Search results

This paper aims to analyse the ways the textual materials of job advertisements do the gendering for prospective expert positions and create a space for ambiquity/non-ambiquity in the gender labelling of this expertise. Expert positions are almost always openly announced and are important to organizations because they often lead to higher managerial positions. By gendering the prospective positions, the job advertisements bring forth repertoires strengthening the gendering of work and gendered expert employee positions.

This study draws on qualitative textual and visual data of open job advertisements for expert positions. The materials of the study are gathered from open job advertisements in two countries, i.e. Finland and Estonia with rather similar labour market structures in relation to gender positions but differing as regards their gender equality.

The analyses show that the gendering of expert work takes place in the job advertisements by rendering subtly gendered articulations, yet allowing for interpretative repertoires appear. The analysis reveals some differences in the formulations of the advertisements for expert jobs in the two countries. It also shows that in general the requirements for an ideal expert candidate are coated with superlatives that are gendered in rather stereotypical ways, and that the ideal candidates for highly expert jobs are extremely flexible and follows the ideal of an adaptable and plastic employee, willing to work their utmost. This paper contributes to the “doing gender” literature by adding an analysis of the textual gendering of ideal candidates for positions of expertise.

The research materials do not expose all the issues pertinent to questions of the ideal gendered candidate. For instance, questions of ethnicity in relation to the definition of the ideal candidate cannot be studied with the data used for this study. Being an exploratory study, the results do not aim for generalizable results concerning job advertisements for expert positions.

This paper contributes to the “doing gender” and “gendering” literature by addressing the question of how and in what ways gender is defined and done for an expert positions prior the candidates are chosen to those jobs. It also offers new insights into the global construction of gendered expert jobs advertisements by addressing the topic with data from two countries. It further contributes to understanding the gendered shaping of expertise in the management literature.

This article aims to look first at how entrepreneurial identity fits into the picture we currently have of social and health care professionals who most often work in paid employment in the public sector, and second, how entrepreneurial identity is constructed. We discuss whether professional identity and entrepreneurial identity can be separated, and how meaningful that question is. Is the role of entrepreneurship limited in the context of health and social care professional services, or can we see the emergence of a new kind of entrepreneurial identity with special features related to the complexity within the provision of services in social and health care?

The materials from two previous studies by the authors are used in the article as empirical data to investigate the questions of identity and professionalism. The methodology is based on re‐reading and re‐interpretation of both empirical studies and theoretical literature.

There are differences and different logics of work‐related identity building among the entrepreneurial groups and among professional groups. Despite this and even if part of the research tradition emphasizes this difference and the separateness of these identities, we argue that identities are fluid, changing, layered and overlapping. As identities cannot be predetermined or classified according to economic earnings logic only, but that they are malleable, evolving, interconnected, and intertwined. In addition, the paper raises the contradiction of stereotypically “masculine” entrepreneurial goals and the stereotypically “female” ideology of care existing as tension within entrepreneurship in social and health care.

The research limitations relate to the research design of not using ethnographical data.

The article has no direct practical implications. The results might have relevance to education.

The article has social implications in the ways the identities are discussed through various discourses in the societies.

The article has both originality in the settings and value in bringing different discussions together, as well as in its ability to widen the theoretical discussions and empirical studies on identities, paid employment and entrepreneurship.

This article provides an analysis of the gendering process in product innovation. Interwoven into this process is the encapsulation of a token position. The article expands and deepens the tokenism theory through a discussion of gender in the innovation process. The article draws from recent and classical theories of gender, ranging from gendering approaches to Acker's theory of gendered organisations and processes within organisations, and Moss Kanter's tokenism theory. The main objective of the article is to address this gap in the tokenicsm discussion and introduce a new concept of “processual tokenism”.

The article builds on an intensive single case study and uses a narrative methodology and approach in the analysis of the data of the case in question. The primary data used in the narratives consist of interview data. The article also uses documents and reports as secondary data in the narrative construction. The approach used is theoretical, interpretative and qualitative.

The article provides a detailed narrative of the intertwined nature of the gender position in an organisation and the invention process. One of the outcomes is that the gendering of a product is triggered by tokenism, and that gendering of a product can be interpreted also as a deliberate and successful process. The article contributes to the tokenism theorizing.

The limitations of the article may relate to the specificity of the innovation process in chemical industry that are different to other industrial fields.

The article does not have direct practical implications.

The article contributes to the theory of tokenism by providing an updated and extended version of tokenism and naming it as “processual tokenism”. Furthermore, the article contributes to the debates on gendered organisations by focusing on gendering through tokenism and the persistence of male dominance. Finally, the article contributes to gender theories by introducing the idea and analysing of how the gendering of a product innovation takes place.

This paper aims to study the kinds of methodologies used in studying “doing gender” in working life and organisations. To do so, articles that use empirical research materials from different academic peer-reviewed journals have been analysed. By methodologies, both data gathering tools and the analysing techniques using and concerting the data have been largely understood. In the articles analysed, interviews were the main methodological tool in extracting the “doing gender”, while studies using naturally occurring data, e.g. historical materials and methods in relation to this type of data were in the minority. The following question has been proposed for further exploration: What impact does the domination of interviews as a research method have on the concept of “doing gender”?

