![]()
1 Introduction
Inequality Regimes and the Gendered Professional Context
Geraldine Healy, Kaye Broadbent and Glenda Strachan
Occupational segregation by sex is detrimental to women. It has an important negative effect on how men view women and how women view themselves. This in turn negatively affects womenâs status and income and, consequently, many social variables such as mortality and morbidity, poverty and income inequality. The persistence of gender stereotypes also has negative effects on education and training and thus causes gender based inequalities to be perpetuated into future generations ⌠occupational segregation is extensive in every region, at all economic development levels, under all political systems and in diverse religious, social and cultural environments.
(Anker 1997, 315)
Our focus is gender and professions where status and credentials promise to protect professional workers and perhaps avoid the gendered experiences of their less qualified sisters. Indeed âprofessionsâ also promise some protection from occupational and economic vicissitudes and that by implication professional workers will treated fairly regardless of sex. Extensive literature tells us that fair treatment may be more a promise than a reality, but arguably there is still an expectation that professional status will protect women from the worst effects of gendered organisations and of occupational segregation. We consider the extent to which women enter a gender-neutral space where they can subscribe to professional values, even those that may be explicitly patriarchal and disadvantage women. This book therefore explores how women and men are faring in a diverse range of professional occupations in a number of national settings, as well as the global movement of professional women. We question what employment in a profession means for women and examine whether they have changed the face of their professions or whether they are forced to conform to male definitions of the profession. We investigate the everyday experiences of women and men working in different professions in different countries and importantly consider issues of insecurity, masculine cultures and intersectionality.
Background
This book is about gender and professions in the 21st century. The concept of âprofessionâ is potentially a slippery concept but one which is widely used by different partiesâwhether the state, a professional association, the individualâto defend, persuade, legitimate, control, exclude and segregate. The relative importance of these concepts to different occupational groups varies with the nature of the profession itself, the national context and the historical moment in the history of the profession. These concepts are also underpinned by high levels of credentials and closure strategies so that access to professions may be, although not always, carefully controlled, thus maintaining an autonomy and access to tacit knowledge. What is striking about early studies on the professions is the invisibility of gender, implying instead that their emphasis infers that professions are gender-neutral.
We eschew gender neutrality as a way to understand professions, but recognise that early approaches have offered insights into professions, despite the invisibility of gender, in understanding the meaning and characteristics of the term âprofessionâ. Early studies focused on listing traits present in a profession (Millerson 1964, 5) or discussing which occupations are to be considered professions. Larson observed that a profession was the âmeans of earning an income on the basis of transacted servicesâ (1977, 9). Johnson (1972) emphasised the concept of control by an occupation, which he acknowledged differs due to the historical development of the occupation (1972, 45â47). Freidson argued that major theoretical writing on the professions have focused on defining professions as âoccupations which share characteristics of considerably greater specificity than higher education alone, and which are distinctive as separate occupationsâ (1994, 17). He also specifically identified control to be significant and defined a profession as âan occupation that controls its own work, organised by a special set of institutions sustained in part by a particular ideology of expertise and serviceâ (1994, 10). He further considers that professions distinguish themselves from other occupations by âthe particular tasks they claim, and by the special character of the knowledge and skill required to perform themâ (1994, 36).
Studies such as Johnsonâs move away from defining professions in terms of attributes to focus on emphasising the process of professionalisation as a mechanism to explain the differences in prestige attached to a range of professions such as between law, medicine and social work (1972, 21). Professionalism, he argues, is an institutional control framework based on occupational authority. To discuss professionalism Johnson draws upon a typology focusing particularly on the resolution of tension in the âproducer-consumerâ relationship and the extent to which the producer was able to control the relationship and benefit from it. Freidson (1994) focused on the political, economic and ideological forces on professions. He builds on Johnsonâs work where he defines professionalism as âthe ideology and special set of institutionsâ (1994, 10). Freidson (1970) focuses on the power professions gained to control the work granted by the state. For Schmidt in understanding the professional, it is important to understand âideologyâ or âthought that justifies actionâ (2000, 15). He argues that the criteria which deems an individual qualified to become a professional is not just technical knowledge drawn from their occupation but their attitude, in particular their ability to work within a certain political and ideological framework.
