Search results

Gender divisions are embedded in and essential to the structure of capitalist production. While most men and women in the United States both now work for wages, they rarely work together. Gender segregation has been identified as one of the major issues of the earnings gap between men and women. An explanation of the forces responsible for this has been difficult to achieve. Most theories fail to consider the contribution of demand‐side factors to gender segregation. Neo‐Marxist analysis of labour market segmentation and theories of the dual economy have provided new frameworks for investigating these structural or demand‐side features of industrial organisation. The pattern of blue‐collar segregation in US manufacturing industries is examined drawing on these theories. Employment data from the US census is used to identify how the levels of blue‐collar segregation in manufacturing industries are influenced by the industry's location within the core or peripheral sector of the US economy. Many of segregation's proposed remedies stress the role of supply‐side factors. These strategies focus attention almost exclusively on male and female workers and ignore the structure of the workplace. Strategies that ignore the dualistic nature of the US economy offer only partial solutions and may be counter‐productive. If forced to eliminate or reduce segmentation, employers may simply restructure their labour processes in a way that undermines rather than contributes to gender inequality. It is apparent that the pursuit of gender equality in the workplace is intrinsically related to and dependent on the broader efforts of workers to achieve greater control over production, both at the workplace and in the economy as a whole.

Critical scholarship on work‐life balance (WLB) and its associated practices maintains that workplace flexibility is more than a quasi‐functionalist response to contemporary problems faced by individuals, families or organisations. Beginning with Fleetwood's contention that WLB discourses have become “detached” from their associated practices, this paper aims to explore how workplace practices support or challenge dominant WLB discourses evident in socio‐cultural, political and organisational sources.

The authors analyse individual and group interview transcripts derived from 122 white‐collar employees in two different organisational contexts (one public, one private) in the construction industry in Australia.

Four major themes were identified in the data, which illustrate discourse practice gaps. First, the demands facing this particular industry/sector were framed as heightened and unique. Second, productivity was prioritised, dominating employees' care‐giving and lifestyle concerns. Third, employees' caring responsibilities were communicated as personal and individual choices. Fourth, commitment and efficiency were judged on the basis of presence in the workplace.

Even in industries that have embraced WLB, workplace practices legitimate and reinforce the status quo, and maintain a gap between the promises of WLB and its potential to ameliorate conflict and assist workers to span the boundaries of paid work and other life domains.

While the practices demonstrated in the research are focused on one industry, the study provides a critical analysis of how the contextually‐influenced meaning of WLB is constructed, created and contested in these workplaces and the effects it produces.

I was at Stanford from 1984 to 1986 as a post-doctoral fellow in the NIMH Organizations and Mental Health Training Program. I never thought of myself as a sociologist of organizations or of mental health. As a student of feminist sociologist Joan Acker, my interests were firmly in the area of gender inequality and work, and I went to Stanford primarily for the opportunity to collaborate with Jim Baron. I had been very much influenced by Baron and Bielby's (1980) call to “bring firms back in” to the study of work and inequality. Baron and Bielby's research on job- and firm-level gender segregation and their efforts to probe its underlying organizational dynamics seemed to offer exciting new vantage points from which to understand gender inequality in the workplace.

This introduction sets forth the main themes of the volume, reviews the methods employed by the contributors, and demonstrates the relationships among the chapters.

Each of the chapters demonstrates the gendered nature of the academy and some of the ways in which women, especially women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, are disadvantaged. None of them provides complete catalogues of the issues confronting women and none reach definitive conclusions regarding the ways and means of transforming the academy. Additional research and experimentation will be required.

The gender transformation of the academy holds the promise of more opportunities for women, especially but not only in STEM disciplines and higher administration, and greater probability of balance between work and personal life for all.

The chapter serves as an overall introduction to the volume and the subject matter more generally.

We examine chairs’ beliefs about the role of gender and gender inequality in their departments. Because work-family concerns have been central to explanations of gender inequality in the academy, we pay special attention to these issues.

We analyze interview data collected from 52 department chairs at one research-intensive, public university.

Although the chairs we interviewed were sympathetic and aware in many respects, their views on gender, work, and family were filtered through the lens of personal responsibility and choice, an outmoded view of work as separate and distinct from family life, and a notion of gender as a personal characteristic rather than an entrenched feature of academic work and careers.

Our focus on departmental leaders fills an important gap in the literature, which has focused more on the perspectives of faculty and less on those with the power to frame gender issues.

In 1981, W. Richard (Dick) Scott of Stanford's sociology department described a paradigmatic revolution in organizational sociology that had occurred in the preceding decade. In Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (Scott, 1981), he depicted the first wave of organizational theory as based in rational models of human action that focused on the internal dynamics of the organization. He described the second wave, found in human relations theory and early institutional theory, as based in natural social system models of human action but still focused on the internal “closed system.” A sea change occurred in organizational theory in the 1970s as several camps began to explore environmental causes of organizational behavior. The open-systems approaches that Scott sketched in 1981 were still seedlings, but all would mature. What they shared was an emphasis on relations between the organization and the world outside of it. The roots of these new paradigms can be traced to innovations of the 1960s. Contingency theorists Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch (1967) had argued that firms add new practices and programs largely in response to external social demands and not simply to internal functional needs. James Thompson (1967) argued that organizations come to reflect the wider environment and particularly the regulatory environment.