DOCSLIB.ORG

AUTHOR AVAILABLE from National Academy of Sciences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AUTHOR AVAILABLE from National Academy of Sciences DOCUMENT RESUME ED 247 445 CE 039 525 AUTHOR Reskin, Barbara F., Ed. TITLE Sex Segregation in the Workplace. Trends, Explanations, Remedies. INSTITUTION National Academy of Sciences National Research Council)Washington, DC. Committee on Women's Employment and Related Social Issues. SPONS AGENCY Carnegie Corp. of NeW York, N.Y.; Employment and Trai'ning Administration (DOL),, Washington, D.C.; Office of Vocatibnal and Adult Education (ED)., Washington, DC. REPORT NO ISBN-0-309-03445-0 PUB DATE 84 ?CONTRACT 300-81-0282 . NOTE 319p.; Revised versions of papers presented at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, the Employment and Ttaining Administration (DOL), and the Carnegie Corporation, May 1982. AVAILABLE FROMNational Academy Press, 2101.Constitution. Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20418. PUB TYPE Collected Works - General (020) Information Analyses (070) -- Reports - Research/Technical (143) EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Adults; Career Choice; Career Education; *Employed. Women; *Employment Practices; *Equal Opportunities (Jobs); Females; Organizational Climate; *PerSonnel Integration; Salary Wage Differentials; *Sex Discrimination; Sex Fairness; Workshops IDENTIFIERS *Occupational Segregation; *Sex Segregation ABSTRACT This volume includes revised presentations and commentaries from a workship to review evidence for various theoretical explanations for occupational segregation and to report empirical research to enlarge understanding of the topic. An introduction summarizes contents. In partI live chapters on the extent of and trends in segregation document adecline in the segregation index, report an examination of sex segregation within organizations, address change in occupational sex composition experienced with job change and movement by race among occupations with different sex compositions, comment on contradictions among these papers, and project occupational segregation for the1980s. Eight chapters in part II attempt to describe segregation by considering economic approaches to sex segregation, proposing a general theory to explain occupational segregation and wage differentialsr criticizing this theory, reviewing the human capital -explanation attributing segregation to women's preferences,reviewing literature linking sex typirrz in socialization to occupational choice, responding to that icAiew, examininginstitutional barriers to sex integration, and commenting on thatexamination. The three papers in part III on theeffectiveness of interventions to reduce segregation review literature to examine impacts, evaluate occupational desegregation in Comprehensive Employment andTraining Act programs, and comment on the previous paper.Concluding remarks integrate several recurring themes. (YLB) Pi Sex wim Segregation inthe Workplace Tends, Explanations, Remedies Barbara F. Reskin, Editor Committee on Women's Employment andRelated Social Issues Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences andEducation National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1984 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS N EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIO MATERIAL INM'CROFICHE ONLY CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced a, HA; BEEN GRANTED BY received from the person or organization originating 0 /--)' Minor changes have been made to imprive L> L 1/.1)/... reprodur bon quality L " Points of view or ()Pinions stated in this docu TO EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES' merit 'to not ner essitnlv represent official NIE IhnoliorlI 00th y INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." 2 NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE,NW WASHINGTON, DC 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report wasapproved by the Cover,...ig Board of the National Research Council, whose aembers are drawn from the councils of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The membersof the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencesand with regard for appropriate balance. , This report has been reviewed by-a group other than the authorsaccording to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engi- neering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academyof Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with theAcademy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council operates in accordance with general policiesdetermined by the Academy under the authority of its congressional charter of 1863, whichestablishes the Academy as a private, nonprofit, self- governing membership corporation. The Council has becomethe principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct oftheir services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. It is administeredjointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Engineeringand the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the charter of the NationalAcademy of Sciences. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Sex segregation in the workplace. Revised versions of papers, originally presented at a workshop held in May 1982. 1. Sex discrimination in employmentUnited States Congresses. 2. Sex discrimination against women United StatesCongresses. I. Reskin, Barbara F. II. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Women's Employment and Related Social Issues. H D6060.5. U5S4751984 331. 