The contributions in our book do not treat âprofessionâ as a generic concept, but rather as a changing historical, cultural and gendered concept. We accept Cromptonâs (1987, 420) view that precise definitions of profession proved difficult given the heterogeneous group of occupations involved. We argue for the importance of understanding the gendered experiences of professions in a range of cultural contexts. We address the issues of horizontal and vertical gender segregation and question how integrated women are into all levels of the professions. Our book particularly relates to aspects of Johnson (1972) and Larsonâs (1977, 1980) arguments, as from them we take as our starting point that the development of modern professions is historically located. For us professions emerged as a product of the divisions which have developed within capitalist society, they are as Johnson argues âa product of state formationâ (1982). In this way, the developments we are seeingâfor example, proletarianisation and insecurityâare because of changes in capitalist society. So while some professions in some countries may still control the monopoly of knowledge such as medicine or architecture, control of the labour market is not necessarily guaranteed and so increases the risk of oversupply such as academics or lawyers (see Larson 1980) and tension between producer and consumer (Johnson 1972).
Larson (1977) also analyses control but in the light of both the state and profession. She discusses the development of professions in terms of the âprofessional projectâ (1977, 51), which she considers is one âof market control [which] underlines the central role of the state ⌠most particularly its function of sponsoring monopolistic education systemsâ (1977, 18). The state also exercised control over the professions through regulation of qualifications and licensing. But by establishing a standard body of knowledge the professions were able to bind educational qualifications to occupational function, and established a âmonopolization on competence and [demonstrated] that this competence is superior to othersâ (Larson 1977, 51). We also see the development of the professions as a âprojectâ as their knowledge and survival strategies are evolving to counter the changing contexts within which they operate. For example, the public service of the present does not resemble that of 40 years agoâ(see chapter on Australia) as the number of women and older women is increasing.
The work of Friedson, Larson and Johnson is insightful particularly with the importance they attribute to control, power and ideology. Nevertheless, they neglect the gendered nature of professions and so we look to the work of Anne Witz (1992). In examining gender and the professions, Witz (1992) updates Larsonâs research on the âprofessional projectâ. Like Larson she examines the strategies professions develop for occupational closure, which enables them to gain occupational monopoly over the provision of certain skills and competencies in a market for services. Witz unpacks the specifically gendered dimensions of closure practices in professionalising occupations including exclusionary, inclusionary, demarcationary and dual closure strategies (Witz 1992). For Witz it is important to gender the agents of closure strategies and distinguish between male and female professional projects, as gender makes a difference in form and outcome of professional projects which are grounded in a capitalist society. Thus, our book is about gender and gendering at multi-levels of contemporary organisations and how gender shapes and is shaped by the intra-professional structures, opportunities and relations for women and men. But it is also about gender in context and, as we shall see, the context and the relational intersect.
We have seen a huge change in womenâs opportunities since the 1970s and the womenâs movements including anti-discrimination and equal opportunity legislation and policies which aimed to break down the gendered bastion of the professions and grant women entry and progression. While women are employed in an increasing range of professions (Anleu 1992; Cech, Pecenco and Blair-Loy 2013; Sang, Dainty and Ison 2014), they often remain underrepresented and often segregated in narrow specialisations. Therefore an increased numbers of women in professional employment does not necessarily translate into an equal spread across all sections of a profession. So while in many countries there is evidence of significant changeâfor example, women now form the majority of graduates in law, accounting and medicine, their career paths after graduation remain gendered. This applies to medicine, where women are more likely to be employed in general practice and less likely to be surgeons, and law, where women are more likely to specialise in family law and less likely to be in corporate law and to access senior positions in law and accounting firms (Anleu 1992). Stratification and segregation by and within professions is maintained and reproduced (Healy and Oikelome 2011; Cech, Pecenco and Blair-Loy 2013). These patterns also embody different career trajectories by gender and indeed in some cases, higher dropout rates of women compared to men after several years in a profession (including engineering) (Strachan, Troup, Peetz, Whitehouse, Broadbent and Bailey 2012). Moreover, there are gender differences within and between professional groups according to place of qualifications (Oikelome and Healy 2007; Healy and Oikelome 2011; Oikelome and Healy 2012) and migration (Oikelome and Healy 2012). Thus despite rapid and seemingly progressive change, we find a resilience of both horizontal segregation, where women are more likely to work with women and men with men, and vertical segregation, where men are more likely to remain at the top of their organisations, segregations that are maintained by gendered and inequality regimes.
