39.
This scorecard focuses on gender. That said, the lack of gender diversity often goes hand in hand with discrimination on other identity markers, such as race, ethnic background, sexual orientation and age. After the killing of George Floyd in summer 2020, Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation (WCAPS) launched the Organizations in Solidarity project to root out institutional racism. Many organizations and think tanks, including in the nuclear security arena, (and those surveyed in this scorecard) signed on to the project.
Carol Cohn, “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense

Intellectuals,” Signs, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1987), pp. 687-718; Carol Cohn and

Sara Ruddick, “ A Feminist Ethical Perspective on Weapons of Mass Destruction,” in Steven Lee and Sohail Hashmi, eds., Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 405-435; Carol Cohn, “The Perils of Mixing Masculinity and Missiles,” The New York Times (January 5, 2018).

Cited in Hurlburt et al., Consensual Straitjacket.
See Nsquare, Greater Than, p. 14.
Ibid., p. 15. See also note 17.
In 2018, 32 percent of think tanks were headed by women. The reins of the Center for a New American Security passed from a woman to a man, and leadership position of the US Institute of Peace is vacant as of the summer of 2020 with the departure in August 2020 of Nancy Lindborg, who had been president and CEO since 2015.
This number also does not include information with regard to the German Marshall Fund (GMF). At the time of our survey no data was available on the website regarding experts at GMF. In addition, at the time of our survey the Bipartisan Policy Centre had no longer a foreign policy international security program.
Amongst the nuclear programs in the Foreign Policy and

International Security think tanks mention should be made of the Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI), a program, housed at CSIS, that is geared towards the next generation of professionals in the nuclear security field. In addition, the Carnegie Endowment hosts every two years an international non-proliferation conference attracting hundreds of experts, officials and journalists from around the world.

Nuclear experts are defined as experts and analysts who study topics related to nuclear deterrence, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear policy, general nuclear issues, nuclear security (nuclear materials, fuel cycle, nuclear energy, radiological security), arms control and disarmament, nuclear technologies, defense strategy with a nuclear focus, regional studies with nuclear focus (North Korea, China, Iran, Asia-Pacific, Korea, Middle East). See also the methodology section in this scorecard.
Within our overall nuclear security category, we defined nine subtopics: nuclear deterrence, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear policy, nuclear security (nuclear materials, fuel cycle, nuclear energy, radiological security), arms control and disarmament, nuclear technologies, defense strategy with a nuclear focus, regional studies with nuclear focus (North Korea, China, Iran, Asia-Pacific, Korea, Middle East) and miscellaneous nuclear issues.
See de Jonge Oudraat and Kamali-Nafar, WIIS Gender Scorecard 2018.
TheU.S. Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace and Security (U.S. CSWG)brings together over 40 organizations and civil society groups working on women’s issues, gender and the WPS agenda. While many of these groups are active in advocacy and operational work, many will also conduct research and produce policy papers. See https://www.usip.org/programs/advancing-women-peace-and-security.
See Rosa Balfour, Corinna Hörst, Pia Hüsch, Sofia Shevchuk and Eleonora del Vecchio, Absent Influencers? Women in European Think Tanks, Policy Paper No. 5 (Brussels, Paris, Washington, DC: GMF, June 2020).
For example, Lisa Aronsson at the Atlantic Council, Saskia Brechenmacher at the Carnegie Endowment or Mackenzie Eaglen at the American Enterprise Institute.
All gender champions adopt a panel parity pledge. See GCNP website.
For more on the representation of women in journals, see Nadia

Crevecoeur, Kayla McGill and Maya Whitney, The Gender Balance in 11 Security Journals, A review of the literature and PowerPoint analysis of women authors in security journals, draft manuscript (Washington, DC:

WIIS, 2020).

Nuclear security issues were determined by title keyword searches. The following keywords were used: weapons—nuclear, hypersonic, missiles (ICBMs, etc.), missile defense, nuclear technology in weapons, cleanup from nuclear accidents, nuclear energy, IAEA, nuclear terrorism, deterrence, nonproliferation. Treaties: disarmament and arms control, nuclear disarmament, NPT, CTBT, INF, nuclear export control, fissile materials negotiations. We also added a country level: USA, China, Russia, France, UK, NATO/Europe, Iran, India/Pakistan, Middle East, North Korea. Arms control issues were broadly defined and determined by the following title keyword searches: weapons—nuclear, hypersonic, missiles (ICBMs, etc.), drones, biological weapons, chemical weapons, missile defense, technology in weapons (very specific, not just technological advances in general but focused on weapons), cybersecurity/cyber war. General themes: geoengineering and climate change, medical/radio isotopes, cleanup from nuclear accidents, nuclear energy, IAEA, nuclear terrorism, space, materials. Treaties: disarmament and arms control, nuclear disarmament, NPT, CTBT, INF, export control, biological and chemical weapons control, fissile materials negotiations, arms trade, general. We also added a country level: USA, China, Russia, France, UK, NATO/Europe, Iran, India/Pakistan, Middle East, North Korea.
The overall number of articles in the 11 security journals was

2,147, of which 194 were devoted to nuclear security issues. There were 29 (15%) written by women, 149 (77%) by men, and 16 (8%) by mixed gender teams. When we expand our focus and include other weapons and arms control issues, the total number of articles was 338.

Of those 338 articles, 72 (21%) were written by women, 232 (69%) by men and 34 (10%) by mixed gender teams. The overall percentage of articles written by women is 23 percent.
Of the 921 articles, 683 focused on nuclear security issues. There were 115 (17%) written by women, 512 (75%) by men; and 56 (8%) by mixed gender teams.
Of the 921 articles in the five arms control and nuclear security journals, 178 (19%) were written by women, 661 (72%) by men, and 82 (9%) by mixed gender teams.
See Crevecoeur, McGill and Whitney, Gender Balance in 11 Security Journals.
See the WCAPS website.

