• No results found

2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL PARADIGMS

2.7 Organisational Barriers

Once women have successfully found their way into the workforce and landed in a position in their desired organisation, other types of discrimination become apparent. Along with some gender and societal concrete barriers, women also experience quite a few organisational barriers at workplaces. In the 1970s, Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1977) wrote about the adverse effects that can occur when women or minorities are tokens in their departments. When women represent less than 15 - 20 percent of a department they are more likely to feel the effects of gender stereotyping. Even the situation has no longer changed today (Batool, Sajid & Shaheen, 2013; Bombuwela & De Alwis, 2013; Schwanke 2013).

2.7.1 Social Capital

Bourdieu‘s concept of social capital could be significant to discuss here concerning the underrepresentation of women in academia. Bourdieu explained social capital enhances one‘s ability to advance in the competition between individuals. Advantageous relationships can secure material or symbolic ‗profit‘, which establishes a concrete base for the growth of solidarity (Bourdieu, 1986: 249). The term ‗profit‘ refers to the stream of benefits that result from participation in groups, Bourdieu suggests that group members enjoy certain privileges they have not necessarily earned. This point is important because it proposes the existence of a non-meritocratic academic reality, where promotion is a function of social networking rather than of one‘s merit.

Viewed from Bourdieu‘s perspective, social capital can be a powerful personal asset that gives individual‘s access to useful resources and can improve their position. Bourdieu stresses that social capital benefit is unequally distributed across society and that they tend to accumulate in certain social groups, this being strongly associated with the division of power in that society or organisation. Social capital as a collective asset can be drawn upon to advance a social group‘s interest. Bourdieu views social capital as the investment strategy of the members of the privileged class (as a group or network) in their effort to reproduce group solidarity and its domination. We can assume that academics with high social capital have meant to exclude others and have an interest in doing so.

The academia and university organisations generally governed by hierarchical systems, the policies and activities determined by the top individuals and with a culture built on competition for economic (hierarchical level, pay plans), social (networking, power, authority), and symbolic (visibility, scientific recognition and prestige/honour) capital, as per Bourdieu‘s (1986) terminology. Attitudes, behavioural dispositions or orientations, skills and capabilities are indicators of the gender position of individuals and the ‗habitus‘ (Bourdieu, 1990) in which they have been raised. In other words, they reflect gendered social and cultural realities.

However, sometimes when women break such stereotypical expected roles of women and came into the labour market to prove, that they are equally competent, they might lack

social capital of networks (exclusion from broader networking opportunities, lack of mentors, lack of supervising activities), as a consequence they may experience barriers and hurdles for further progress in the labour market. August & Waltman (2004) wrote that it might not be enough to recruit and hire more women, once hired merely; women faculty must be retained by fostering a satisfying work environment in which they can perform well and prosper. In other words, just allowing women faculty to meet criteria for academic success, on standards that have been defined by men, which represent their lifestyle, does not necessarily guarantee equality. Though this explanation of gender equality has represented an awareness of people‘s lives outside of their work and stressed to accommodate their special needs (Acker, 2006; Amondi, 2011; Bombuwela & De Alwis, 2013; Ghaus, 2013; Faiza, 2013; Schwanke, 2013).

2.7.2 Hegemonic Masculinities

Connell‘s well-known theory of Hegemonic Masculinity (1987) similarly emphasises the intersection of gender and power, providing a broad sociological framework for understanding that society privileges a single version of masculinity above all others, which guarantees the dominant position of men and the subordination of women. Masculinity is defined as simultaneously a place in gender relations, the practice through which men and women engage that place in gender, and the effects of these practices in physical experience, personality and culture (Connell, 1995). Connell‘s theory views, gender as a social institution as much as an individual characteristic (Lorber, 1994; Martin, 2004). As such, gender helps people meet their basic needs by shaping how they organise themselves in families, schools, the workplace, and other institutions. While any number of possible gender ideologies could be invoked to structure social interactions, it is the ideals of ‗Hegemonic Masculinity‘ that shape norms of gendered interaction. Connell, MacKinnon, Martin, and Quinn all points to the conclusion that people who cannot or will not conform to standards of hegemonic masculinity (i.e. women) will be vulnerable to workplace harassment. Berdahl reconceptualises sexual harassment as sex-based harassment, defined as ―behaviour that derogates, demeans, or humiliates an individual based on that individual‘s sex‖. Sex-based harassment is not driven by sexual desire, but rather by an underlying motivation to protect

sex-based social standing. As a result, targets of sex-based harassment are most likely to be women who threaten men‘s status. Berdahl (2007) found that women with stereotypically masculine personalities (assertive, dominant, and independent) were more likely than other women to experience harassment at school, among friends, or at work (Berdahl, 2007; McLaughlin, Uggen, and Blackstone, 2009).

2.7.3 Discriminatory Practices

According to some researchers a contributing factor to women‘s low success in the labour market is sexual harassment at workplace (Anila, 1998; Barry, Berg, & Chandler, 2006; Guerrier & Amel, 2004; Escartín, Salin, & Rodríguez-Carballeira, 2011; Haarr and Morash, 2013; Hrcp, 2000; ILO, 2001; Karega, 2002; Konrad & Gutek, 1986; Lockwood et al, 2007; Luthar & Luthar, 2007; McDonald, 2012; Neall & Tuckey, 2014; Okechukwu et al, 2014; Pollard, 2006; Sandhu, Singh& Batra, 2015; Scott & Martin, 2006; Weiss,2012).

This vision of gender and workplace power labelled as the ―power-threat‖ model, which suggests that women who pose a greater threat to male dominance are more likely targets of harassment. There is more significant support for the paradoxical ―power-threat‖ model, in which women in positions of power -- at the organisational or societal level -- are most likely to face harassment. However, when women can crack the glass ceiling (Cotter et al., 2001) and obtain leadership positions, stereotypical gender beliefs about their ―natural‖ competencies and limitations shape larger perceptions of their abilities and job performance. General and sexual harassment are very prominent, yet the under-considered example of such discrimination. Workplace harassment is, in fact, the mistreatment of a subordinate, a colleague or a supervisor, which if continued for an extended period (Einarsen et al., 2011). In fact, workplace harassment is a complex issue with many shapes, multiple factors and many levels (Agervold, 2007). General work harassment is defined as persistent negative actions by one or several persons towards an individual or a group of individuals, who have difficulties in defending themselves (Hecker, 2007).

Male co-workers, clients, and supervisors use harassment as an "equaliser" against women in power, research consistently showing, that sexual harassment is less about sexual desire than about control and domination. Established in 1970‘s, sexual harassment can be

defined as ―unsolicited verbal or physical behaviour of a sexual nature...considered offensive by the recipient‖. The vagueness of this definition, which has been altered due to legislation, has led to discrepancies in the personal and legal definition. It has been overwhelmingly agreed that ―sexual harassment is less about sexual desire than about control and domination‖ (McLaughlin, Uggen, & Blackstone, 2009). According to MacKinnon‘s proposition, harassment results from women‘s oppression and subordinate position to men. According to the ―vulnerable victim‖ hypothesis, more vulnerable workers will be subject to greater harassment, including women, racial minorities, and those with the most precarious positions and the least workplace authority has thus received some degree of empirical support (Berdahl, 2007).

Often time‘s women are forced to leave their workplace to escape harassment, which can result in a significant financial loss. There are some areas where this hegemonic masculinity is even more prominent than in others. Many sociologists have studied the subculture to identify the factors that lead to the wide gaps between men and women in the service.

Related documents