4'133'0973 84-8342 ISBN 0-309-03445-0 Printed in the United States of America 3 "kt t Committee on Women's Employment and Related Social Issues ALICE S. ILCHMAN (Chair), President, Sarah Lawrence College CECILIA BURCIACA, Office of the President, Stanford University CYNTHIA FUCHS EPSTEIN, Department of Sociology, Queens College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York LAWRENCE M. KAHN, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, University of Illinois GENE E. KOFKE, American Telephone and Telegraph Co., New York ROBERT E. KRAUT, Bell Communications Research, Murray Hill, N.J. JEAN BAKER MILLER, Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies, Wellesley College ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Georgetown University Law Center GARY ORFIELD, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago NAOMI R. QUINN, Department of Anthropology, Duke University ISABEL V. SAWMILL, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C. ROBERT M. SOLOW, Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology LO VISE A. TILLY, Department of History, University of Michigan DONALD J. TREIMAN, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles BARBARA F. RESKIN, Study Director MARIE A. MATTHEWS, Administrative Assistant iii Contributors TAMES N. BARON, School of Business, Stanford University ANDREA H. BELLER, Department of Family and Consumer Economics, UniVersity of Illinois `SUE E. BERRYMAN, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California WILLIAM T. BIELBY, Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara FRANCINE D. BLAU, Department of Economics and Institute of Industrial and Labor Relations, University of Illinois MARY C. BRINTON, Department of Sociology, University of Washington PAMELA S. CAIN, Department of Sociology, Hunter College MARY CORCORAN, Department of POlitical Science and Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan GREG J. DUNCAN, Department of Economics and Institute for Social Research; University of Michigan KEE-OK KIM HAN, Department of Family and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois SHARON L. HARLAN, Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College MARYELLEN R. KELLEY, College of Management, University of Massachusetts, Boston MARGARET MOONEY MARINI, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Vanderbilt University KAREN OPPENHEIM MASON, Department of Sociology and Population Studies Center, University of Michigan BRIGID O'FARRELL, Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College MICHAEL PONZA, Department of Economics, University of Michigan BARBARA F. RESKIN, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan PATRICIA A. ROOS, Department of Sociology State University of New York, Stony Brook RACHEL A. ROSENFELD, Department of SoPiology and Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina MYRA H. STROBERi Center for Research on Women and School of Education, Stanford University LINDA J. WAITE, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California WENDY C. WOLF, Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia it) Contents Preface vii 1 Introduction 1 Barbdra F. Reskin IEXTENT, TRENDS, AND PROJECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE . 9 2 Trends in Occupational Segregation by Sex and Race, 1960-1981 . 11 Andrea H. Beller 3 A Woman's Place Is With Other Women: Sex Segregation Within Organizations 27 William T. Bielby and James N. Baron 4 Job Changing and Occupational Sex Segregation: Sex and Race Compariscns 56 Rachel A.Rosenfeld 5 Commentary 87 Pamela Stone Cain 6 Occupational Sex Segregation: Prospects for the 1980s . 91 Andrea H. Beller and Kee-ok Kim Han 6 a , IIEXPLAINING SEGREGATION: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE 115 pccupational Segregation and Labor Market Discrimination 117 Francine D. Biau 8 Toward a General Theory of Occupational Sex Segregation: The Case of Public School Teaching 144 Myra H.Strober 9 Commentary: Strober's
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Revival of Economic Sociology
    Chapter 1 The Revival of Economic Sociology MAURO F. G UILLEN´ , RANDALL COLLINS, PAULA ENGLAND, AND MARSHALL MEYER conomic sociology is staging a comeback after decades of rela- tive obscurity. Many of the issues explored by scholars today E mirror the original concerns of the discipline: sociology emerged in the first place as a science geared toward providing an institutionally informed and culturally rich understanding of eco- nomic life. Confronted with the profound social transformations of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the founders of so- ciological thought—Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel—explored the relationship between the economy and the larger society (Swedberg and Granovetter 1992). They examined the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services through the lenses of domination and power, solidarity and inequal- ity, structure and agency, and ideology and culture. The classics thus planted the seeds for the systematic study of social classes, gender, race, complex organizations, work and occupations, economic devel- opment, and culture as part of a unified sociological approach to eco- nomic life. Subsequent theoretical developments led scholars away from this originally unified approach. In the 1930s, Talcott Parsons rein- terpreted the classical heritage of economic sociology, clearly distin- guishing between economics (focused on the means of economic ac- tion, or what he called “the adaptive subsystem”) and sociology (focused on the value orientations underpinning economic action). Thus, sociologists were theoretically discouraged from participating 1 2 The New Economic Sociology in the economics-sociology dialogue—an exchange that, in any case, was not sought by economists. It was only when Parsons’s theory was challenged by the reality of the contentious 1960s (specifically, its emphasis on value consensus and system equilibration; see Granovet- ter 1990, and Zelizer, ch.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Economic Sociology and Should Any Economists Care?