*Appendix:* Think Tanks
Foreign Policy and International Security Think Tanks American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Head: Robert Doar (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 29 – 6 (F) + 23 (M) 21% female 2020 Total: 31 – 8 (F) + 23 (M) 26% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 2 – 0(F) + 2 (M) 0% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 27 – 0 (F) + 27 (M) – 0% female 2020 Total: 27 – 1 (F) + 26 (M) – 4% female Atlantic Council Head: Frederick Kempe (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 227 – 66 (F) + 161 (M) – 29% female 2020 Total: 327 – 102(F) + 225 (M) – 31% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 12 – 1 (F) + 11 (M) – 8% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 200 – 39 (F) + 161 (M) – 20% female 2020 Total: 199 – 41 (F) + 158 (M) – 21% female Aspen Institute Head: Dan Porterfield (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 10 – 2 (F) + 8 (M) – 20% female 2020 Total: 8 – 4 (F) + 4 (M) – 50% female Nuclear Experts: None Governing Board: 2018 Total: 77 – 26 (F) + 51 (M) – 34% female 2020 Total: 81 – 28 (F) + 53 (M) – 35% female Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) Head: Jason Grumet (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 17 – 4 (F) + 13 (M) – 24% female 2020 Not Available Governing Board: 2018 Total: 17 – 5 (F) + 12 (M) – 29% female 2020 Total: 14 – 5 (F) + 9 (M) – 36% female Brookings Institution Head: John R. Allen (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 109 – 28 (F) + 81 (M) – 26% female 2020 Total: 117 – 30 (F) + 87 (M) – 26% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 13 – 3 (F) + 10 (M) – 23% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 89 – 19 (F) + 70 (M) – 21% female 2020 Total: 86 – 19 (F) + 67 (M) – 22% female Cato Institute Head: Peter N. Goettler (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 11 – 3 (F) + 8 (M) – 27% female 2020 Total: 9 – 1 (F) + 8 (M) – 11% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 1 – 0 (F) + 1(M) – 0% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 19 – 2 (F) + 17 (M) – 11% female 2020 Total: 18 – 2 (F) + 16 (M) – 11% female	Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) Head: William J. Burns (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 32 – 10 (F) + 22 (M) – 31% female 2020 Total: 27 – 7 (F) + 20 (M) – 26% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 5 – 1 (F) + 4 (M) – 20% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 31 – 7 (F) + 24 (M) – 23% female 2020 Total: 31 – 8 (F) + 23 (M) – 26% female Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) Head: Thomas G. Mahnken (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 32 – 4 (F) + 28 (M) – 13% female 2020 Total: 30 – 3 (F) + 27 (M) – 10% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 15 – 6 (F) + 9 (M) – 40% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 8 – 2 (F) + 6 (M) – 25% female 2020 Total: 9 – 3 (F) + 6 (M) – 33% female Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Head: John J. Hamre (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 108 – 32 (F) + 76 (M) – 30% female 2020 Total: 118 – 37 (F) + 81 (M) – 31% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 12 – 6 (F) + 6 (M) – 50% Governing Board: 2018 Total: 44 – 5 (F) + 39 (M) – 11% female 2020 Total: 44 – 5 (F) + 39 (M) – 11% female Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Head: Richard N. Haass (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 75 – 22 (F) + 53 (M) – 29% female 2020 Total: 85 – 23 (F) + 62 (M) – 27% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 7 – 3 (F) + 4 (M) – 43% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 36 – 11 (F) + 25 (M) – 31% female 2020 Total: 36 – 11 (F) + 25 (M) – 31% female Center for a New American Security (CNAS) Head: Richard Fontaine (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 78 – 29 (F) + 49 (M) – 37% female 2020 Total: 73 – 22 (F) + 51 (M) – 30 % female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 9 – 2 (F) + 7 (M) – 22% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 21 – 2 (F) + 19 (M) – 10% female 2020 Total: 25 – 3 (F) + 22 (M) – 12% female Center for American Progress (CAP) Head: Neera Tanden (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 19 – 3 (F) + 16 (M) – 16% female 2020 Total: 16 – 3 (F) + 13 (M) – 19% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 3 – 0 (F) + 3 (M) – 0% Governing Board: 2018 Total: 9 – 2 (F) + 7 (M) – 22% female 2020 Total: 10 – 3 (F) + 7 (M) – 30% female	German Marshall Fund (GMF) Head: Karen Donfried (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 44 – 12 (F) + 32 (M) – 27% female 2020 Not Available Governing Board: 2018 Total: 19 – 5 (F) + 14 (M) – 26% female 2020 Total: 21 – 8 (F) + 13 (M) – 38% female Heritage Foundation Head: Kay Coles James (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 32 – 7 (F) + 25 (M) – 22% female 2020 Total: 46 – 10 (F) + 36 (M) – 22% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 14 – 2 (F) + 12 (M) – 14% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 25 – 6 (F) + 19 (M) – 24% female 2020 Total: 27 – 5 (F) + 22 (M) – 19% female Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) Head: Robert L. Borosage (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 16 – 7 (F) + 9 (M) – 44% female 2020 Total: 36 – 13 (F) + 23 (M) – 36% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 1 – 1 (M) + 0 (F) – 0% Governing Board: 2018 Total: 18 – 8 (F) + 10 (M) – 44% female 2020 Total: 18 – 8 (F) + 10 (M) – 44% female Lexington Institute Head: Merrick “Mac” Carey (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 6 – 1 (F) + 5 (M) – 17% female 2020 Total: 6 – 0 (F) + 6 (M) – 0% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 1 – 0 (F) + 1 (M) – 0% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 7 – 0 (F) + 7 (M) – 0% female 2020 Total: 6 – 0 (F) + 6 (M) – 0% female New America Head: Anne-Marie Slaughter (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 104 – 34 (F) + 70 (M) – 33% female 2020 Total 103 – 42 (F) + 61 (M) – 41% female Nuclear Experts: None Governing Board: 2018 Total: 22 – 6 (F) + 16 (M) – 27% female 2020 Total: 20 – 6 (F) + 14 (M) – 30% female RAND Corporation Head: Michael D. Rich (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 613 – 245 (F) + 368 (M) – 40% female 2020 Total 541 – 229 (F) + 312 (M) – 42% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total 47 – 12 (F) + 31 (M) – 28% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 26 – 7 (F) + 19 (M) – 27% female 2020 Total 24 – 7 (F) + 17 (M) – 30% female

