Search results

The purpose of this paper is to offer an insight into why men do research on in-equality.

The author utilizes autoethnography, as a form of self-reflection, to help make sense of the own experiences and to connect it with the broader world. It is a narrative based on personal experiences which connects the author's biography with his research endeavours. It also enables to engage in self-analysis and self-awareness of the motives for conducting research on in-equality.

In this narrative, the author shares his journey as an equality scholar, and how his multiple identities as a visible minority, an immigrant to Canada, and a gay person shapes my worldview, attitudes, and beliefs, which in turn influences his own work on equality and diversity. The narrative is based on the intersection of multiple identities, and not just solely based on the author's gender. The attribute feeling deprived on behalf of others, rational self-interest, and social justice as the chief reasons for engaging in in-equality research.

Autoethnography is inherently subjective, based upon the author's own biases and interpretation of events, but the subjectivity can also be an opportunity for intentional self-awareness and reflexivity. Given the multiple identities that the author holds, some of the experiences recounted here may be unique to the author, and some may be shared with others. Thus, it is not the author's intention to represent, in general, why men do in-equality research.

This autoethnography has allowed the author the opportunity to be self-aware of the complexity of the multiple identities. This self-awareness also allows the author to be more respectful, authentic, and inclusive of others. The author hopes that these reflections will resonate with some of you, and perhaps inspire one to engage in similar work, for reasons that are unique to one and all.

The purpose of this paper is to revisit theoretical positions on gender and the implications for gender in management by building upon current research on doing gender well (or appropriately in congruence with sex category) and re‐doing or undoing gender and argue that gender can be done well and differently through simultaneous, multiple enactments of femininity and masculinity.

This is a theoretical paper.

The authors argue that individuals can perform exaggerated expressions of femininity (or masculinity) while simultaneously performing alternative expressions of femininity or masculinity. The authors question claims that gender can be undone and incorporate sex category into their understanding of doing gender – it cannot be ignored in experiences of doing gender. The authors contend that the binary divide constrains and restricts how men and women do gender but it can be disrupted or unsettled.

This paper focuses upon the implications of doing gender well and differently, for gender and management research and practice, drawing upon examples of leadership, entrepreneurship, female misogyny and Queen Bee.

This paper offers a conceptualization of doing gender that acknowledges the gender binary, while also suggesting possibilities of unsettling it.

In this study we examine how doing research on gender impacts identity, sense of self, and relation to community; and how fieldwork is mediated by gender structures.

We draw on feminist epistemology, qualitative methodologies, and critical pedagogies to analyze the fieldwork experiences of 15 women students and nine men fieldwork partners in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan.

By conducting fieldwork which challenged gender norms, students and partners gained greater awareness of themselves and confidence. Their actions challenged the appropriate place of women (and minority ethnicities) as perceived by research participants in these communities. The experience rendered the community a site of hope and learning for them, working to empower them as well as building relationships grounded in lived experiences with their communities.

Women’s voices are more prominent in this analysis than men’s.

This chapter points to the potentially empowering aspects of doing gender-related fieldwork in the developing context, as well as how gender and other power structures mediate fieldwork experiences in Muslim communities in South Asia.

The purpose of this paper is to enable the author to discuss some personal experiences from research and teaching that relate to the special circumstances of doing gender research.

When reading about Styhre's and Tienari's experiences, the author is not so surprised by but rather concerned about the resemblance and reflections evoked by the text vis‐à‐vis her own experiences of doing research in the gender field. During recent decades, she had the opportunity to explore various organizing issues in her research, from technology and organizational change to gender and intersectionality. This provided her with both an inside and outside perspective on some of the specificities which recur in the field of gender studies.

Doing gender research enables men and women to “become with” women, men and other people. When able to respond to other people with respect, the researcher can “become with” the studied one. By going into the experiences previously shared by other scholars doing gender studies, and by reflecting upon these, the opportunities for men and women to “become with” will most likely increase.

In a performative way, “doing gender” includes a way of recognizing the context in which the author is situated. When this position is challenged, things start to happen. Whether one is being challenged as a woman, as a man, as a researcher, or for not understanding gender in the proper feminist way, the conditions of one's comprehension of doing gender are called into question. Reflexivity is thus – as Styhre and Tienari claim – a product of social encounters.

To reflect on the central role of gender and age in qualitative research practice, particularly in regard to how the gender and age of the researcher influence fieldwork interactions.

A reflection of three separate qualitative research undertakings, all of which made use of interviews and participant-observation fieldwork.