    What Is Economic Sociology and Should Any Economists Care? Robert Gibbons* Robert Gibbons is Sloan Distinguished Professor of Organizational Economics and Strategy, Sloan School of Management and Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. * I am grateful to Tim Taylor for helpful comments and to Jim Baron, Roberto Fernandez, Jim March, Joel Podolny, Jesper Sorensen, and Ezra Zuckerman for patient tutoring. 1 A couple years ago, two of my colleagues independently proposed approximately the same title for their respective contributions to a series of lunchtime talks: “Why Erving Goffman Is My Hero (and Should Be Yours, Too).” I emerged from these two lunches mightily impressed – both by Goffman’s (1959) insights into The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life and by the potential for Goffman’s micro-sociological research to inspire a major new research stream in behavioral game theory. In a similar spirit, I considered titling this introduction “Why Robert Merton Is My Hero,” but this approach seemed prone to at least two problems. First, explaining hero worship in a short space would probably require poetry, which is not my forte. Second, I feared that the title would be opaque to those economists who would immediately think of Robert C. Merton, the Nobel Laureate in financial economics, rather than his father Robert K. Merton, one of the great sociologists in the history of that discipline. I take the ideas in these papers and their underlying sociological literatures quite seriously. In fact, one sociologist friend recently declared that I have an “economist’s eye for the sociological guy.” More precisely, my interest is in economic sociology, which I will define as the sociology of economic actors and institutions; see the two Handbooks of Economic Sociology by Smelser and Swedberg (1994, forthcoming) for volumes of detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Intersecting Inequalities: Four Essays on Race, Immigration, and Gender in the Contemporary United States
    INTERSECTING INEQUALITIES: FOUR ESSAYS ON RACE, IMMIGRATION, AND GENDER IN THE CONTEMPORARY UNITED STATES by Emily K. Greenman A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Public Policy and Sociology) in The University of Michigan 2007 Doctoral Committee: Professor Yu Xie, Co-Chair Professor Mary E. Corcoran, Co-Chair Professor Sheldon H. Danziger Professor Pamela J. Smock © Emily K. Greenman 2007 To Mom and Dad, who have unfailingly supported my education from the earliest days. ii Acknowledgements I would like first to acknowledge the contributions of my advisor, Yu Xie, to Chapters 2 and 4, which will be published as coauthored papers. This dissertation was written with financial support from both the University of Michigan’s Population Studies Center and Rackham Graduate School. I was a trainee in both the Population Studies Center and the Quantitative Methodology Program at the University of Michigan during my graduate studies, and I have benefited greatly from the supportive and intellectually dynamic environments of both these programs. I owe great thanks to my committee, who couldn’t have been more generous with their support, time, and feedback. Pam Smock has always been able to make me think of my research from new directions and has helped me hone my critical thinking skills. Sheldon Danziger provided copious amounts of detailed and astute comments on my work, making sure that I wouldn’t be caught off guard by anything journal reviewers might have to say. A special thanks goes to Mary Corcoran, who recruited me into the joint Public Policy and Sociology doctoral program and who has been a continual source of support and encouragement ever since.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ladies Vanish? American Sociology and the Genealogy of Its Missing Women on Wikipedia Wei Luo, Julia Adams and Hannah Brueck
    The Ladies Vanish? American Sociology and the Genealogy of its Missing Women on Wikipedia Wei Luo, Julia Adams and Hannah Brueckner Working Paper # 0012 January 2018 Division of Social Science Working Paper Series New York University Abu Dhabi, Saadiyat Island P.O Box 129188, Abu Dhabi, UAE https://nyuad.nyu.edu/en/academics/divisions/social-science.html 1 The Ladies Vanish? American Sociology and the Genealogy of its Missing Women on Wikipedia Wei Luo Yale University [email protected] Julia Adams Yale University [email protected] Hannah Brueckner NYU-Abu Dhabi [email protected] Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge support for this research from the National Science Foundation (grant #1322971), research assistance from Yasmin Kakar, and comments from Scott Boorman, anonymous reviewers, participants in the Comparative Research Workshop at Yale Sociology, as well as from panelists and audience members at the Social Science History Association. 