*Appendix:* Think Tanks
Stimson Center Head: Brian Finlay (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 72 – 37 (F) + 35 (M) – 51% female 2020 Total: 106 – 45 (F) + 61 (M) – 42% female * Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 40 – 18 (F) + 22 (M) – 45% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 27 – 7 (F) + 20 (M) – 26% female 2020 Total: 30 – 9 (F) + 21 (M) – 30% female Third Way Head: Jonathan Cowan (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 17 – 8 (F) + 9 (M) – 47% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 8 – 4 (F) + 4 (M) – 50% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 30 – 6 (F) + 24 (M) – 20% female US Institute of Peace (USIP) Head: … Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 72 – 35 (F) + 37 (M) – 49% female 2020 Total: 84 – 41 (F) + 43 (M) – 49% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 7 – 2 (F) + 5 (M) – 29% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 15 – 3 (F) + 12 (M) – 20% female 2020 Total: 15 – 3 (F) + 12 (M) – 20% female The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Head: Jane Harman (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 187 – 64 (F) + 123 (M) – 34% female 2020 Total: 151 – 46 (F) + 105 (M) – 30% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 4 – 1 (F) + 3 (M) – 25% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 16 – 5 (F) + 11 (M) – 31% female 2020 Total: 17 – 5 (F) + 12 (M) – 29% female	Arms Control and Nuclear Security Think Tanks Arms Control Association Head: Daryl G. Kimball (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 7 – 3 (F) + 4 (M) – 43% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 7 – 3 (F) + 4 (M) – 43% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 35 – 12 (F) + 23 (M) – 34% female Center for Arms Control and NonProliferation Head: Edward Levine (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 19 – 2 (F) + 17 (M) – 11 % female Nuclear Experts 2020 Total: 19 – 2 (F) + 17 (M) – 11% female Governing Board: (Does not include the Szilard Advisory Board) 2020 Total: 24 – 5 (F) + 19 (M) – 21% female Federation of American Scientists Head: Ali Nouri (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 18 – 3 (F) + 15 (M) – 17% female Nuclear Experts 2020 Total: 12 – 3 (F) + 9 (M) – 25% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 17 – 6 (F) + 11 (M) – 35% female Global Zero Head: Derek Johnson (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 7 – 3 (F) + 4 (M) – 43% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 7 – 3 (F) + 4 (M) – 43% female Governing Board: Not Available James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies Head: William Potter (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 13 – 5 (F) + 8 (M) – 38% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 13 – 5 (F) + 8 (M) – 38% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 4 – 2 (F) + 2 (M) – 50% female Managing the Atom Project, Belfer Center, Harvard Kennedy School Head: Matthew Bunn (M), Steven Miller (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 30 – 8 (F) + 22 (M) – 27% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 30 – 8 (F) + 22 (M) – 27% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 45 – 15 (F) + 30 (M) – 33% female	Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) Head: Ernest J. Moniz (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2018 Total: 18 – 9 (F) + 9 (M) – 50% female 2020 Total: 22 – 12 (F) + 10 (M) – 55% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 19 – 9 (F) + 10 (M) – 47% female Governing Board: 2018 Total: 34 – 7 (F) + 27 (M) – 21% female 2020 Total: 35 – 8 (F) + 27 (M) – 23% female Physicians for Social Responsibility Head: Jeff Carter (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 6 – 2 (F) + 4 (M) – 33% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 2 – 0 (F) + 2 (M) – 0% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 27 – 11 (F) + 16 (M) – 41% female Pugwash Council Head: Sergio Duarte (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 43 – 12 (F) + 31 (M) – 28% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 43 – 12 (F) + 31 (M) – 28% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 8 – 2 (F) + 6 (M) – 25% female Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control Head: Valerie Lincy (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 2020 Total: 10 – 4 (F) + 6 (M) – 40% female Nuclear Experts: 2020 Total: 10 – 4 (F) + 6 (M) – 40% female Governing Board: 2020 Total: 9 – 3 (F) + 6 (M) – 33% female

Notes: Absolute Numbers and Gender Ratio of Articles in International Security Journals – January 2014-December 2019

Contemporary Security Policy 152 25 16% 109 72% 18 12% Nuclear Security Articles 47 8 17% 32 68% 7 15% Cooperation and Conflict 168 51 30% 94 56% 23 14% Nuclear Security Articles 5 2 40% 3 60% – Critical Studies on Security 200 90 45% 95 48% 15 8% Nuclear Security Articles 28 13 46% 14 50% 1 4% European Journal of International Security 63 17 27% 40 63% 6 10% Nuclear Security Articles 14 2 14% 10 72% 2 14% International Security 114 26 23% 77 67% 11 10% Nuclear Security Articles 32 6 19% 20 62% 6 19% Journal of Conflict Resolution 403 60 15% 224 56% 119 29% Nuclear Security Articles 18 4 22% 11 61% 3 17% Journal of Global Security Studies 117 30 26% 68 58% 19 16% Nuclear Security Articles 16 3 19% 10 62% 3 19% Journal of Strategic Studies 233 26 11% 192 82% 15 7% Nuclear Security Articles 56 9 16% 41 73% 6 11% Security Dialogue 191 80 42% 89 47% 22 11% Nuclear Security Articles 17 8 47% 7 41% 2 12% Security Studies 159 34 22% 107 67% 18 11% Nuclear Security Articles 21 4 19% 15 71% 2 10% Survival 347 48 14% 280 81% 19 5% Nuclear Security Articles 84 12 14% 70 83% 2 3% Journal Total No Women* Men* Mixed Gender Teams

Notes: Absolute Numbers and Gender Ratio of Articles in Arms Control Journals – January 2014-December 2019

Arms Control Today 251 47 19% 191 76% 13 5% Bulletin of Atomic Scientist 392 85 22% 271 69% 36 9% International Journal of Nuclear Studies 54 11 20% 32 60% 11 20% Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament 63 7 11% 52 83% 4 6% Nonproliferation Review 161 28 17% 115 72% 18 11% Journal Total No Women* Men* Mixed Gender Teams *Includes articles by single authors and by same sex coauthors