Historically the professions in the Anglo-Saxon world encompassed law, medicine and the church; mobility was restricted and patronage dominated (Larson 1977, 5) and professions excluded women from participation. Industry and the 20th century led to new professions such as engineering and latterly information technology (see Larson 1977; MacDonald 1995). Moreover the increase in credentialism and accreditation opened up further avenues for professions to develop (see Larson 1980). Many of the ânewerâ professions exhibit similar gendered characteristics, still based on a perceived masculine identity of the professional worker and the association of the professional with high-level credentials based on university and professional body qualifications.
In contrast, professions such as teaching and nursing, characterised as womenâs professions which reflected womenâs socially acceptable role of caring, developed as state-regulated occupations from the late 19th century. They struggled to achieve the status of being called a profession and to be granted entry into university education. Indeed these professions were often ascribed the gendered and somewhat pejorative description of âsemi-professionâ, a description determined primarily by the main sex of the professional work, a term which Hearn argued reflected the patriarchy of the âfull professionâ (Hearn 1982). Pay structures and status in traditionally female dominated professions were much lower than those of law and medicine, attended by the fact that the major employer of some female-dominated professions, for example, teachers and nurses, is the state. In the case of these gendered professional groups, there is little doubt that their credentials provide some protection from the uncertainties of the labour market. Nevertheless, in this neoliberal era, the intensification of controls and the marketisation of professions, such as teaching and nursing have sustained a high degree of collectivism amongst women and men. Moreover, professional workers may defend their terms and conditions through the discourse of their professionalism and thereby challenge attacks on their autonomy (Healy and Kirton 2002).
Moreover, we see a convergence of gendered experiences mediated by the gendered structures that are evident in the professions that disadvantage women, more intensely experienced by those who follow other than conventional choices, such as those professions dominated by men.
Professions and professional work itself are not static and recent decades have seen huge changes in professional work. The concept of a profession embodied the idea of autonomy of operation has been challenged by the external forces of competition, capitalist and technological developments. The computerisation of aspects of work and the surveillance and monitoring of professional workers has reduced individual autonomy in many areas.
Thus the employment of professional groups is increasingly characterised by a struggle for autonomy. This applies in both the private sector with the growth of the international legal and accountancy firms, and in the public sector with the increasing privatisation of professional work and the centralised prescription of much professional work (Muzio, Brock and Suddaby 2013). At the same time, we see professionals, traditionally employed in the public sector, demonstrating a strong allegiance to unions, whose role has been important in uncovering the dangers of privatisation and insecure work. Thus, the marketisation of professional work has become an important feature of the professional project.
Our Approach
The neglect of gender in many accounts on professions is notable. Davies (1996) provided an influential account of placing gender in the sociology of professions. By drawing on recent work on the gendering of organisation and bureaucracy, she suggests a key issue for consideration is not so much the exclusions of women from work defined as professional, but rather their routine inclusion in ill-defined support roles (Davies 1996, 661). For Davies, to claim that institutions and practices are gendered is to argue that they call upon notions of masculinity and femininity for their construction and that gender, as a set of cultural understanding around masculinity and femininity, is constitutive of social relations (Davies 1996, 671). A theme that comes through in this book is the relevance of gendered relations in understanding men and womenâs positions in organisations and professions.
Acker has had a profound impact on our understanding of gender relations in organisations (Acker 1990; 2006a; 2006b) and thereby professions. In her influential work on inequality regimes, Acker (Acker 2006a; Acker 2006b) points to the different constituent components1 that conspire to mutually constitute an inequality regime. Inequality regimes are defined as âloosely interrelated practices, processes, actions, and meanings that result in and maintain class, gender and racial inequalities within particular organizationsâ (Acker 1990). Thus Acker is challenging the binary that so often characterises work on gender. While our book is about gender we move beyond th...
