Amanda Clayton

2.0k total citations · 2 hit papers
30 papers, 1.0k citations indexed

About

Amanda Clayton is a scholar working on Gender Studies, Political Science and International Relations and Strategy and Management. According to data from OpenAlex, Amanda Clayton has authored 30 papers receiving a total of 1.0k indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 24 papers in Gender Studies, 14 papers in Political Science and International Relations and 6 papers in Strategy and Management. Recurrent topics in Amanda Clayton's work include Gender Politics and Representation (24 papers), Electoral Systems and Political Participation (9 papers) and Gender Diversity and Inequality (8 papers). Amanda Clayton is often cited by papers focused on Gender Politics and Representation (24 papers), Electoral Systems and Political Participation (9 papers) and Gender Diversity and Inequality (8 papers). Amanda Clayton collaborates with scholars based in United States, United Kingdom and Sweden. Amanda Clayton's co-authors include Pär Zetterberg, Diana Z. O’Brien, Jennifer M. Piscopo, Cecilia Josefsson, Vibeke Wang, Sarah Sunn Bush, Pamela Paxton, Melanie M. Hughes, Margaret Levi and John S. Ahlquist and has published in prestigious journals such as American Political Science Review, World Development and American Journal of Political Science.

In The Last Decade

Amanda Clayton

26 papers receiving 952 citations

Hit Papers

All Male Panels? Representation and Democratic Legitimacy 2018 2026 2020 2023 2018 2018 50 100 150

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
Amanda Clayton United States 15 767 503 293 105 85 30 1.0k
Lisa Baldez United States 15 536 0.7× 499 1.0× 340 1.2× 62 0.6× 61 0.7× 27 822
Sheri Kunovich United States 8 701 0.9× 480 1.0× 358 1.2× 73 0.7× 35 0.4× 10 892
Sarah Sunn Bush United States 14 330 0.4× 391 0.8× 539 1.8× 101 1.0× 47 0.6× 30 914
Susan Franceschet Canada 16 820 1.1× 581 1.2× 344 1.2× 103 1.0× 29 0.3× 36 1.0k
Devin K. Joshi United States 14 211 0.3× 260 0.5× 201 0.7× 42 0.4× 58 0.7× 57 577
Kathleen A. Bratton United States 11 931 1.2× 807 1.6× 340 1.2× 206 2.0× 127 1.5× 16 1.2k
Lyn Kathlene United States 8 408 0.5× 345 0.7× 216 0.7× 93 0.9× 48 0.6× 14 700
Pär Zetterberg Sweden 17 809 1.1× 537 1.1× 347 1.2× 104 1.0× 45 0.5× 42 1.0k
Michele L. Swers United States 14 1.1k 1.4× 898 1.8× 387 1.3× 221 2.1× 62 0.7× 30 1.3k
Meryl Kenny United Kingdom 13 1.0k 1.3× 683 1.4× 402 1.4× 103 1.0× 20 0.2× 35 1.2k

Countries citing papers authored by Amanda Clayton

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Amanda Clayton's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Amanda Clayton with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Amanda Clayton more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Amanda Clayton

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Amanda Clayton. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Amanda Clayton. The network helps show where Amanda Clayton may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Amanda Clayton

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Amanda Clayton. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Amanda Clayton based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with Amanda Clayton. Amanda Clayton is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Clayton, Amanda, Diana Z. O’Brien, & Jennifer M. Piscopo. (2025). Electoral Gender Quotas and Democratic Legitimacy. American Political Science Review. 120(1). 123–140.
3.
Clayton, Amanda, Boniface Dulani, Katrina Kosec, & Amanda Lea Robinson. (2025). Representation increases women's influence in climate deliberations: Evidence from community‐managed forests in Malawi. American Journal of Political Science.
4.
Clayton, Amanda, Diana Z. O’Brien, & Jennifer M. Piscopo. (2023). Women Grab Back: Exclusion, Policy Threat, and Women’s Political Ambition. American Political Science Review. 117(4). 1465–1485. 10 indexed citations
5.
Clayton, Amanda, Diana Z. O’Brien, & Jennifer M. Piscopo. (2023). Founding Narratives and Men's Political Ambition: Experimental Evidence from US Civics Lessons. British Journal of Political Science. 54(1). 129–151. 3 indexed citations
6.
Clayton, Amanda, Diana Z. O’Brien, & Jennifer M. Piscopo. (2023). Exclusion by Design: Locating Power in Mansbridge’s Account of Descriptive Representation. Politics & Gender. 19(4). 1251–1255. 2 indexed citations
7.
Clayton, Amanda, et al.. (2022). Daughters Do Not Affect Political Beliefs in a New Democracy. Journal of Experimental Political Science. 10(1). 137–147. 5 indexed citations
8.
Bush, Sarah Sunn & Amanda Clayton. (2022). Facing Change: Gender and Climate Change Attitudes Worldwide. American Political Science Review. 117(2). 591–608. 65 indexed citations
9.
Clayton, Amanda, et al.. (2021). Gender and policy persuasion. Political Science Research and Methods. 9(4). 818–831. 5 indexed citations
10.
Clayton, Amanda, Amanda Lea Robinson, Martha C. Johnson, & Ragnhild L. Muriaas. (2019). (How) Do Voters Discriminate Against Women Candidates? Experimental and Qualitative Evidence From Malawi. Comparative Political Studies. 53(3-4). 601–630. 35 indexed citations
11.
Clayton, Amanda. (2018). Do Gender Quotas Really Reduce Bias? Evidence from a Policy Experiment in Southern Africa. Journal of Experimental Political Science. 5(3). 182–194. 20 indexed citations
12.
Clayton, Amanda, et al.. (2018). How women’s incumbency affects future elections: Evidence from a policy experiment in Lesotho. World Development. 110. 385–393. 5 indexed citations
14.
Clayton, Amanda, Cecilia Josefsson, & Vibeke Wang. (2016). Quotas and Women's Substantive Representation: Evidence from a Content Analysis of Ugandan Plenary Debates. Politics & Gender. 13(2). 276–304. 79 indexed citations
15.
Clayton, Amanda, et al.. (2015). When Elites Meet: Decentralization, Power-Sharing, and Public Goods Provision in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone. World Bank, Washington, DC eBooks. 6 indexed citations
16.
Clayton, Amanda. (2014). ELECTORAL GENDER QUOTAS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD TRADITIONAL LEADERS: A POLICY EXPERIMENT IN LESOTHO. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 33(4). 1007–1026. 31 indexed citations
17.
Ahlquist, John S., Amanda Clayton, & Margaret Levi. (2014). Provoking Preferences: Unionization, Trade Policy, and the ILWU Puzzle. International Organization. 68(1). 33–75. 49 indexed citations
18.
Clayton, Amanda. (2012). From Placeholders to Policymakers: How the Provisions of Electoral Gender Quotas Impact Their Efficacy. SSRN Electronic Journal. 1 indexed citations
19.
Clayton, Amanda, Robin Williams, & Ian Thomson. (1997). The implementation of cleaner technology. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal. 17(1). 9–14. 2 indexed citations
20.
Clayton, Amanda & Martin Doornbos. (1983). Not All the King's Men: Inequality as a Political Instrument in Ankole, Uganda. The International Journal of African Historical Studies. 16(1). 171–171. 5 indexed citations

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026