*Methodology*
Think Tanks All data come from the think tanks’ own websites. Data for the think tanks were collected between September 2019 and January 2020, except for Third Way. Data for Third Way were collected in July 2020. Data for the governing boards of all think tanks were collected in July 2020. We were not able to retrieve data for experts from the German Marshall Fund’s (GMF) website. The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) no longer features a national or international security program on its website. Hence, data for GMF and BPC are incomplete. While gender is generally defined and discussed as meaning more than just whether one is a man or a woman, this scorecard takes the binary approach. We identified experts and authors as either women or men by examining their bios, photographs and use of pronouns. This scorecard tallies experts, analysts and fellows. We did not include people whose main responsibilities are in the administrative, operational, personnel, development, communication, and editorial sectors. Experts in foreign policy, defense and national and international security were selected based on the identification of such experts by the think tanks themselves. Nuclear security experts were identified by searching the think tank websites and expert bios for any the following terms: nuclear deterrence, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear policy, general nuclear issues, nuclear security (nuclear materials, fuel cycle, nuclear energy, radiological security), arms control and disarmament, nuclear technologies, defense strategy with a nuclear focus, regional studies with nuclear focus (North Korea, China, Iran, Asia-Pacific, Korea, Middle East). We did not analyze experts’ seniority. Some think tanks include junior staff; others identify only mid-level and senior staff. We did not distinguish between nonresident and resident experts. Again, for each think tank, we followed the think tank’s own identification of its experts. In the case of RAND we excluded all adjunct experts. Adjuncts at RAND are the equivalent of non-residential fellows in other institutions. RAND will feature some adjunct experts, but not all adjuncts on its website. Upon request and in consultation with RAND we decided to leave all adjuncts off this tally. The following experts, analysts, fellows, scholars and staff have been included for: AEI: All Foreign and Defense Policy Scholars; Atlantic Council: All Fellows and Non-Resident Fellows mentioned under Experts; Aspen Institute: All Security & Global Affairs, including the Aspen Strategy Group, the Cybersecurity & Technology Program, and the Homeland Security Program; Bipartisan Policy Center: No Information; Brookings Institution: All Experts in the	Foreign Policy Program; Cato Institute: All Nat./ Int. Security Experts; Carnegie Endowment: All Experts in the Washington, DC office; CSBA: All All Nat./Int. Security Experts; CAP: Foreign Policy and Security Program; CSIS: All Experts; CFR: All Experts; CNAS: All Experts; GMF: Not Available; Heritage Foundation: Heritage Foundation: All Experts in the International, National Security, and Nuclear Energy Issue Areas; IPS: All Experts; Lexington Institute: All Experts; New America: All Analysts and Fellows in the Cybersecurity Initiative, the International Security Program and the Gender and Security Program; RAND: All experts in the Homeland Security and Public Safety, the International Affairs, and the National Security Programs. Our tally does not do not include Adjuncts, Operational Staff and Legislative Assistants. It may also be noted that some experts in the Homeland Security and Public Safety program are more focused on public safety and domestic issues. Similarly, some experts in the International Affairs Program are focused on non-security international affairs issues; Stimson Center: Senior Research Team & Distinguished Fellows; Third Way: Experts in Climate and Energy and National Security; USIP: All Experts; The Wilson Center: All Experts; Arms Control Association: All Expert Staff; Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: All Experts; FAS: All Expert Staff; Global Zero: All Expert Staff; James Martin Center for Non-Proliferation Studies: All Expert Staff; Managing the Atom Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs: All Experts; NTI: All Expert Staff; Physicians for Social Responsibility: All Expert Staff; Pugwash Council: All Expert Staff; Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control: All Expert Staff. The Full Think Tank Data Set is available from WIIS. Journals Sixteen journals were examined over the period January 2014–December 2019: 11 security studies journals and 5 journals focused exclusively on arms control and nuclear security issues. 11 – International Security Journals: Contemporary Security Policy; Cooperation &Conflict; Critical Studies on Security; European Journal of International Security; International Security; Journal of Conflict Resolution; Journal of Global Security Studies; Journal of Strategic Studies; Security Dialogue; Security Studies; Survival. 5 – Arms Control and Nuclear Security Journals: Arms Control Today; Bulletin of Atomic Scientists; International Journal of Nuclear Studies; Journal for Peace &Nuclear Disarmament; Nonproliferation Review. The survey covered all articles published in these journals. We excluded editorial comments, reviews of any kind (i.e., book reviews) external news articles or blogs, letters to the editor, addendums and other nonrelevant sections.	We established 6 datasets. Data set 1: All 16 journals. Comprises all articles from the 11 international security and 5 arms control and nuclear security journals from January 2014 to December 2019. Does not include letters to the editor, book reviews, or external blogs. Total articles: 3,068 by women (individual and coauthor): 665 by men (individual and coauthor): 2,036 by mixed gender teams: 367 articles with a gender perspective: 91 Data set 2: All international security journals (11 journals). January 2014-December 2019 Total articles: 2,147 by women (individual and coauthor): 487 by men (individual and coauthor): 1,375 by mixed gender teams: 285 gender articles: 71 arms control/nuclear articles: 338 Data set 3: All arms control and nuclear security journals (5 journals). January 2014-December 2019 Total articles: 921 by women (individual and coauthor): 178 by men (individual and coauthor): 661 by mixed gender teams: 82 articles with a gender perspective: 20 Data set 4: All arms control and nuclear security articles (16 journals). Comprises all articles from the 5 nuclear journals and 338 arms control/nuclear security issues articles from the 11 security journals. Total articles: 1,259 by women (individual and coauthor): 250 by men (individual and coauthor): 893 by mixed gender teams: 116 articles with a gender perspective: 21 Data set 5: All nuclear security articles in all journals (16 journals). Total articles: 877 by women (individual and coauthor): 144 by men (individual and coauthor): 661 by mixed gender teams: 72 Data set 6: All nuclear security articles in internationals security journals (11 journals). Total articles: 194 by women (individual and coauthor): 29 by men (individual and coauthor): 149 by mixed gender teams: 16 All data is available from WIIS. Contact: info@ wiisglobal.org, Subject: Scorecard data

By Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Soraya Kamali-Nafar

For over 30 years, Women In International Security (WIIS) has worked to advance the role of women in national and international security. While much progress has been made, the number of women occupying prominent positions in foreign and defense policy remains limited. As a result, the role of women in decisionmaking in foreign and defense policies is under-developed.

Indeed, while women constitute 40 percent of the Foreign Service officer corps, they hold only one-third of the chief of mission positions.¹ Women make up 33 percent of the Department of Defense civilian staff and 18 percent of the DOD active duty officer corps, and they remain grossly under-represented at the highest ranks—less than 8 percent have the rank of general or flag officer.²

Women also remain under-represented as expert commentators in the media. Women accounted for just 24 percent of foreign affairs and national security experts invited to speak on major political talk shows.³ Manels— that is, event panels with only men—remain common in the United States, including in Washington, DC.⁴

The lack of women in prominent positions in the foreign policy and national and international security establishments In 2000, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, which recognized the importance of the role of women in matters related to international peace and security.⁷ In 2011, the US rolled out a US National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, and in November 2017, the US Congress adopted the Women, Peace and Security Act, which posited that “the United States should be a global leader in promoting the meaningful participation of women in conflict prevention, management and resolution, and post-conflict relief and recovery efforts.”⁸

Think tanks play an important role in shaping foreign and defense policy agendas. Think tank experts shape these agendas by moving in and out of many critical positions in the US government and by participating in policy debates in the media.