2 The Ladies Vanish? American Sociology and the Genealogy of its Missing Women on Wikipedia Wei Luo, Julia Adams and Hannah Brueckner “People just don't vanish and so forth.” “But she has.” “What?” “Vanished.” “Who?” “The old dame.” … “But how could she?” “What?” “Vanish.” “I don't know.” “That just explains my point. People just don't disappear into thin air.” --- Alfred Hitchcock, The Lady Vanishes (1938)1 INTRODUCTION In comparison to many academic disciplines, sociology has been relatively open to women since its founding, and seems increasingly so. Yet many notable female sociologists are missing from the public history of American sociology, both print and digital. The rise of crowd- sourced digital sources, particularly the largest and most influential, Wikipedia, seems to promise a new and more welcoming approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Sciences $€ £ ¥
    social sciences $€ £ ¥ Article Segregation, Stereotypes, and STEM Sarah Thébaud and Maria Charles * Department of Sociology, University of California—Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9430, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 10 May 2018; Accepted: 4 July 2018; Published: 9 July 2018 Abstract: Scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) occupations are strongholds of gender segregation in the contemporary United States. While many Americans regard this segregation as natural and inevitable, closer examination reveals a great deal of variability in the gendering of STEM fields across time, space, and demographic groups. This article assesses how different theoretical accounts accord with the available evidence on the gender composition of scientific and technical fields. We find most support for accounts that allow for a dynamic interplay between individual-level traits and the broader sociocultural environments in which they develop. The existing evidence suggests, in particular, that Western cultural stereotypes about the nature of STEM work and STEM workers and about the intrinsic qualities of men and women can be powerful drivers of individual aptitudes, aspirations, and affinities. We offer an illustrative catalog of stereotypes that support women’s STEM-avoidance and men’s STEM-affinity, and we conclude with some thoughts on policy implications. Keywords: gender; STEM; segregation; stereotypes; culture; work; occupations; science; inequality For more than three decades, American educators, policy makers, activists, and business leaders have engaged in research and policy initiatives to increase the presence of women and other underrepresented groups in scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) occupations and fields of study. These efforts have been motivated by interests in broadening opportunities in lucrative, high-status occupations and in ameliorating acute STEM labor shortages that are believed to threaten national prosperity, private profits and the public welfare.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revival of Economic Sociology Chapter Author(S): Mauro F
    Russell Sage Foundation Chapter Title: The Revival of Economic Sociology Chapter Author(s): Mauro F. Guillén, Randall Collins, Paula England and Marshall Meyer Book Title: New Economic Sociology, The Book Subtitle: Developments in an Emerging Field Book Editor(s): Mauro F. Guillén, Randall Collins, Paula England, Marshall Meyer Published by: Russell Sage Foundation. (2002) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/9781610442602.5 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Russell Sage Foundation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New Economic Sociology, The This content downloaded from 68.8.44.142 on Sat, 14 Mar 2020 00:04:00 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Chapter 1 The Revival of Economic Sociology MAURO F. G UILLEN´ , RANDALL COLLINS, PAULA ENGLAND, AND MARSHALL MEYER conomic sociology is staging a comeback after decades of rela- tive obscurity. Many of the issues explored by scholars today E mirror the original concerns of the discipline: sociology emerged in the first place as a science geared toward providing an institutionally informed and culturally rich understanding of eco- nomic life. Confronted with the profound social transformations of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the founders of so- ciological thought—Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel—explored the relationship between the economy and the larger society (Swedberg and Granovetter 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Great Divides: the Cultural, Cognitive, and Social Bases of the Global Subordination of Women
