1 / 10

Gender Structure In Developing A More Family-Friendly University Workplace

Gender Structure In Developing A More Family-Friendly University Workplace . by: Helen Mederer Jessica Holden Sherwood* Barbara Silver * Presenting at AHS 2008, November 8 jessicasherwood@mail.uri.edu . workplace … workforce .

thisbe
Download Presentation

Gender Structure In Developing A More Family-Friendly University Workplace

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gender Structure In Developing A More Family-Friendly University Workplace by: Helen Mederer Jessica Holden Sherwood* Barbara Silver * Presenting at AHS 2008, November 8 jessicasherwood@mail.uri.edu

  2. workplace … workforce • The Ideal Worker: devoted to job without interruption (Williams 2000) • The Ideal Family: contains a worker • Cultural contradiction: workplace & workforce are mismatched

  3. Let’s change the workplace. How? 3-level model of gender structure: Individual Interactional Institutional (Risman 2004) No level is primary; all need intervention.

  4. Individual level • Attitudes and behaviors • e.g. survey Q: “Do you support…” • this level tends not to be the source of change, despite American ideology Examples: • Division of household work • Corporate diversity policy (Kalev 2006) • Race & racism (Bonilla-Silva 1996)

  5. Institutional level Necessary (insight of sociology) Policies are insufficient alone: • Unequal availability/implementation • Bias avoidance (Drago 2007) “The low rate of policy usage suggests that academic parents are not being encouraged to use them, are afraid to do so, or both.” (ASA “Resources or Rewards?” 2006) • They just enable the Ideal Worker.

  6. Interactional level • fed by “prejudice, cognitive bias, statistical discrimination, social closure around desirable employment opportunities, and network-based recruitment” (Tomaskovic-Devey and Stainback 2007) • e.g. status expectations that lead people to make gendered assumptions (Ridgeway 1997) • “second generation” discrimination: subtle, entrenched, unnoticed in organizational structures (Sturm 2001)

  7. Three-Level Model of a Caring Workplace INTERACTIONAL Inclusive department networks; Acceptance of individual responsibility for department climate; Encouragement of using family-life-friendly INSTITUTIONAL policies; Culture of coverage among colleagues Overarching philosophy of responsibility for well-being of workers; Policies and programs with inclusive, life course focus; Overall acceptance of normalcy INDIVIDUAL of using Individual support of goals of diversity and equity; Individual colleagues willing to engage in supportive behaviors and mentoring

  8. Campus Implementation: • Climate change • Work-Life • Recruitment • Institutional: funding Fellows • Interactional: climate awareness/commitment • Faculty development • Institutional: awards, mentoring, networking • Interactional: fosters collegiality • Individual: psychosocial/cultural teachings

  9. Successful • But • Must ascend the structural ladder (Cancian & Oliker 2000, Tronto 2002)

  10. What’s required: • Stop reacting with “accommodations” • Instead of the E.R., adopt a preventive care model • Redefine work & The Worker • Caring as a de-gendered social good • gender-neutral support: • Offer & expect it for caring work • Offer & expect it in workplaces • Ethical and economic payoff

More Related