Many think tanks have recognized the importance of diversifying their staff and recruiting and retaining more women.⁹ Many have in recent years added programs highlighting women in the field (see below). Unfortunately, many think tanks continue to suffer from significant gender gaps. First, only 32 percent of the national and international security think tanks are headed by a woman.

is surprising since for over a decade more than 60 percent of those enrolled in graduate programs (masters and doctoral programs) in the social and behavorial sciences (including political science and international relations) have been women.⁵ The 7,000-member International Studies Association (ISA), the professional association for scholars, practitioners, and graduate students in the field of international studies, has 43 percent female membership. Amongst its graduate student members, women are in the majority.⁶

Figure 1: Heads of Washington, DC Think Tanks

Figure 2: Average % of Experts in Washington, DC

Think Tanks by Gender

Figure 3: Average % of Governing Board Members of

Washington, DC Think Tanks by Gender

Second, on average only 27 percent of expert staff are women. Only 3 out of 22 think tanks (14 percent) have achieved gender parity within their expert staff. Third, only 22 percent of think tank governing boards are women. Finally, only one think tank has integrated gender in its programs.

Since 2007, the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) of the University of Pennsylvania has published an annual Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. The report measures the roles think tanks play in governments and civil societies around the world. It does so by ranking think tanks in a variety of categories, including top think tanks by region and areas of research.¹⁰

*Table 1:* Washnigton, DC Think Tanks with Women at the Helm
Center for American Progress (CAP)	Ms. Neera Tanden, President and CEO	2011
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)	Ms. Victoria Nuland, CEO	2018
German Marshall Fund (GMF)	Dr. Karen Donfried, President	2014
Heritage Foundation	Ms. Kay Coles James, President	2017
New America	Dr. Anne-Marie Slaugther, President and CEO	2013
US Institute of Peace (USIP)	Ms. Nancy Lindborg, President and CEO	2015
Wilson Center for International Scholars	Ms. Jane Harman, President and CEO	2011

Unfortunately, the Global Go To Think Tank Index Report does not consider how gender balances or gender programming influence these roles. In sum, up until now there has not been a systematic effort to collect data on the gender balances within the major thinks tanks active in national and international security arena.¹¹ Nor has there been a systematic effort to survey the programs of think tanks to see how gender is integrated into them.

The WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks fills this gap by presenting data with regard to the gender balance of 22 major think tanks that work on foreign policy and national and international security issues and are based in the Washington, DC area. We also present information about the gender and women’s programs within these think tanks.

This scorecard is part of a broader WIIS initiative to promote the integration of gender perspectives into national and international security agendas.¹² Indeed, we believe that gender perspectives are insufficiently integrated into analyses of national and international security challenges.¹³ An important step in the right direction is to achieve gender parity at the level of the expert staffs. In addition, we believe that it is important to achieve gender parity at the level of the governing boards of thinks tanks. Indeed, boards of directors and trustees have judiciary responsibilities for the governance of thinks tanks, they oversee think tank activities, and help set the strategic direction. Without leadership from the top, gender gaps will remain.¹⁴

By publishing this scorecard, we hope to stimulate discussions within the think tanks on how to close the gender gaps on their expert staffs and governing boards. We also hope to stimulate a broader discussion about the importance of gender when examining important international security challenges. We believe that a more diverse staff within think tanks, as well as more diverse governing boards, will stimulate innovative and better approaches to critical national and international security challenges and help to make the world a better place.

Scoring the Tanks

The scorecard reviews think tanks along four main axes:

percentage of women that lead the think tanks;

percentage of women experts in the think tank’s foreign policy and national and international security programs;

percentage of women in the governing bodies of the think tanks.

number of think tanks with significant commitment to gender and/or women’s programming.

Heads of Think Tanks

Of the 22 institutions surveyed, only seven (32 percent) are led by women – the Center for American Progress, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), the German

Marshall Fund (GMF), the Heritage Foundation, New America, the US Institute of Peace (USIP), and the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars.

Experts

Only three think tanks—the Stimson Center, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), and the US Institute of Peace (USIP) —have reached gender parity at the level of their expert staff.

On average, only 27 percent of the expert staff of Washington, DC thinks tanks surveyed are women.

Figure 4: % of Women Experts in Washington, DC Think Tanks

51 50 49

Governing Boards

The gender gap is particularly stark at the level of the governing boards. No think tank has achieved gender parity. The Institute for Policy Studies and the Aspen Institute come closest, with 44 percent and 43 percent women, respectively.

On average, only 22 percent of the Board of Directors or Trustees are composed of women.

Gender or Women’s Programming

Most Washington, DC think tanks do not consider the role of gender in national and international security. For many in the traditional security think tank community—men and women—gender is often equated with “women” or a “woman’s point of view.” A 2016 survey by the New America

Foundation found that the majority of US policymakers and elites had little knowledge and understanding of gender. Most equated gender with women. If at all open to the idea of a gender

Figure 5: % of Women on Governing Boards of Washington, DC Think Tanks _{widespread within the DC foreign}policy and security think tank

*Table 2:* % of Women Experts in Washington, DC Think Tanks
Rank	Think Tank	% of Women
1	Stimson Center	51%
2	Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)	50%
3	US Institute of Peace (USIP)	49%
4	Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)	44%
5	RAND Corporation	40%
6	Center for a New American Security (CNAS)	37%
7	Wilson Center for International Scholars	34%
8	New America	33%
9	Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS)	30%
10	Atlantic Council Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)	29%
13	CATO Institute German Marshall Fund (GMF)	27%
15	Brookings Institution	26%
16	Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC)	24%
17	Heritage Foundation	22%
18	American Enterprise Institute (AEI)	21%
19	Aspen Institute	20%
20	Lexington Institute	17%
21	Center for American Progress (CAP)	16%
22	Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA)	13%

the programming center on gender to the front office and began mainstreaming gender throughout its work in 2015, most notably in its field projects and programs. Since 2016, USIP has had a director for gender policy and strategy that oversees and advises all programs on gender. The director sits in the Policy, Learning and Strategy Center, which reports directly to USIP’s president.

