Bringing positional processes back in: occupational gender segregation in 'non-academic' work

Pauline Anderson, Angela O'Hagan, Emily Thomson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article highlights that organisations mask a 'gendered substructure' and a 'positional substructure', and reinforces the importance of (re)incorporating the effects of positional processes as an analytical concern in current analysis of occupational segregation. Drawing on the concept of 'inequality regimes', we use the case of 'non-academic' workers in Scottish higher education institutions as the context in which to explore how gendered and positional processes may be perpetuating occupational gender segregation ─ focusing on finance, registry, security and cleaning staff. Our findings show how embedded gendered and positional processes are reinforcing occupational gender segregation in many areas of non-academic work. We reveal that some gendered processes are position-sensitive and that stereotyped language use and related biases impact the progression and treatment of workers at the 'bottom' ─ and the compounding effects on women. We show that positions within organisational opportunity structures cannot merely be read off grading hierarchies and argue that any analysis of positional substructures necessitates uncovering the potential existence of multiple organisational hierarchies and other forms of positional advantage/disadvantage, whilst recognising that positional substructures are not static.
LanguageEnglish
Number of pages39
JournalInternational Journal of Human Resource Management
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 21 Oct 2019

Fingerprint

segregation
gender
Finance
Masks
Cleaning
Education
worker
grading
finance
regime
staff
Segregation
trend
language
education
Workers

Keywords

  • gender
  • higher education
  • inequality regimes
  • occupational segregation
  • positional substructure

Cite this

@article{4e5ebadea9114bc687c3223338bdc6b9,
title = "Bringing positional processes back in: occupational gender segregation in 'non-academic' work",
abstract = "This article highlights that organisations mask a 'gendered substructure' and a 'positional substructure', and reinforces the importance of (re)incorporating the effects of positional processes as an analytical concern in current analysis of occupational segregation. Drawing on the concept of 'inequality regimes', we use the case of 'non-academic' workers in Scottish higher education institutions as the context in which to explore how gendered and positional processes may be perpetuating occupational gender segregation ─ focusing on finance, registry, security and cleaning staff. Our findings show how embedded gendered and positional processes are reinforcing occupational gender segregation in many areas of non-academic work. We reveal that some gendered processes are position-sensitive and that stereotyped language use and related biases impact the progression and treatment of workers at the 'bottom' ─ and the compounding effects on women. We show that positions within organisational opportunity structures cannot merely be read off grading hierarchies and argue that any analysis of positional substructures necessitates uncovering the potential existence of multiple organisational hierarchies and other forms of positional advantage/disadvantage, whilst recognising that positional substructures are not static.",
keywords = "gender, higher education, inequality regimes, occupational segregation, positional substructure",
author = "Pauline Anderson and Angela O'Hagan and Emily Thomson",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
day = "21",
language = "English",
journal = "International Journal of Human Resource Management",
issn = "0958-5192",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bringing positional processes back in

T2 - International Journal of Human Resource Management

AU - Anderson, Pauline

AU - O'Hagan, Angela

AU - Thomson, Emily

PY - 2019/10/21

Y1 - 2019/10/21

N2 - This article highlights that organisations mask a 'gendered substructure' and a 'positional substructure', and reinforces the importance of (re)incorporating the effects of positional processes as an analytical concern in current analysis of occupational segregation. Drawing on the concept of 'inequality regimes', we use the case of 'non-academic' workers in Scottish higher education institutions as the context in which to explore how gendered and positional processes may be perpetuating occupational gender segregation ─ focusing on finance, registry, security and cleaning staff. Our findings show how embedded gendered and positional processes are reinforcing occupational gender segregation in many areas of non-academic work. We reveal that some gendered processes are position-sensitive and that stereotyped language use and related biases impact the progression and treatment of workers at the 'bottom' ─ and the compounding effects on women. We show that positions within organisational opportunity structures cannot merely be read off grading hierarchies and argue that any analysis of positional substructures necessitates uncovering the potential existence of multiple organisational hierarchies and other forms of positional advantage/disadvantage, whilst recognising that positional substructures are not static.

AB - This article highlights that organisations mask a 'gendered substructure' and a 'positional substructure', and reinforces the importance of (re)incorporating the effects of positional processes as an analytical concern in current analysis of occupational segregation. Drawing on the concept of 'inequality regimes', we use the case of 'non-academic' workers in Scottish higher education institutions as the context in which to explore how gendered and positional processes may be perpetuating occupational gender segregation ─ focusing on finance, registry, security and cleaning staff. Our findings show how embedded gendered and positional processes are reinforcing occupational gender segregation in many areas of non-academic work. We reveal that some gendered processes are position-sensitive and that stereotyped language use and related biases impact the progression and treatment of workers at the 'bottom' ─ and the compounding effects on women. We show that positions within organisational opportunity structures cannot merely be read off grading hierarchies and argue that any analysis of positional substructures necessitates uncovering the potential existence of multiple organisational hierarchies and other forms of positional advantage/disadvantage, whilst recognising that positional substructures are not static.

KW - gender

KW - higher education

KW - inequality regimes

KW - occupational segregation

KW - positional substructure

UR - https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

M3 - Article

JO - International Journal of Human Resource Management

JF - International Journal of Human Resource Management

SN - 0958-5192

ER -