Sex Roles

, Volume 68, Issue 3–4, pp 207–215 | Cite as

Paradigmatic Assumptions of Disciplinary Research on Gender Disparities: The Case of Occupational Sex Segregation

Feminist Forum Commentary

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Gender Disparity Occupational Sex Segregation Gender Pay Gap Economics Sociology Psychology 

References

  1. Anker, R. (1997). Theories of segregation by sex: An overview. International Labour Review, 136, 315–339.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 181–198. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, G. S. (1957). The economics of discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, G. S. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time. Economic Journal, 75, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of sociology, 6, 479–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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:10.1037/0022-0167.43.1.90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Browne, K. R. (2006). Evolved sex differences and occupational segregation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 143–162. doi:10.1002/job.349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L 102–166.Google Scholar
  18. Chafetz, J. S. (1997). Feminist theory and sociology: Underutilized contributions for mainstream theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clark, B. (1998). Principles of political economy: A comparative approach. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
  20. 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:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dey, E. L. (1994). Dimensions of faculty stress: A recent survey. Review of Higher Education, 17, 305–322.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Duncan, O. D., & Duncan, B. (1955). A methodological analysis of segregation indices. American Sociological Review, 20, 200–217.Google Scholar
  25. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  27. England, P. (1982). The failure of human capital theory to explain occupational sex segregation. The Journal of Human Resources, 17, 358–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24, 149–166. doi:10.1177/089124321036147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.28.6.545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gould, E. D. (2008). Marriage and career: The dynamic decisions of young men. Journal of Human Capital, 2, 337–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gronau, R. (1988). Sex-related wage differentials and women’s interrupted careers-the chicken or the egg? Journal of Labor Economics, 6, 277–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.
  39. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Hough, J. R. (1987). Education and the national economy. New York: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111–2.Google Scholar
  51. 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.
  52. 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.Google Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. Mincer, J., & Polachek, S. (1974). Family investments in human capital: Earnings of women. Journal of Political Economy, 82, S76–S108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Polachek, S. W. (1975). Differences in expected post-school investment as a determinant of market wage differentials. International Economic Review, 16, 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Queneau, H. (2010). Trends in occupational sex segregation in the USA: Evidence from detailed data. The Empirical Economics Letters, 9, 1–6.Google Scholar
  64. Reskin, B. F. (1993). Sex segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 241–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reskin, B. F., & Roos, P. (1990). Job queues, gender queues (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.Google Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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:10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1074.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.Google Scholar
  74. Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1993). Gender and racial inequality at work: The source and consequences of job segregation. Ithaca, NY: IRL Press.Google Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIndiana University Purdue University at IndianapolisIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySouthern Illinois University EdwardsvilleEdwardsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations