No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

It is well known that occupations are differentially gendered and explanations for such gendering usually focus on structure and process in the labour market. However little is known of the fine detail of the way in which labour markets perform for particular occupations in particular local contexts. This article is based on micro-sociological research on the professional labour markets for law and engineering professionals in the city of Hobart, Australia. It addresses a discrepancy in women's participation and promotion rates in each of these professions: the proportion of women in high positions in engineering matches their educational qualification rates while that in law is considerably lower than educational qualification rates would suggest. The paper proposes that the explanation can be found in the respective organizational patterns of the two professions. Engineering is practised in large-scale bureaucratic organizations where formal rules govern recruitment and promotion, where equal opportunities legislation literally applies, and where a strict separation is maintained between public and domestic spheres. By contrast, law is practised in collegial partnerships where informal judgements govern recruitment and promotion, where the letter of equal opportunities legislation need not be applied, and where advancement depends on the subordination of the domestic to the public sphere.The issues surrounding women's increasing participation in the 'public sphere' of paid employment are now central to many academic agendas. The majority of theoretical approaches originate from one of two traditions, insofar as they champion either 'action' or 'structure'. Explanations in the former tradition generally attribute women's disadvantaged position within labour markets to such individualist factors as differential socialisation, occupational choice, acquisition of credentials, or 'human capital' (see for example