Still in the Ghetto? Experiences of Secretarial Work in the 21st Century

Abstract

Secretarial work has been described as one of the most persistently gendered of all occupations. Historically, it has been characterized as a ghetto occupation with three key features: low status and poor pay, narrow and feminized job content and poor promotion prospects. Twenty years ago, when a major study last took place in the UK, it was thought that new office technologies might transform the role, leading to a newly defined occupation equally appealing to both men and women. In this article, we report on the findings of a questionnaire survey involving 1011 secretaries. We found evidence of continuity and change. Secretaries are now better qualified and generally well‐paid. A minority is undertaking complex managerial tasks. However, most secretaries continue to perform traditional tasks and career prospects for all remain bleak. We conclude that processes of role gender‐typing are deeply entrenched and that secretarial work remains largely a ghetto occupation.

Still a “Stalled Revolution”? Work/Family Experiences, Hegemonic Masculinity, and Moving Toward Gender Equality

“…There have been some increases in male representation in historically female‐dominated fields: the percentage of male registered nurses increased from about 3% in 1970 to nearly 10% in 2011 (Landivar ). Fields such as secretarial work, however, remain heavily feminized and “ghettoized” in occupational status and mobility (Truss et al ). Overall, men's movement into female‐dominated fields remains relatively uncommon and occupations are still highly gender segregated – a key feature of the incomplete nature of the gender revolution (Charles and Grusky ; Tomaskovic‐Devey et al ; Hegewisch et al ).…”

Theorizing gender desegregation as political work: The case of the Welsh Labour Party

“…Even notionally progressive workplace reforms can segregate women from senior positions. Flexible working policies, handled poorly, are an example of this, generating a false sense of autonomy over one's distribution of labour (see Hampson & Junor, 2005), leading to women adopting even more ‘invisible’ domestic work (Armenti & Acker, 2004; Rafnsdóttir & Heijstra, 2013; Raz & Tzruya, 2018; Truss, Alfes, Shantz, & Rosewarne, 2013).…”

Risks, possibilities, and social relations in the computerisation of Swedish university administration

“…Being an occupation dominated by women and surrounded by gendered expectations, secretaries are often overlooked in workplace studies (Karlsson, 2011; Truss, 1993; Truss et al, 2013). Some research in this area was conducted in the 1980s and 1990s related to the computerisation of office work, which is the point of reference for this study (e.g., see Hartmann et al, 1986; Wilhelmson, 1994).…”

“…It then fell out of focus, to resurface again in the 2010s, connected to debates on increased administration in professional organisations (e.g., see Forssell & Westerberg, 2014; Hasenfeld, 2009). To answer the call for more qualitative data on the group (Truss et al, 2013, p. 361), this paper investigates some of the impacts of technological and organisational changes among administrative staff at a Swedish university. It is inspired by Hughes (1996, p. 228) urging ‘examining both the direct impact of new technologies, as well as the indirect consequences’.…”