Search results

It is a well established fact that the entry of women into higher‐level professional occupations has not resulted in their equal distribution within these occupations. Indeed, the emergence and persistence of horizontal and vertical gender segregation within the professions has been at the heart of the development of a range of alternative theoretical perspectives on both the “feminisation process” and the future of the “professions”more generally. Through an in‐depth comparative analysis of the recent changes in the organisation and administration of the medical profession in Britain and France, this paper draws upon statistical data and biographical interviews with male and female general practitioners (GPs) in both countries in order to discuss and review a variety of approaches that have been adopted to explain and analyse the “eminisation” process of higher‐level professions. Our conclusions review the theoretical debates in the light of the evidence we have presented. It is argued that, despite important elements of continuity in respect of gendered occupational structuring in both countries, national variations in both professional and domestic gendered architectures lead to different outcomes as far as the extent and patterns of internal occupational segregation are concerned. Both female and male doctors are currently seeking – with some effect – to resist thepressures of medicine on family life.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief summary of a series of papers presented at the gender, class, employment and family conference, held at City University, London, in March 2008.

The conference involved 25 papers presented by invited speakers, and the report is based on summary notes, observations and conference abstracts.

This report summarises a range of contributions, theoretical and empirical, to the continuing debates on gender and class inequality in Britain, Europe and the USA. The evidence presented not only demonstrated the persistence of gender and class inequalities, but also provided a critique of the “individualisation” thesis. The contribution of both normative and material factors to gender inequality was extensively explored. The discussions focused upon a series of tensions and contradictions – between “sameness” and “difference” feminism; choice and constraint; capitalist markets and the human requirement for caring work.

Many of the papers drew on original empirical research, both quantitative and qualitative, using sophisticated methodologies. Longitudinal findings (cohort studies) were well represented, as were cutting‐edge theoretical contributions.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the reasons for the apparent “under‐achievement” of mothers working in accountancy, even when at similar levels of qualification to those of fathers.

Analysis of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales membership dataset was carried out, as well as semi‐structured work‐life interviews with ten male and ten female chartered accountants with children.

The paper finds that women do not progress in accountancy to the same extent as men, and earn considerably less. The qualitative evidence suggests that some residual gender discrimination is still present, but more important are the difficulties in combining paid employment with family responsibilities, particularly for those in higher‐level positions. Part‐time and flexible working carries with it a penalty in relation to both earnings and organisational status. The interviews do provide some evidence of change, however.

While men (and women) continue to work very long hours in the UK, while the gender pay gap persists, and while women continue to take on the majority of childcare and housework, women are also likely to “choose” to work below their abilities, especially when economic pressures are not a primary issue.

By adopting a mixed‐methods approach, the paper highlights that, while workplace‐related barriers still hinder mothers' career progression in accountancy, the division of domestic labour is at least, if not more, important.

Changing market conditions, new modes of labour and decreasing legitimisation of experts, as well as an increasing ratio of women, pose new challenges to the professions. These ongoing dynamics are especially visible in the health care system – a traditional professional field with strongly formalised rules governing entrance, initiation and career paths. In addition, this field is highly segregated according to sexes. How do the bove‐mentioned processes of change present themselves and what economic, social or structural factors cause them? What role does gender play within these processes? What potential lies in the re‐structuring processes of health care systems as far as a gender equal architecture and design of professions is concerned? These and other questions are addressed in this collection of papers. For the main part they grew out of a thematic focus event organised and coordinated by the editors for the 5th Conference of the European Sociological Association (ESA) Research Network Sociology of Professions that was held in 2001 in Helsinki. Inspired by the richness of the research results on professions and gender in health care systems in various European countries and new horizons which opened up from the comparative perspective in different countries, professions, and theoretical approaches, and finally motivated by very constructive ensuing discussions, we decided to continue the discussion with a publication.

The target date for the completion of the Single European market at the end of 1992 will see the achievement of a complex series of measures designed to promote the free movement of goods, capital, services and people between the twelve countries of the European Community (EC) (Department of Trade and Industry, 1989a). Members of the UK occupational groups to which the term “professionals” is often applied are among the people who will be able to offer their services elsewhere in the EC. By the same token, European professionals will be able to establish themselves as service providers in the UK. This essentially simple potential for free movement of professionals (a simplicity achieved, however, through complicated negotiations amongst European policy makers) brings with it a number of questions of interest to “profession watchers” in the UK. How will UK professionals, and their institutions, respond to the challenges and opportunities that accompany this EC‐wide extension to their own rights of establishment? How will they respond to incoming migrant professionals from elsewhere in the EC? What policies and practices will UK professional institutions adopt in relation to their counterparts in other EC member states? What links will they forge with them and to what extent will these contacts lead to joint initiatives at a community‐wide level? This article reports on the first phase of a study designed to consider such questions during the run up to the completion of the single market and in its immediate aftermath.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the special issue.

A brief description of the Gender in Management track at the 2007 British Academy of Management (BAM) Annual Conference held at Warwick Business School and an outline of the papers in the issue.

The track examined various issues and the papers chosen from the track for the special issue are closest to the central concerns of the journal.

Provides a summary of the perspectives considered.

Comparable Worth Volume 108 Number 12 of Monthly Labor Review contains four articles on the above theme. The first, by Janet L. Nor‐wood, is entitled “Perspectives on comparable worth: an introduction to the data” and discusses reports presented to a national conference of statisticians. These reports point up the many facets of the comparable worth issue and suggest directions for conducting future research. In the second article, “Comparable worth: how do we know it will work”, Carolyn Shaw Bell argues that the debate over comparable worth obscures the lack of consensus on the definition and goals of such a policy, and of the data requi‐red for informed decision‐making. Thirdly, Karen Shall‐cross Koziara explores in “Comparable worth: or‐ganizational dilemmas” the political, economic, and social implications of comparable worth for public and private employers and trade unions. Finally, Sandra E. Gleason argues in “Comparable worth: some questions still un‐answered” that we know the issues surrounding and groups most likely to be affected by a national policy on compar‐able worth, but we cannot quantify possible costs and bene‐fits.