    2006 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS Great Divides: The Cultural, Cognitive, and Social Bases of the Global Subordination of Women Cynthia Fuchs Epstein Graduate Center, City University of New York Categorization based on sex is the most basic social divide. It is the organizational basis of most major institutions, including the division of labor in the home, the workforce, politics, and religion. Globally, women’s gendered roles are regarded as subordinate to men’s. The gender divide enforces women’s roles in reproduction and support activities and limits their autonomy, it limits their participation in decision making and highly-rewarded roles, and it puts women at risk. Social, cultural, and psychological mechanisms support the process. Differentiation varies with the stability of groups and the success of social movements. Gender analyses tend to be ghettoized; so it is recommended that all sociologists consider gender issues in their studies to better understand the major institutions and social relation- ships in society. he world is made up of great divides— social boundaries as well (Gerson and Peiss Tdivides of nations, wealth, race, religion, 1985; Lamont and Molnar 2002). Today, as in education, class, gender, and sexuality—all con- the past, these constructs not only order social structs created by human agency. The concep- existence, but they also hold the capacity to create serious inequalities, generate conflicts, tual boundaries that define these categories are and promote human suffering. In this address, always symbolic and may create physical and I argue that the boundary based on sex creates the most fundamental social divide—a divide Direct correspondence to Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, Department of Sociology, Graduate Center, City rial help over many incarnations of this paper and to University of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, New Kathleen Gerson, Jerry Jacobs, Brigid O’Farrell, York, NY 10016 ([email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • American Economic Association
    American Economic Association A Sociological Perspective on Gender and Career Outcomes Author(s): Barbara F. Reskin and Denise D. Bielby Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter, 2005), pp. 71-86 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4134993 Accessed: 10/01/2009 17:54 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aea. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Economic Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Economic Perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward Gender Equality: Progress and Bottlenecks
    Chapter 8 Toward Gender Equality: Progress and Bottlenecks Paula England s the significance of gender declining in America? Are men's and women's lives and rewards becoming more similar? To answer this question, I examine trends in market work and unpaid household work, including child care. I consider whether men's and women's employment and hours in paid work are converging, and examine trends in occupational sex segregation and the sex gap in pay. I also consider trends in men's and women's hours of paid work and household work. The emergent picture is one Iof convergence within each of the two areas of paid and unpaid work. Yet progress is not continuous and has stalled recently. Sometimes it continues on one front and stops on another. Gender change is also asymmetric in two ways: things have changed in paid work more than in the household, and women have dramatically increased their participation in formerly "male" activities, but men's inroads into traditionally female occupations or household tasks is very limited by comparison. I consider what these trends portend for the future of gender inequality. Robert Max Jackson argues (see chapter 7, this volume) that continued progress toward gender inequality is inevitable. I agree with him that many forces push in the direction of treating similarly situated men and women equally in bureaucratic organizations. Nonetheless, I conclude that the two related asymmetries in gender change—the sluggish change in the household and in men taking on traditionally female activities in any sphere- create bottlenecks that can dampen if not reverse egalitarian trends.