None of the other think tanks have integrated gender into their national and international security programming. Most other think tanks have separate programs that have a focus on women, rather than gender. A few think tanks work on the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, but most of that work is not integrated into their other national or international security programs.¹⁶

Think tanks with notable programs on women and/or the WPS agenda include the following:¹⁷

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) launched a Women In National Security program in 2014.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) launched a Smart Women, Smart Power Program in December 2014 and a Women’s Global Leadership Program in 2015.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has a Women and Foreign Policy Program and a Women and Foreign Policy Program Advisory Council founded in 2002.

New America started work on the WPS agenda in its Better Life Lab and Political Reform Program.

The RAND Corporation has a webpage called Rand Women

To Watch. It also has programs on Gender Equity in the Workplace and Gender Integration in the Military, which addresses issues related to women and transgender military personnel. In its work on Female Populations RAND addresses issues faced by women and girls, including women refugees, migrants, and gender-based and intimate partner violence.

The Woodrow Wilson Center has a Global Women’s Leadership Initiative (GWLI) (since 2012) and a Women In Public Service Project.

Most research on the WPS agenda and the intersections of women, gender, and national and international security issues is carried out outside of the foreign policy and national and international security think tank establishment by nongovernmental organizations and civil society groups. While many of these groups are active in advocacy and operational work, many also conduct research and produce policy papers. Most of these organizations are members of the US Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace and Security (US CSWG). (see box page 6).

Table 3: % of Women on Governing Boards of Washington, DC Think Tanks

Rank Think Tank % of Women

Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) 44%

Aspen Institute 34%

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) 31%

Wilson Center for International Scholars

Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) 29%

New America 27%

RAND Corporation

8 German Marshall Fund (GMF) 26%

Stimson Center

Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) 25%

Heritage Foundation 24% 12 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) 23%

Center for American Progress (CAP) 22%

Brookings Institution 21%

Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)

16 Atlantic Council 20%

US Institute of Peace (USIP)

18 CATO Institute 11% Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS)

20 Center for a New American Security (CNAS) 10%

21-22 American Enterprise Institute (AEI) 0%

Lexington Institute

Concluding Thoughts

The main security policy establishments, including think tanks, continue to be staffed and managed mostly by men.

The top 10 think tanks in the United States, as ranked by the Go To Think Tank Index Report—Brookings, CSIS, CEIP, Heritage Foundation, Wilson Center, RAND, CAP, CFR, Cato, Atlantic Council—are often not those who do best in terms of gender balance or gender programming, the Wilson Center being the exception.

While we see an increasing number of women entering the field of national and international security, their influence remains limited. Only 3 out of 22 think tanks have achieved gender parity at the level of their expert staff.

We hope that the publication of this scorecard will stimulate discussions and encourage thinks tanks to conduct a gender analysis of their organizations.¹⁸

Such an analysis should include a more fine-grained examination of the gender balance within their institutions. For example, what positions do men and women occupy within the foreign and national and international security expert positions available at the organization? How are hiring and retention policies affecting the gender imbalances? Are there gender pay gaps? Do men and women get interviewed and quoted equally? If not, why not? These discussions should include not just the human resources department, but also and most important the staff of the policy programs in question.

In addition, think tanks should examine the gender balance at their governing boards and how they can increase efforts to attract more women to the boards. Organizations, like WIIS can help think tanks identify women with the necessary expertise and experience.

A think tank gender analysis would also include an examination of how gender is integrated into the analysis of national and international security issues. Program directors should be encouraged to examine how research on women and gender can become a more integral part of their foreign policy and national security programs, instead of standalone, siloed, programs.

Change within institutions require leadership from the top. They also require that programs and program staff are held accountable. Collecting gendered data on such things as new hires, panels, and media outreach is often a first step.¹⁹

Lastly, think tanks may consider appointing a Gender Advisor (GENAD). Such advisors have been particularly useful in government settings (USAID, State and DoD) and international organizations (United Nations, NATO). When appointing GENADs, it is important to locate them in policy positions or in the think tank’s front office so that they have direct access to the leadership.

Members of the USCSWG

4Girls GLocal Leadership Alliance for Peacebuilding American Red Cross Amnesty International USA Asia Foundation Baha’is of the United States Equality Now Fuller Project for International Reporting Futures Without Violence George Washington University Center for Gender Equality in International Affairs Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace & Security Human Rights Watch Inclusive Security Institute for State Effectiveness (ISE) International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) International Republican Institute (IRI) International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) Mina’s List / Peace is Loud National Democratic Institute Our Secure Future: Women Make the Difference PAI Peace X Peace Promundo – U.S. Protect the People Saferworld Strategy for Humanity The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP) United Nations Association of the USA U.S. National Committee of UN Women Vital Voices Global Partnership WomanStats Project Women Enabled International Women for Afghan Women Women In International Security (WIIS) Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security (WCAPS) Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) Women’s Refugee Commission Secretariat: USIP Fiscal Sponsor/Agent: WIIS

Much progress has been made with regard to gender equality. In the last two decades the number of women studying national and international affairs has grown enormously. Students (women and men) are also increasingly interested in analyzing the role of gender and gender inequalities on national and international security. Think tanks no longer have many excuses for the persisting gender gaps and the neglect of gender perspectives. In a world with increasingly complex national and international security challenges, think tanks need to appeal to broad expertise in order to advance peace and security in the 21st century.

Methodology

The WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks surveys 22 think tanks with a strong presence in the Washington, DC area. They all work on a broad range of international affairs and national and international security issues. Most are mentioned in the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report and/or get regular mention in the media.²⁰

This scorecard does not include university-based research institutes (e.g., the McCain Institute or the Center for Transatlantic Relations). The scorecard also excludes those think tanks focused on a specific region (e.g., the Middle East) or one functional area (e.g., migration or international economic development).

While gender can be defined and discussed as more than just women and men, this survey takes a binary approach and conducted its evaluation using women and men and based its evaluation on the names and photographs found on organizations’ websites.

Data on each of the think tanks were collected in August 2018 from the think tanks’ own websites. Experts in foreign policy, defense, and national and international security were selected based on the identification of such experts by the think tanks themselves. We did not analyze the positions of the experts. Some think tanks include junior staff; others will identify only more senior staff. Similarly, we did not distinguish between non-resident and resident experts. For each think tank, we followed the think tanks’ own identification of its experts. For the full data set, see the WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks Data Set – 2018 at wiisglobal.org.

