The Analysis of Occupational Gender Segregation over Time and Place: Considerations of Measurement and Some New Evidence

Blackburn, R. M.; Jarman, Jennifer; Siltanen, Janet

doi:10.1177/0950017093007003002

Cited by 24 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on gender segregation is now substantial, rich and varied, with highquality contributions over many years (Blackburn & Jarman, 2006;Chang, 2004;Meyer, 2003;Scott, Dex, & Joshi, 2008;Semyonov & Jones, 1999), including cross-national analyses (Anker, 1998;Blackburn, Jarman, & Siltanen, 1993, Blackburn, Jarman, & Brooks, 2000Charles & Grusky, 2004;Grusky & Charles, 2001;Rubery & Fagan, 1995;Tomaskovic-Devey, 2006). However, we have argued that it is misleading to automatically assume segregation equals inequality to the advantage of men, as has sometimes been done (Blau & Hendricks, 1979;Boyd, Mulvihill, & Myles, 1991;Walby, 1992;Weeden, 1998); difference in occupations may entail such inequality but it does not necessarily do so.…”

Section: Inequality In Employmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding gender inequality in employment and retirement

Blackburn

Jarman

Racko

2015

Contemporary Social Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Inequality In Employmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding gender inequality in employment and retirement

Blackburn

Jarman

Racko

2015

Contemporary Social Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Furthermore, it is an important employer of women: they comprise 62 per cent of the retail work-force, and two-thirds of them work part-time (Employment Department 1995). Much research has shown that women are concentrated in particular industries which results in crowding and gender segregation Cooper 1983a, 1987;Martin and Roberts 1984;Povall 1984;Davidson 1985Davidson , 1987Beecheq 1986;Dex 1987;Clutterbuck and Devine 1987;Terrell 1992;Blackburn, Jarman and Siltanen 1993). While it is accepted that retailing is a sector where occupational crowding may be evidenced, other research has indicated that women are disproportionately represented within the lowest (non-managerial) grades of retailing (Mackie and Pattullo 1977;Ognjenovic 1979;Lockwood and Knowles 1984;Craig and Wilkinson 1985;Clutterbuck and Devine 1987;Dawson, Findlay and Sparks 1987;Powell 1988a;Jackson and Hirsh 1991;Sparks 1991;Freathy 1993;Broadbridge 1995a).…”

Section: Retail Employment and Retail Changementioning

confidence: 98%

Female and male managers – equal progression?

Broadbridge¹

1996

The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retailing is a labour-intensive industry, and one which relies heavily on the employment of women. The gender and occupational structure of one major mixed retail company is analysed. This reveals that men and women occupy different positions within the company structure. Although recruited equally to management trainee positions, the evidence suggests women in retailing may be encountering a glass ceiling. Achieving senior management positions is clearly more difficult for women than men. Some explanations for the lack of women in retail management are proposed and among the strategies to enable their more equal participation are: readdressing personnel policies, recognizing the benefits of women's values and management style to the company, identifying training needs to allow women to pursue management careers successfully and flexible working at all levels within the company. T o be successful it is crucial these strategies are supported by top management.

show abstract

“…There has been much discussion over the years on the appropriate measure of segregation. Important contributions in this area are the papers of Taeuber and Taeuber (1976); Cortese et al (1976); James and Taeuber (1985); Karmel and Maclachlan (1988); Watts (1992Watts ( , 1998; Blackburn et al (1993), Boisso et al (1994) and Charles and Grusky (1995).…”

Section: The Measurement Of Segregationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Segregation in the Academic Staff of Universities in Great Britain, 1980/81–1993/94

Rich

1999

Economica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses gender segregation within the academic staff of universities in Great Britain over the period 1980͞81-1993͞94. It finds that the level of gender segregation increased, as measured by the Karmel-Maclachlan index, IP. Using a decomposition procedure, it is possible to identify the composition effect, which is the contribution of a change in the gender ratio of individual academic levels to the overall change in the level of segregation. This was found to have decreased over the 12 years, indicating that each grade of appointment became less segregated. However, the decline in segregation at each level of academic employment was six times greater in US institutes of higher education. The small extent of improvement in Great Britain focuses attention on the perceived lack of effectiveness of equal employment opportunity policy and programmes within the university sector identified by both the Commission for Racial Equality and the Hansard Society.

show abstract

The Analysis of Occupational Gender Segregation over Time and Place: Considerations of Measurement and Some New Evidence

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

Understanding gender inequality in employment and retirement

Understanding gender inequality in employment and retirement

Female and male managers – equal progression?

Gender Segregation in the Academic Staff of Universities in Great Britain, 1980/81–1993/94

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About