Qualitative content analysis, close reading and data were collected from academic peer-reviewed journals with the applied principles of literature review.

The research methodologies adopted in the articles on “doing gender” mostly deal with interview data and their analysis. Interview data are used most often as the primary source for ethnographic analysis. These method choices limit the potential interpretations available for the analysis of the conceptual idea of “doing gender”.

The limitations of this article relate to the journals chosen for the analysis.

This paper contributes toward a deeper understanding of the “doing gender” approach, particularly by exploring the research methodologies that have been used when studying “doing gender” approach empirically.

The emergence of the platform economy is reorganizing work, employment, and value creation. The authors argue that the digital platforms are fracturing work itself as the places and types of work are being reorganized into a myriad of platform organized work arrangements with workplaces being potentially anywhere with Internet connectivity. The authors differ from most traditional narratives that focus solely upon either work displacement, a single type of platform-organized value-creating activity, or David Weil’s concentration solely upon the workplace. The authors recognize that even as some work is replaced, other work is being transformed; new work and old work in new arrangements is being created and recreated. The taxonomy begins with the workers employed directly by the platform and its contractors. The authors then introduce the category, platform-mediated work, which we divide into three groups: marketplaces such as Amazon; in-person service provision such as Uber and Airbnb; and remote service provision such as Upwork. The next category, “platform-mediated content creation,” is complex. The authors identify three groups of activities: consignment content creators that include services such as the app stores, YouTube, and Amazon Self-Publishing; non-platform organization content producers, which refers to the enormous number of workers occupied with creating and maintaining websites; and user-generated content which is the non-compensated value creation that ranges from content uploaded to Facebook, Instagram, etc. to reviews on sites such as Yelp. It is only when work and value creation is considered in all of these platform-based manifestations that we can understand the ultimate dimensions of the platform economy and comprehensively understand its implications for work.

Drawing on the case of the recent Belgian law on the “sharing economy,” this chapter develops a critique of the dominant discourse of platform-mediated work as fostering the inclusion of individuals belonging to historically underrepresented groups (e.g., women with caring roles, people living in remote areas, individuals with disabilities, etc.) into the labor market. Exempting platform-mediated employment from social contributions and substantially lowering taxation, the law facilitates platform-based crowdsourcing firms’ predatory business model of capital valorization. The author argues that this business model rests precisely on the externalization of the costs of the social reproduction of this “diverse” labor through its precarization. These costs are not only externalized to individual workers, as often held. They are also externalized to the Belgian welfare state, and thus ultimately both to taxpayers and firms operating through classical business models, which fund the welfare state through taxation and social security contributions. For this reason, the debate surrounding platform-based employment might paradoxically provide a historical opportunity for recovering the Belgian tradition of social dialog between employers’ associations and trade unions. The author concludes by identifying key foci for action to ensure a better protection of workers of crowdsourcing firms including classifying them as employees, revising the conditions of access to social security protection, inclusive union strategies, the leveraging of technology to enforce firm compliance, and fostering counter-narratives of firms’ accountability toward society.

In this chapter, the authors offer a critical appraisal of predictions of a jobless future due do rapid technological change, as well as provide evidence on whether the rate of occupational change has been increasing. The authors critique the “task replacement” methodology that underlies the most powerful and specific predictions about the impact of technology on employment in particular occupations. There are a number of reasons why assuming a correspondence between task replacement and employment declines is not warranted. The authors also raise questions about how rapidly the development, acceptance, and diffiusion of labor-displacing technologies is likely to occur. In the empirical portion of the chapter, the authors compare the current rate of employment disruption with those observed in earlier periods. This analysis is based on an analysis of occupation data in the US covering the period 1870–2015. Using an index of dissimilarity as the metric, the authors find that the rate of occupational change from 1870 to 2015 does not provide evidence of a sharp uptick in the rate of occupational shifts in the information age. Instead, the rate of occupation shifts has been declining slowly throughout the second half of the twentieth century. Thus, the issues and results discussed here suggest that imminent massive employment displacement is not a foregone conclusion.

The Internet and social media have fundamentally transformed the ways in which individuals find jobs. Relatively little is known about how demand-side market actors use online information and the implications for social stratification and mobility. This study provides an in-depth exploration of the online recruitment strategies pursued by human resource (HR) professionals. Qualitative interviews with 61 HR recruiters in two southern US metro areas reveal two distinct patterns in how they use Internet resources to fill jobs. For low and general skill work, they post advertisements to online job boards (e.g., Monster and CareerBuilder) with massive audiences of job seekers. By contrast, for high-skill or supervisory positions, they use LinkedIn to target passive candidates – employed individuals who are not looking for work but might be willing to change jobs. Although there are some intermediate practices, the overall picture is one of an increasingly bifurcated “winner-take-all” labor market in which recruiters focus their efforts on poaching specialized superstar talent (“purple squirrels”) from the ranks of the currently employed, while active job seekers are relegated to the hyper-competitive and impersonal “black hole” of the online job boards.