    [Show full text]
  • The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality
    DAVID B. GRUSKY The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality In advanced industrial societies, much rhe- migrating workers, yet the positions them- toric and social policy have been directed selves and the reward packages attached to against economic and social inequality, yet de- them typically change only gradually. As spite such efforts the brute facts of poverty Schumpeter (1953, 171) puts it, the occupa- and massive inequality are still everywhere tional structure can be seen as "a hotel . with us. The human condition has so far been which is always occupied, but always by dif- a fundamentally unequal one; indeed, all ferent persons." known societies have been characterized by The contents of these reward packages inequalities of some kind, with the most privi- may well differ across modern societies, but leged individuals or families enjoying a dis- the range of variability appears not to be proportionate share of power, prestige, and great. We have listed in Table 1 the various other valued resources. The task of contem- goods and assets that have been socially val- porary stratification research is to describe the ued in past or present societies (for related contours and distribution of inequality and to listings, see Kerbo 2000, 43-44; Rothman explain its persistence despite modern egali- 1999, 2-4; Gilbert 1998, 11-14; Duncan tarian or anti-stratification values. 1968, 686-90; Runciman 1968; Svalastoga The term stratification system refers to the 1965,70).2 In constructing this table, we have complex of social institutions that generate followed the usual objective of including all observed inequalities of this sort.
    [Show full text]
  • Sociology 861: Work and Occupations
    SOCIOLOGY 861: WORK AND OCCUPATIONS Professor Arne Kalleberg Spring, 2016 Office: 261 Hamilton Hall (962-0630) Email: [email protected] Tuesday, 12:30-3:00 151 Hamilton Hall COURSE DESCRIPTION This course combines aspects of a survey course (an overview and synthesis of material on topics related to work and occupations in industrial societies) with those of a seminar (identification and intensive discussions of research questions). We will cover topics such as: concepts and theories of work and work organization; the relations between markets and work structures such as occupations, industries, classes, unions, and jobs; employment relations and labor market segmentation; professions and occupational control; occupational differentiation and inequality; gender differences in work and occupations; control over work activities and work time; individuals' assessments of their job satisfaction and quality of their jobs; social policies related to work; and the prospects for social movements related to work. We will place particular emphasis on comparative (historical, cross-national) perspectives on these issues. Each class will be framed around a set of questions that address particular topics, and that are related to the readings for that day. I will lead off in each class by providing an introduction and context to the day’s topic(s). In some of the classes, I will ask teams to stimulate debate and critical thinking about the questions for the day. I will then try to summarize the day’s discussion. READINGS Students are expected to participate in discussions of readings, so please complete them by the assigned date. These readings can be downloaded from the course’s “Sakai” website (sakai.unc.edu) or from the UNC Libraries e-journal collection.
    [Show full text]
  • OK, Erving, I Am Sending Over a Reporter"
    Bios Sociologicus: The Erving Goffman Archives Center for Democratic Culture 5-19-2009 Had the New President, So I Said, "OK, Erving, I Am Sending Over a Reporter" Russell Dynes University of Delaware Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/goffman_archives Part of the Politics and Social Change Commons, and the Social Psychology and Interaction Commons Repository Citation Dynes, R. (2009). Had the New President, So I Said, "OK, Erving, I Am Sending Over a Reporter". In Dmitri N. Shalin, Bios Sociologicus: The Erving Goffman Archives 1-17. Available at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/goffman_archives/18 This Interview is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Interview in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Interview has been accepted for inclusion in Bios Sociologicus: The Erving Goffman Archives by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Remembering Erving Goffman Russell Dynes: Had the New President, So I Said, "OK, Erving, I Am Sending Over a Reporter" This interview with Russell Dynes, professor emeritus at the Universityof Delaware, was recorded over the phone on February 4, 2009. Dmitri Shalin transcribed the interview, after which Dr.
    [Show full text]