The Ruth B. Mandel Dissertation Research Awards were established in honor of our founding director, Ruth B. Mandel, whose leadership was critical in building CAWP into a national center with multi-faceted research, education, public service, and information programs, helping to define and build the field. The Mandel Awards support dissertation research on women, gender, and U.S. politics and are $2,000 each in value.
Learn more about the Ruth B. Mandel Dissertation Research Awards here, and learn more about Ruth’s remarkable life here.
2024 Ruth B. Mandel Dissertation Award Recipients
“Not one in front of the other”: A Genealogy of Latina Organizing in Milwaukee’s South Side, 1950-1987
Abstract: This dissertation chronicles the growing consciousness and activism of Milwaukee Latinas from 1950 to 1987 to give insights into the histories of social movements, feminism, and Latinos in the US. With oral histories and activist publications, I examine how Milwaukee’s political and migrant history created conditions for Latino mobilization and community where Latinas claimed space and power in Milwaukee’s south side and Latino social movements. I argue that Milwaukee Latinas “birthed” Milwaukee’s Latino mobilization as their rapid progression towards a public, gender-based form of community organizing made them early, albeit unrecognized leaders of a national uprising of Latin women. As the south side witnessed a transformation from a European immigrant neighborhood to a Latino one, the once small, migratory, and male Mexican community of the 1920s bloomed into a robust pan-Latino neighborhood, then into a hub of civil rights and economic and social justice that fought for community control during the 1960s and 70s. It is here that Latinas launched their public outcry, fighting for increased wages, welfare benefits, and social services. By the 1980s we see Latinas in major positions of leadership, having changed the political landscape of the south side to not only include, but elevate their voices, with ramifications felt to this day. By insisting on leadership positions that contributed more than beans and tortillas for meetings, Latinas stressed their roles as mothers, teachers, and community members to advocate for changes in labor, education, and local leadership.
Yazmin Gomez is a History PhD Candidate at Rutgers University-New Brunswick. She received a Bachelor’s degree in History and Psychology from Marquette. Gomez specializes in the history of Latinos, women’s activism, and the Midwest during the late twentieth century.
Gender Differentials in Judicial Decision Making
Abstract: Deliberation is a key feature of judicial decision making, especially on the U.S. appellate courts, where decisions must be agreed upon by a majority of a panel. While there is substantial work analyzing the impact of gender on deliberative environments (e.g., Karpowitz and Mendelberg 2014), there is a relative dearth of such research in the realm of the courts. Further, when it comes to the body of literature and gender and judging more generally, the majority of studies focus on raw outcomes, neglecting consideration of the process that creates those outcomes (e.g., Boyd, Epstein, and Martin 2010). What little work has been done in this area suggests that women on the bench may be capable of changing the way their colleagues think and rule in certain cases (Haire, Moyer, and Treier 2013). My research seeks to expound upon this principle by analyzing the impact of gender at all stages in the judicial process. I theorize that women judges will be, on the whole, more deliberative than men in their approach to judging. I anticipate that this will manifest as women: reading case materials more thoroughly, listening at oral argument more carefully, and compromising on opinions more diligently. Research abounds on gender, deliberation, and the courts separately. And there are bodies of literature examining any two of these three concepts together. However, there is almost no work that considers these three phenomena collectively. This study provides a much-needed start toward filling the gap at the intersection of these three bodies of literature. In addition, by considering more than simply case outcomes, I take a step toward understanding not just what judges decide, but rather how and why they come to the conclusions seen in their published opinions.
Kaleigh Ruiz is a PhD candidate studying judicial politics at Vanderbilt University, with a focus on studying how the gender of a judge impacts their decision-making process. She graduated from law school at the University of Chicago, where she held leadership positions on the Law Women’s Caucus, Latinx Law Student Association, and International Law Society. When not busy researching or teaching, Kaleigh enjoys participating in local community theatre, hanging out with her current foster dog, and curling up with a good book.
Money Talks: The Race-Gendered Dimensions of Voters' Campaign Finance Attitudes and its Impact on Campaign Strategy
Abstract: Seeking to identify obstacles that might account for historically disproportionate levels of women’s descriptive representation, scholars have pointed to various factors. One of the most salient factors is the lack of early financial support from donors, which is critical to sustaining a viable campaign. The literature on women candidates and their experience in raising money has focused on whether women are disadvantaged in terms of total receipts and the motivations of donors to contribute to women. While some analyses of campaign contributions sometimes show that women are not at a disadvantage in funding their campaigns, interviews with women elected officials show that the lived experience of women candidates suggests otherwise. The discrepancy between the findings of scholars analyzing total receipts and interviews with elected officials shed light on the puzzle of how women perceive and conduct campaign finance. This literature has not yet theorized how the source and type of contribution may have consequences for women candidates in terms of voter support and candidate evaluation. My dissertation investigates if the source and amount of campaign contributions signals (non)conformity to race-gendered stereotypes that may harm the public’s support for and evaluations of a woman candidate. Specifically, are women evaluated less favorably by the public for receiving campaign funds from “corrupt” sources, and how do these evaluations impact their financial campaign strategy? To answer this question, I employ a mixed-methods approach, including a descriptive analysis of campaign receipts, a survey experiment, and candidate interviews. This project will develop an understanding of how the actors who financially support women’s campaigns factor into public perceptions of women candidates (e.g. the public’s expectations about their behavior/traits and responsiveness to constituents versus special interests) and the implications these perceptions have for women candidates’ financial campaign strategy (e.g. who women will solicit donations from).
Samantha Koprowski is a PhD candidate at Rutgers University-New Brunswick. Her research broadly examines gender and campaign strategy with a particular focus on campaign financing. Specifically, her dissertation investigates how the actors who financially support women’s campaigns factor into perceptions of women candidates and the implications these perceptions have for their financial campaign strategies. Her work has been published in Mobilization: An International Quarterly. Samantha holds a bachelor’s degree in political science and philosophy from William Paterson University.
‘Joan of America’: How Republican Women Convey Their Partisan Credibility
Abstract: The progress in women’s representation has not been uniform across the parties. Republican women have historically accounted for around 30% of all Congresswomen and just 10% of all Congressional Republicans. Yet, since the 2020 elections, there has been an uptick in the number of Republican women in Congress. Interestingly, this new cohort Republican congresswomen and political hopefuls do not fit within the conventional ideas and expectations about women candidates – especially Republican women candidates. Contrary to the scholarship on gender stereotypes and candidate portrayal, recent cohorts of female Republican politicians have used aggressive and ideologically extreme language, along with the use of masculine tropes. Drawing on Social Identity Theory and the gender trait literature, I propose the concept of partisan credibility to understand the puzzle. I argue that Republican women do not fit the prototypical image of their party's leadership and further use aggressive rhetoric to compensate for this partisan credibility disadvantage. In this project, I employ a combination of experiments and content analysis of campaign advertisements to establish the partisan credibility disadvantage and the effectiveness of aggressive rhetoric. The findings of this project offer insights into the effects of political polarization, the rise of right-wing extremism, and the strategies used by marginalized political actors to establish credibility within their parties.
Asha Venugopalan is a fifth-year PhD candidate at Stony Brook University. Her dissertation explores the partisan gender gap in the US Congress and shifts in contemporary political rhetoric through the lens of Social Identity Theory, gender stereotypes and political psychology. Prior to doctoral school, Asha was as a quantitative researcher in India where she developed public opinion surveys on the sociopolitical attitudes of citizens during inter-election periods. She holds an MSc in Political Science and Political Economy from the London School of Economics (UK) and a BA in Economics, Political Science and Sociology from Christ University (India).