Gender and age intersections of both the researcher and research subjects influence fieldwork interactions both in terms of discursive and embodied interactions. Reflections on past research involve considering the relative changing subject position of the researcher in terms of masculinity, youth and social status. Rapport is established in the field through talk and interaction that can involve the performance of knowledge and gender. The researcher’s embodied feeling of ‘fitting in’ during fieldwork therefore draws on gender-, age- and ethnicity-specific privilege.

Unlike many acts of researcher reflexivity which reflect on a single research project, this chapter recalls experiences of fieldwork during three separate research undertakings. It adds to debates about methodological issues of doing research into men and masculinities by exploring how such is intersected by the age of both the researcher and research participants.

To demonstrate how generational as well as gendered identities impacted on researcher-researched relationships built during the interview process, engendering specific insights about contemporary British grandfathering.

An ‘ad-hoc’ reflection of interview transcripts and researcher field notes generated from 31 qualitative interviews with men who are grandfathers, to reflexively interrogate how various identity markers operated within my encounters with them, as a young female researcher.

Men positioned me within a grandparent-grandchild relationship during the interviews, which afforded specific insights into contemporary grandfatherhood, including the socio-historical context in which grandfathering takes place. Whilst perceptions and assumptions about gender influence how participants perceive researchers, focusing too rigidly on gender is problematic. It risks re-enforcing potentially stereotypical assumptions about men and women, thus downplaying the contradictions and paradoxes inherent in men’s constructions and performances of their diverse later life identities, as well as obscuring the complex intersectionalities and power relations that operate in the field.

To argue that the concept of ‘betweenness’ aids in developing a more robust understanding of the complex and knowable negotiations of similarity and difference within research encounters.

To introduce critical gender theory to events studies and set an agenda for research in this area. This paper focuses on various contexts, approaches and applications for “doing gender” in critical event studies. It draws upon interdisciplinary frameworks to develop robust theoretical ways of interrogating issues related to power and structural inequalities in events contexts.

A conceptual discussion of “doing gender” and critical gender theory and review of relevant research in this area within event studies. Adopting feminist and intersectional perspectives and applying them to events environments has potential to inform current theoretical developments and wider sector practices, and, ultimately, change the dominant heteronormative patriarchal paradigm of the experiential landscape.

Event studies has been slow to engage with gender theory and gender-aware research, to the detriment of theoretical and practical development within the field.

A call for more gender-aware research within event studies. The goal of this paper is to galvanise gender-aware events research to centralise the marginalised and amplify feminist voices in critical event studies. Feminist and gender-aware frameworks encourage researchers to be critical and to question the underlying power structures and discourses that shape practices, behaviours and interactions. This creates new pathways to find ways to overcome inequalities, which can improve overall events praxis.

The paper introduces critical gender theory as a fruitful framework for future events research. It is an under-researched area of study, representing a significant gap in ways of theorising and representing different aspects of events. We argue it is imperative that researchers take up the challenge of incorporating feminist and/or gender-aware frameworks within their research as a matter of routine.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect, personally, regarding work, politically and theoretically, on 40 years of involvement in organization studies, profeminism and intersectionality.

The paper uses autoethnography.

The paper shows the need for a broad notion of the field and fieldwork, the development of intersectional thinking, the complexity of men's relations to feminism and intersectionality and the need to both name and deconstruct men in the research field.

The paper suggests a more explicit naming and deconstruction of men and other intersectional social categories in doing research.

The paper suggests a more explicit naming and deconstruction of men and other intersectional social categories in equality practice.

The paper suggests a more explicit naming and deconstruction of men and other intersectional social categories in social, political and policy interventions.

The paper points to recent historical changes in the connections between feminism, gender, profeminism, organizations and intersectionality in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion.

The purpose of this paper is to examine male and female executives as leaders “championing” gender change interventions. It problematizes current exhortations for male leaders to lead gender change, much as they might lead any other business-driven change agenda. It argues that organizational gender scholarship is critical to understanding the gendered nature of championing.

This paper draws on a feminist qualitative research project examining the efficacy of a gender intervention in a university and a policing institution. Interviews with four leaders have been chosen from the larger study for analysis against the backdrop of material from interviewees and the participant observation of the researcher. It brings a social constructionist view of gender and Acker’s gendering processes to bear on understanding organizational gender change.

The sex/gender of the leader is inescapably fore-fronted by the gender change intervention. Gendered expectations and choices positioned men as powerful and effective champions while undermining the effectiveness of the woman in this study.

Further research examining male and female leaders capacity to champion gender change is required.

This research identifies effective champion behaviors, provides suggestions for ensuring that gender equity interventions are well championed and proposes a partnership model where senior men and women play complementary roles leading gender change.

This paper is of value to practitioners and scholars. It draws attention to contemporary issues of leadership and gender change, seeking to bridge the gap between theory and practice that undermines our change efforts.