Reflexivity and the Construction of Competing Discourses of Masculinity in a Female‐Dominated Profession

Abstract

This paper contributes to the debates on reflexivity and change by extending our understanding of (non-)reflexivity mechanisms in the discursive constructions of gender. Specifically, I explore how and why women persistently construct contradictory discursive accounts of men and masculinity in a female-dominated profession of counselling psychology in Russia. Drawing on the concept of 'interpretative repertoires' I argue that female counsellors construct different kinds of masculinities based on three 'repertoires': psycho-biological, structural and relational. I demonstrate how these constructions of masculinity are imbued with different meanings and are used to explain only certain contexts, which precludes women's ability to reflect on their contradictory nature. I conclude by discussing how an exploration of discursive (non-)reflexivity extends our understanding of the conditions for gender transformations.

In-service teachers’ interpretative repertoires about language: The teacher promotion examination context

“…In contrast to research projects on interpretative repertoires in general education (e.g. Adamson, 2014;Jolanki et al, 2000;Lee at al., 2020;Zembylas et al, 2011), research in SLA in this area has been rather scarce. Most language learning and teaching studies employing interpretative repertoires have been conducted in Finland (Kalaja, 2016: 98-101) and there is one study dealing with in-service teachers' interpretative repertoires in the Polish context (Werbińska, 2017).…”

Mentoring as affective governmentality: Shame, (un)happiness, and the (re)production of masculine leadership

“…Gender inequality is seen as a matter of discriminating structures that hinder both women and men in performing the given gendered behaviors they prefer. These structures occur in societal settings (e.g., Adamson, 2014; Langton & Konrad, 1998) as well as in organizational ones (e.g., Bryant & Garnham, 2014; Hughes et al., 2017). Accordingly, if the reason for gender inequality can be found in discriminating structures, then the solution to it must lie in structural changes.…”

Cenário das publicações científicas em carreira e gênero

“…Estudos de carreira que discutam marcadores de diferença ainda são pouco expressivos na literatura. Contudo, há um movimento recente nas pesquisas internacionais que visa discutir o tema, para além das diferenças entre homens e mulheres em termos de desigualdade salarial, participação no mercado, ascensão profissional (Adamson, 2014;Chopra, 2006;Corsun & Costen, 2001;Fernando & Cohen, 2011;Hirshfield, 2015;Muzika, Hudyma, Garriott, Santiago, & Morse, 2019;Sarti, 2010;Watts, 2009). Nas pesquisas nacionais, há estudos que buscam avançar no conceito de carreira (DeLuca, Rocha-de-Oliveira & Chiesa, 2016; DeLuca & Rocha-de-Oliveira, 2016), apontamentos sobre a importância da discussão de classe em carreiras (Rocha-de-Oliveira & Fraga, 2017) e temas emergentes, como o caso de casais homossexuais de dupla carreira (Fraga, Prestes, Rocha-de-Oliveira, Medeiros & Feijó, 2019).…”

“…Em ambos os estudos o termo gênero refere-se a homens ou mulheres, reforçando o caráter binário que por vezes acompanha o termo (Stolke, 2004). Quanto à carreira, os fatores que interferem nas escolhas profissionais já abordavam situações contextuais que resultam dificuldades ou impossibilidades, como um sistema social que cerceia direta ou indiretamente oportunidades com base em gênero, raça ou classe (Adamson, 2014;Hirshfield, 2015;Mayrhofer, Meyer & Steyrer, 2007;Muzika et al, 2019;Sarti, 2010;Sullivan & Baruch, 2009).…”