*Table 4:* WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks in alphabetical order.
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) head: Arthur Brooks (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 21% women total: 29 6 (F) + 23 (M) Governing Board: 0% women total: 27 0 (F) +27 (M) Atlantic Council head: Fred Kempe (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 29% women total: 227 66 (F) + 161 (M) Governing Board: 20% women total: 200 39 (F) +161 (M) Aspen Institute head: Dan Porterfield (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 20% women total: 10 2 (F) + 8 (M) Governing Board: 34% women total: 77 26 (F) + 51 (M) Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) head: Jason Grumet (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 24% women total: 17 4 (F) + 13 (M) Governing Board: 29% women total: 17 5 (F) + 12 (M) Brookings Institution head: John R. Allen (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 26% women total: 109 28 (F) + 81 (M) Governing Board: 21% women total: 89 19 (F) +70 (M) Cato Institute head: Peter Goettler (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 27% women total: 11 3 (F) + 8 (M) Governing Board: 11% women total: 19 2 (F) + 17 (M) Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) head: William J. Burns (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 29% women total: 31 9 (F) + 22 (M) Governing Board: 23% women total: 31 7 (F) + 24 (M) Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) head: Thomas G. Mahnken Nat./Int. Security Experts: 13% women total: 32 4 (F) + 28 (M) Governing Board: 25% women total: 8 2 (F) + 6 (M) Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) head: John J. Hamre (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 30% women total: 108 32 (F) + 76 (M) Governing Board: 11% women total: 44 5 (F) + 39 (M) Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) head: Richard N. Haass (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 29% women total: 75 22 (F) + 53 (M) Governing Board: 31% women total: 36 11 (F) + 25 (M)	Center for a New American Security (CNAS) head: Victoria Nuland (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 37% women total: 78 29 (F) + 49 (M) Governing Board: 10% women total: 21 2 (F) + 19 (M) Center for American Progress (CAP) head: Neera Tanden (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 16% women total: 19 3 (F) + 16 (M) Governing Board: 22% women total: 9 2 (F) + 7 (M) German Marshall Fund (GMF) head: Karen Donfried (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 27% women total: 44 12 (F) + 32 (M) Governing Board: 26% women total: 19 5 (F) + 14 (M) Heritage Foundation head: Kay Coles James (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 22% women total: 32 7 (F) + 25 (M) Governing Board: 24% women total: 25 6 (F)+19 (M) Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) head: John Cavanagh (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 44% women total: 16 7 (F) + 9 (M) Governing Board: 44% women total: 18 8 (F) + 10 (M) Lexington Institute head: Merrick “Mac” Carey (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 17% women total: 6 1 (F) + 5 (M) Governing Board: 0% women total: 7 0 (F) + 7 (M) New America head: Anne-Marie Slaughter (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 33% women total: 104 34 (F) + 70 (M) Governing Board: 27% women total: 22 6 (F) + 16 (M) Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) head: Ernest J. Moniz (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 50% women total: 18 9 (F) + 9 (M) Governing Board: 21% women total: 34 7 (F) + 27 (M) RAND Corporation head: Michael D. Rich (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 40% women total: 613 245 (F) + 368 (M) Governing Board: 27% women total: 26 7 (F) + 19 (M) Stimson Center head: Brian Finlay (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 51% women total: 72 37 (F) + 35 (M) Governing Board: 26% women total: 27 7 (F) + 20 (M)	US Institute of Peace (USIP) head: Nancy Lindborg (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 49% women total: 72 35 (F) + 37 (M) Governing Board: 20% women total: 15 3 (F) + 12 (M) Wilson Center for International Scholars head: Jane Harman (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 34% women total: 187 64 (F)+123 (M) Governing Board: 31% women total: 16 5 (F) + 11 (M) NOTE: The following experts, fellows, scholars, and staff have been included for: AEI: All Foreign and Defense Policy Scholars; Atlantic Council: All fellows and non-resident fellows mentioned under experts; Aspen Institute: All staff and experts from the following programs: Security & Global Affairs, including the Aspen Strategy Group, the Cybersecurity & Technology Program, and the Homeland Security Program; Bipartisan Policy Center: All experts mentioned under the National Security Project; Brookings Institution: All experts mentioned under the Foreign Policy Program; CATO: All experts mentioned under Foreign Policy and National Security; Carnegie Endowment: All experts in the Washington, DC office; CSBA: all national and international security analysts and fellows; CSIS: All experts; CFR: All experts; CNAS: All experts (staff and adjunct fellows); CAP: All experts mentioned under the Foreign Policy and Security Program; GMF: All experts; Heritage Foundation: All experts staff identified as working on national and international security issues; IPS: all experts identified as working on foreign policy and national and international security; Lexington Institute: All experts; New America: All current staff and fellows mentioned in the following programs: Cybersecurity Initiative and International Security. NTI: All experts: Rand Corporation: All experts mentioned under Homeland Security & Public Safety, International Affairs, and National Security & Terrorism programs; Stimson Center: All national & international security experts mentioned under “Staff”, note: we did not include development staff, finance officers, or other administrative staff members; USIP: All experts; Wilson Center: All experts. For a full list of experts go to the WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks Data Set – 2018 at wiisglobal.org

References

See Andrea Strano, “Foreign Service Women Today: The Palmer Case and Beyond,” The Foreign Service Journal, March 2016. On the lack of women in leadership positions, see also Katherine Kidder, Amy Schafer, Phillip Carter, and Andrew Swick, From College to Cabinet: Women In

National Security, (Washington, DC: CNAS, 2017); Women In Public Service Project, Wilson Center, Roadmap to 50×50, Power and Parity in Women’s Leadership, (Washington, DC: Wilson Center, May 2018); Joan Johnson-Freese, “Half of Heaven: Why More Women are Needed in National Security,” TedxTalks, August 17, 2018; and Adrianna Pita, Tamara Cofman Wittes and Sarah Yerkes, “Presence and Voice: Women In Foreign Policy,” A Brookings Podcast, June 8, 2016.

See DOD, Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, DoD Diversity and Inclusion 2013 Summary Report (Alexandria, VA: DOD, 2013), pp. B3-B6; and Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, 2017 Annual Report, (Alexandria, VA: DOD-Dacowits, 2017). See also Kidder et al. From College to Cabinet.

See Foreign Policy Interrupted, “Women’s Voices Marginalized in

2016 News Coverage of Foreign Affairs and National Security,” Media Matters, March 8, 2017. Foreign Policy Interrupted reports similar numbers with respect to the number of women who have seen their Opeds published. See website: www.fpinterrupted.com. See also: Amanda Taub, “The #ManPanel problem: Why are female experts still so widely ignored?,” Vox, March 16, 2016.

