Grounded theory is an inductive, theory discovery methodology that allows the researcher to develop a theoretical account of the general features of a topic while simultaneously grounding the account in empirical observations or data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This article explicates the utility of a grounded theory approach to research on work organizations. Following a general introduction to the grounded theory method, the authors'review of the organizational literature using grounded theory illustrates the variety of issues and topics studied through this approach. The authors describe and explain specific strategies for conducting grounded theory research in and on organizations, including note taking and note writing, concept discovery, and concept definition and preliminary elaboration of theory. Throughout the article emphasis is placed on grounded theory's ability to facilitate understanding and to identify desirable improvements in work contexts.

In an effort to make visible the subtle and seldom acknowledged aspects of gendering dynamics, Martin focuses on unreflexive practices that both communicate and constitute gender in paid work settings. She reviews the distinction between practices that are culturally available to 'do gender' and the literal practising of gender that is constituted through interaction. While acknowledging that agency is involved in any practicing of gender, she considers how intentionality and agency intersect, arguing that people in powerful positions routinely practise gender without being reflexive about it. Defining practising as emergent, directional, temporal, rapid, immediate and indeterminate, Martin shows how these qualities affect men as well as women in unexpected and often harmful ways. She concludes with a call for innovative ways to 'catch gender in practice' and for attention to reflexivity's role in the ongoing constitution of gender at work.

To understand gender relations in organizations, I use feminist standpoint theory and critical scholarship on men and masculinities to guide an analysis of accounts from six women about their experiences with/interpretations of men at work. Restricting these accounts to those in which women perceived men as not intending harm to themselves or other women, I conclude that men routinely act in concert to `mobilize masculinities' at work, that men routinely conflate masculinities and work dynamics, that often men are only liminally aware of mobilizing masculinities, and that women experience masculinities mobilization, especially when conflated with work, as harmful. The discussion notes how the gender institution makes men's masculinities mobilizing behavior possible, and shapes women's interpretations and experiences of these behaviors. To subvert gender practices that harm people, I call for more research on how these practices are mobilized and conflated with work relations.

No abstract

The purposes of this study were to examine the strategies that stepparents use to develop and maintain affinity with stepchildren and the effects that these strategies have on the development of stepparent-stepchild relationships. Data were collected via interviews with members of 17 stepfamilies in which there was at least one stepchild between the ages of 10 and 19 living in the household. Stepparent-stepchild relationships are characterized by liking and affection when stepparents focus on developing friendships with stepchildren and when they continue those efforts after they begin sharing a residence together. We identified 31 affinity-seeking strategies. Dyadic activities worked best, but it is important that stepchildren recognize affinity-seeking attempts. The success of affinity-seeking and affinity-maintaining strategies are contingent on the interpersonal and intrapersonal contexts within which they occur. In the stepfamilies in which step-relationships were poor, there was competition from the nonresidential parent, the stepparents had take-charge personalities, and the stepchildren did not recognize the stepparent's affinity-seeking efforts.

Despite widespread knowledge that fraternity members are frequently involved in the sexual assaults of women, fraternities are rarely studied as social contexts-groups and organizations-that encourage the sexual coercion of women. An analysis of the norms and dynamics of the social construction of fraternity brotherhood reveals the highly masculinist features of fraternity structure and process, including concern with a narrow, stereotypical conception of masculinity and heterosexuality; a preoccupation with loyalty, protection of the group, and secrecy; the use of alcohol as a weapon against women's sexual reluctance; the pervasiveness of violence and physical force; and an obsession with competition, superiority, and dominance. Interfraternity rivalry and competition-particularly over members, intramural sports, and women-encourage fraternity men's commodification of women. We conclude that fraternities will continue to violate women socially and sexually unless they change in fundamental ways.

This article analyzes feminist organizations as a species of social movement organization. It identifies 10 dimensions for comparing feminist and nonfeminist organizations or for deriving types of feminist organizations and analyzing them. The dimensions are feminist ideology, feminist values, feminist goals, feminist outcomes (for members and society), founding circumstances, structure, practice, members and membership, scope and scale, and external relations (legal-corporate status, autonomy, funding, and network linkages). I argue that many scholars judge feminist organizations against an ideal type that is largely unattainable and that excessive attention has been paid to the issue of bureaucracy versus collectivism to the neglect of other organizational qualities. The varieties of ideology, form, and strategy that feminist organizations embody should be analyzed in relation to outcomes for women, the women's movement, and society. As has recently begun to occur, feminist scholars are encouraged to claim the topic of feminist organizations for themselves.

Recently, the study of gender has focused on processes by which gender is brought into social relations through interaction. This article explores implications of a two-sided dynamic-gendering practices and practicing of gender-for understanding gendering processes in formal organizations. Using stories from interviews and participant observation in multinational corporations, the author explores the practicing of gender at work. She defines practicing gender as a moving phenomenon that is done quickly, directionally (in time), and (often) nonreflexively; is informed (often) by liminal awareness; and is in concert with others. She notes how other conceptions of gender dynamics and practice inform the analysis and argues that adequate conceptualization (and potential elimination) of harmful aspects of gendering practices/practicing will require attention to (1) agency, intentionality, awareness, and reflexivity; (2) positions, power, and experience; and (3) choice, accountability, and audience. She calls for incorporating the "sayings and doings" of gender into organization theory and research.More than a decade ago, social science and humanities scholars started conceptualizing gender as a dynamic process, as practice, as what people say and do, in addition to such static properties as an identity, social status, what is learned via socialization, a system of stratification, and so on. This development occurred rapidly. I wrote an article in the late 1980s in which I used the term gendering to mean gender/ gendered practices in a way that was unconventional at the time (Yancey Martin