IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v9y2021i4p728-744_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Islam, gender segregation, and political engagement: evidence from an experiment in Tunisia

Author

Listed:
  • Bush, Sarah Sunn
  • Prather, Lauren

Abstract

The Arab world has historically had limited descriptive representation for women, although that is changing. Will having more women officeholders lead women citizens to become more engaged? Or could it depress engagement due to pervasive gender biases? To answer these questions, this paper uses a nationally-representative experiment in Tunisia. Unexpectedly, people were less likely to want to contact their representatives when primed to think of a mixed-gender group of officeholders compared to an all-women group. This pattern did not vary according to respondents’ gender. Further analyses reveal that the effect was concentrated among Islamists, which is consistent with some Islamists’ support for gender segregation. This finding encourages research examining women's political presence in conservative environments where gender segregation is common.

Suggested Citation

  • Bush, Sarah Sunn & Prather, Lauren, 2021. "Islam, gender segregation, and political engagement: evidence from an experiment in Tunisia," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 728-744, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:728-744_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847020000370/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sharan Grewal & Matthew D. Cebul, 2023. "Can Religious Reinterpretations Bridge the Secular-Religious Divide? Experimental Evidence from Tunisia," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(2-3), pages 428-456, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:728-744_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.