Several initiatives to combat manels and gender discrimination were launched in 2015. In Australia, the Panel Pledge was launched—i.e., a commitment not to appear on male only panels. In Geneva, the International Gender Champion network was launched, committing heads of organizations to no longer sit on single-sex panels. See also, Daniel Drezner, “A Few Thoughts on Manels,” Washington Post Blog, June 7, 2018; and Tamara Wittes and Marc Lynch, “The mysterious absence of women from Middle East policy debates,” Washington Post, January 20, 2015.

See Hironao Okahana and Enyu Zhou, Graduate Enrollment and

Degrees: 2006-2016 (Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools, 2017). For example, in the Fall of 2016, first-time graduate enrollment in the social and behavorial sciences (including anthropology, economics, political science and international relations) saw 38 percent men and 62 percent women enrolled in doctoral programs and 35.5 percent men and 64.5 percent women enrolled in Masters programs. A separate study should examine what happens with these graduates.

See “Gender Distribution of ISA Membership” at https://www.isanet.org/ISA/About-ISA/Data/Gender. In the international security thematic group of ISA women make up 37 percent; in foreign policy analysis women 34 percent; in peace studies 53 percent. Women outnumber men in 8 of the 29 thematic groups: interdisciplinary studies, environmental studies, feminist theory and gender studies, global development, global health, human rights, international law, and peace studies. Women also outnumber men in three of its four caucuses: Global South Caucus LGBTQ and allies caucus; and the Women Caucus. The Online Media Caucus has 48 percent women members.

See, for example, Kathleen Kuehnast, Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Helga Hernes, eds., Women and War: Power and Protection in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: USIP, 2011), and Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Michael E. Brown, “WPS+GPS: Adding Gender to the Peace and Security Equation,” WIIS Policybrief, November 2017

The US NAP on WPS was updated in June 2016. See also Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017, Public Law No:115-68, 10/06/2017.

See for example Vestige Strategies, Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in the Foreign Policy Sector, (Washington, DC: Vestige Strategies, July 2018). See also the activities of The Think Tank Diversity Consortium (TTDC).

James McGann, 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report, (Philadelphia, PA: TTCSP, the Lauder Institute, The University of Pennsylvania, 2018).

Micah Zenko has been one of the few foreign policy experts paying attention to this issue. See for example, Micah Zenko, “Where are the Women in Foreign Policy Today,” Foreign Policy Blog Post (September

26, 2015). In the past, WIIS has surveyed women in the State Department, staff in the US Congress and women in Peacekeeping, but never did a survey of women in think tanks. See wiisglobal.org

This scorecard is also part of a broader initiative of the Leadership Council for Women In National Security (LC-WINS) that seeks greater diversity within think tanks. LC-WINS is an informal group of foreign policy and national security professionals created in 2017. 13. See de Jonge Oudraat and Brown, “WPS+GPS”

Leadership should also encourage men and women to integrate gendered perspectives into their analysis of international security problems.

See Heather Hurlburt, Elizabeth Weingarten and Carolina Marques de Mesquita, A Guide to Talking Women, Peace, and Security Inside the U.S. Security Establishment (Washington, DC: New America Foundation, 2017)

In 2015, the Compton Foundation launched a $5 million special peace and national security initiative with a focus on the Women, Peace and Security agenda and the integration of a gendered perspective in US Foreign Policy. Thanks to these grants The Council on Foreign Relations, CNAS, and New America greatly expanded their programs on women and the WPS agenda.

We do not include those think tanks that view women and gender mostly through a domestic lens (Brookings and CAP) or those that might have an occasional publication related to women and gender and national or international security.

An increasing number of companies in the corporate sector seek EDGE (Economic Dividends for Gender Equality) workplace gender equality certification. WIIS has also a growing portfolio of gender evaluation and analysis and gender trainings.

The collection of data and the setting of benchmarks and objectives has proven to be very effective within the Scandinavian academic and think tank community. In August 2018, a consortium of seven European universities launched a new Charter that seeks to build a stronger commitment to gender equality in higher education and research institutions. The Charter is part of an EU Horizon 2020 initiative entitled the SAGE (Systematic Action for Gender Equality) project. It outlines 12 principles that support structural, cultural and political

change to eradicate sexism, bias, and other forms of discrimination

in research and higher education, and advance an intersectional and inclusive concept of gender. See “New European Charter to Promote Gender Equality in the University Sector,” Press Release, Trinity College

Dublin, August 22, 2018; see also http://sage-growingequality.eu. The Irish Minister of State for Higher Education, Mary Mitchell O’Connor, announced that University funding would in future be linked to how well universities are tackling gender inequality, including gender inequalities among staff. See Catherine Sanz, “University funding will be linked to gender equality,” The Times, August 21, 2018.

20. McGann, 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. We also consulted https://thebestschools.org/features/most-influential-think-

tanks/

*Table 2:* Percentage of Women Experts in Foreign Policy and International Security Think Tanks
Rank	Think Tank	% of Women
1	Aspen Institute	50%
2	US Institute of Peace (USIP)	49%
3	Third Way	47%
4	RAND Corporation	42%
4	Stimson Center	42%
6	New America	41%
7	Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)	36%
8	Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)	31%
8	Atlantic Council	31%
10	The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars	30%
10	Center for a New American Security (CNAS)	30%
12	Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)	27%
13	Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP)	26%
	American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
	Brookings Institution
16	Heritage Foundation	22%
17	Center for American Progress (CAP)	19%
18	Cato Institute	11%
19	Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA)	10%
20	Lexington Institute	0%

*Table 3:* Percentage of Women Experts in Arms Control and Nuclear Security Think Tanks
Rank	Think Tank	% of Women
1	Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)	55%
2	Arms Control Association	43%
2	Global Zero	43%
4	Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control	40%
5	James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies	38%
6	Physicians for Social Responsibility	33%
7	Pugwash Council	28%
8	Managing the Atom Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School	27%
9	Federation of American Scientists	17%
10	Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation	11%

The WIIS Gender Scorecard: Think Tanks and Journals Spotlight on the Nuclear Security Community

The Headlines

Scoring the Tanks

Heads of Think Tanks

• WOMEN Experts

Substantive Focus

Gender and Women’s Programming

Scoring the Journals

Nuclear Security Issues

Gender Perspectives

Concluding Thoughts

References

• ^WOMENExperts