Paradigmatic Assumptions of Disciplinary Research on Gender Disparities: The Case of Occupational Sex Segregation
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Lips (2012) deconstructs the standard methodological approaches to understanding the gender wage gap and shows that issues of gender pervade nearly every assumption of these models. In this commentary, we call attention to paradigmatic assumptions and theoretical approaches of the three most relevant social-science disciplines that deal with a parallel issue—occupational sex segregation—to demonstrate that scientific progress is facilitated by transparency in our disciplinary approaches to addressing gender disparities. Accordingly, the neoclassical economic approach to occupational sex segregation posits, among other things, self-selection in the development of human capital, such as choice of college major, as well as women’s tradeoffs in marriage vs. work-related capital as the drivers of occupational disparities. Progressive sociological approaches, such as feminist and Marxist sociology eschew these “supply-side” explanations in favor of examining “demand-side” explanations, particularly social forces that shape both employers’ beliefs about desirable worker attributes as well as the institutional structures that are created to support these views. Psychological approaches tend to address both supply-side (e.g., vocational preferences) and demand-side (e.g., stereotypes and bias) explanations. The aim of this commentary is to elucidate the paradigmatic approaches that each of the major social-science disciplines takes in understanding gender inequity issues in order to advance integrated research on these important social topics.
Supplementary Material (0)
- Anker, R. (1997). Theories of segregation by sex: An overview. International Labour Review, 136, 315–339.
- Badgett, M. V. L., & Folbre, N. (2003). Job gendering: Occupational choice and the marriage market. Industrial Relations, 42, 270–298. doi:10.1111/1468-232X.00290.
- Baldridge, D. C., Eddleston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Saying no to being uprooted: The impact of family and gender on willingness to relocate. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 131–149. doi:10.1348/096317905X53174. CrossRef
- Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 181–198. doi:10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.52. CrossRef
- Baron, J. N., & Bielby, W. T. (1985). Organizational barriers to gender equality: Sex segregation of jobs and opportunities. In A. Rossi (Ed.), Gender and the life course (pp. 233–251). New York: Aldine.
- Becker, G. S. (1957). The economics of discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Becker, G. S. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time. Economic Journal, 75, 493–517. CrossRef
- Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of sociology, 6, 479–508. CrossRef
- Bergmann, B. R. (2007). Discrimination through the economist’s eye. In F. J. Crosby, M. S. Stockdale, & S. A. Ropp (Eds.), Sex discrimination in the workplace: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 213–234). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
- Berk, R. A., & Berk, S. F. (1983). Supply-side sociology of the family: The challenge of the new home economics. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 375–395. CrossRef
- Betz, N. E., Harmon, L. W., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). The relationships of self-efficacy for the Holland themes to gender, occupational group membership, and vocational interest. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 90–98. doi:10.1037/0022-0184.108.40.206. CrossRef
- Bielby, W. T., & Baron, J. N. (1984). A woman’s place is with other women: Sex segregation within organizations. In B. F. Reskin (Ed.), Sex segregation nin the workplace: Trends, explanations, and remedies (pp. 27–55). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
- Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2007). The gender pay gap: Have women gone as far as they can? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 7–23. doi:10.5465/AMP.2007.24286161. CrossRef
- Browne, K. R. (2006). Evolved sex differences and occupational segregation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 143–162. doi:10.1002/job.349. CrossRef
- Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045–1060. doi:10.1037/a0016239. CrossRef
- Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L 102–166.
- Chafetz, J. S. (1997). Feminist theory and sociology: Underutilized contributions for mainstream theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 97–120. CrossRef
- Clark, B. (1998). Principles of political economy: A comparative approach. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
- Crocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., & Chase, S. K. (2003). When grades determine self-worth: Consequences of contingent self-worth for male and female engineering and psychology majors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 507–516. doi:10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.117. CrossRef
- de Haas, S., & Timmerman, G. (2010). Sexual harassment in the context of double male dominance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 717–734. doi:10.1080/09541440903160492. CrossRef
- Dey, E. L. (1994). Dimensions of faculty stress: A recent survey. Review of Higher Education, 17, 305–322.
- Dorius, S.F., & Alwin, D.F. (2010). The global development of egalitarian beliefs—A decomposition of trends in the nature and structure of gender ideology (Report 10–723). Retrieved from Population Studies Center, University of Michigan Institute for Social Research website: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr10-723.pdf
- Duncan, O. D., & Duncan, B. (1955). A methodological analysis of segregation indices. American Sociological Review, 20, 200–217.
- Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
- England, P. (1982). The failure of human capital theory to explain occupational sex segregation. The Journal of Human Resources, 17, 358–370. CrossRef
- England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24, 149–166. doi:10.1177/089124321036147. CrossRef
- Fiske, S. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621. CrossRef
- Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2007). Sex discrimination: The psychological approach. In F. J. Crosby, M. S. Stockdale, & S. A. Ropp (Eds.), Sex discrimination in the workplace (pp. 155–188). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
- Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579. doi:10.1037/0022-018.104.22.1685. CrossRef
- Gottfredson, L. S., & Lapan, R. T. (1997). Assessing gender-based circumscription of occupational aspirations. Journal of Career Assessment, 5, 419–441. doi:10.1177/106907279700500404. CrossRef
- Gould, E. D. (2008). Marriage and career: The dynamic decisions of young men. Journal of Human Capital, 2, 337–378. CrossRef
- Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41. doi:10.1037/a0015575. CrossRef
- Gronau, R. (1988). Sex-related wage differentials and women’s interrupted careers-the chicken or the egg? Journal of Labor Economics, 6, 277–301. CrossRef
- Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace: The impact of sexual behavior and harassment on women, men, and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.4.560. CrossRef
- Hegewisch, A., Liepmann, H., Hayes, J., & Hartmann, H. (2010). Separate and not equal? Gender segregation in the labor market and the gender wage gap. Institute for Women's Policy Research Briefing Paper, IWPR C377. Washington, DC: Institute for Women's Policy Research. Retrieved from Institute for Women's Policy Research website: http://www.iwpr.org.
- Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Hough, J. R. (1987). Education and the national economy. New York: Croom Helm.
- Hynes, K., & Clarkberg, M. (2005). Women’s employment patterns during early parenthood: A group-based trajectory analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 222–239. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00017.x. CrossRef
- Judge, T. A., & Livingston, B. A. (2008). Is the gap more than gender? A longitudinal analysis of gender, gender role orientation, and earnings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 994–1012. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.994. CrossRef
- Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 5899–617. doi:10.1177/000312240607100404. CrossRef
- Kanazawa, S. (2005). Is "discrimination" necessary to explain the sex gap in earnings? Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 269–287. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2004.05.001. CrossRef
- Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
- Kaufman, G., & Uhlenberg, P. (2000). The influence of parenthood on the work effort of married men and women. Social Forces, 78, 931–949. doi:10.1093/sf/78.3.931.
- Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593–641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593. CrossRef
- Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Towards a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Psychology, 45, 79–122. CrossRef
- Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111–2.
- Lips, H. M. (2012). The gender pay gap: Challenging the rationalizations: Perceived equity, discrimination, and the limits of Human Capital models. Sex Roles, this issue.. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0165-z.
- Marshall, M. R., & Jones, C. H. (1990). Childbearing sequence and the career development of women administrators in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 531–537.
- Mincer, J. (1962). Labor force participation of married women. In: H. G. Lewis (Ed). Aspects of Labor Economics (pp. 63–97). Universities National Bureau of Economic Research Conference Series No 14. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
- Mincer, J., & Polachek, S. (1974). Family investments in human capital: Earnings of women. Journal of Political Economy, 82, S76–S108. CrossRef
- Moller, S., & Li, H. (2009). Parties, unions, policies and occupational sex segregation in the United States. Social Forces, 87, 1529–1560. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0174. CrossRef
- Morgan, L. A. (2008). Major matters: A comparison of the within-major gender pay gap across college majors for early-career graduates. Industrial Relations, 47, 625–650. doi:10.1111/j.1468-232X.2008.00538.x.
- Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879–885. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x. CrossRef
- Perna, L. W. (2005). Sex difference in faculty tenure and promotion: The contribution of family ties. Research in Higher Education, 46, 277–307. doi:10.1007/s11162-004-1641-2. CrossRef
- Phillips, S. D., & Imhoff, A. R. (1997). Women and career development: A decade of research. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 31–59. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.31. CrossRef
- Polachek, S. W. (1975). Differences in expected post-school investment as a determinant of market wage differentials. International Economic Review, 16, 451–470. CrossRef
- Presser, H. B., & Hermsen, J. M. (1996). Gender differences in the determinants of over-night work-related travel among employed Americans. Work & Occupations, 23(1), 87–115. doi:10.1177/0730888496023001005. CrossRef
- Preston, J. A. (1999). Occupational gender segregation: Trends and explanations. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 39, 611–624. doi:10.1016/S1062-9769(99)00029-0. CrossRef
- Queneau, H. (2010). Trends in occupational sex segregation in the USA: Evidence from detailed data. The Empirical Economics Letters, 9, 1–6.
- Reskin, B. F. (1993). Sex segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 241–270. CrossRef
- Reskin, B. F., & Roos, P. (1990). Job queues, gender queues (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
- Ridgeway, C. (1991). The social construction of status value: gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367–386. doi:10.1093/sf/70.2.367.
- Ridgeway, C. L., Backor, K., Li, Y. E., Tinkler, J. E., & Erickson, K. E. (2009). How easily does a social difference become a status distinction? Gender matters. American Sociological Review, 74, 44–62. doi:10.1177/000312240907400103. CrossRef
- Ridgeway, C. L., & England, P. (2007). Sociological approaches to sex discrimination in employment. In F. J. Crosby, M. S. Stockdale, & S. A. Ropp (Eds.), Sex discrimination in the workplace: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 189–211). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
- Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328. doi:10.1177/0146167200263001. CrossRef
- Shauman, K. A. (2006). Occupational sex segregation and the earnings of occupations: What causes the link among college-educated workers? Social Science Research, 35, 577–619. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.12.001. CrossRef
- Spector, A. (2002). Marxist sociology and humanist sociology: Diversity, intersections, and convergence. The American Sociologist, 33, 111–126. doi:10.1007/s12108-002-1023-1. CrossRef
- Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074–1080. doi:10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1244. CrossRef
- Taylor, S. E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 83–114). Mehwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1993). Gender and racial inequality at work: The source and consequences of job segregation. Ithaca, NY: IRL Press.
- Tosi, H. L., & Einbender, S. W. (1985). The effects of the type and amount of information in sex discrimination research: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 712–723. doi:10.2307/256127. CrossRef
- Vagg, P. R., Spielberger, C. D., & Wasala, C. F. (2002). Effects of organizational level and gender on stress in the workplace. International Journal of Stress Management, 9, 243–261. doi:10.1023/A:1019964331348. CrossRef
- Weeden, K. A. (1998). Revisiting occupational sex segregation in the United States, 1910–1990: Results from a log-linear approach. Demography, 35, 475–487. doi:10.2307/3004015. CrossRef
About this Article
- Paradigmatic Assumptions of Disciplinary Research on Gender Disparities: The Case of Occupational Sex Segregation
Volume 68, Issue 3-4 , pp 207-215
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Gender Disparity
- Occupational Sex Segregation
- Gender Pay Gap
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Psychology, Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, 402 N. Blackford St, LD 124, Indianapolis, IN, 46202-3275, USA
- 2. Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Campus Box 1121, Edwardsville, IL, 62026, USA