Explaining Women's Employment Patterns: 'Orientations to Work' Revisited

Abstract

Explanations of the persisting differences in the structure of men's and women's employment have long been debated in the social sciences. Sociological explanations have tended to stress the continuing significance of structural constraints on women's employment opportunities, which persist despite the removal of formal barriers. Neo-classical economists, in contrast, have emphasized the significance of individual choice, an argument which has been recently endorsed by Hakim who suggests that patterns of occupational segregation reflect the outcome of the choices made by different 'types' of women. In this paper, a previous debate relating to the explanatory utility of men's 'orientations to work' is used to argue that employment structures are the outcome of both choice and constraint, and that this is the case for women, as well as men. The argument is illustrated with evidence from cross-nationally comparative biographical interviews carried out in five countries.

Constructing a career: women architects at work

“…The topic of women's orientations and commitment to their career has generated an abundance of literature throughout the 1990s, principally by Hakim (1996Hakim ( , 1998Hakim ( , 2000 but with additional contributions and responses by a variety of others (Crompton and Le Feuvre, 1996;Caven, 1999;Crompton and Harris, 1998;Ginn et al, 1996;Bruegel, 1996;Walsh, 1999;Procter and Padfield, 1999). Hakim (2000) has identified three distinct preferences held by women regarding their career: 'home-centred', 'adaptive' and 'work-centred'.…”

Choice, diversity and ‘false consciousness’ in women's careers

“…The critics of Hakim's work focus on institutional and structural disadvantages experienced by women as explaining women's orientations towards their careers (Crompton and Le Feuvre 1996;Crompton and Harris 1998;Ginn et al 1996;Bruegel 1996;McRae 2003aMcRae , 2003b. Crompton and Harris (1998) suggest that women do make choices about their level of involvement in the labour market but that "women's employment behaviour is a reflection of the way in which women actively construct their work-life biographies in terms of their historically available opportunities and constraints" (Crompton and Harris 1998:119).…”

“…Hakim's (1996Hakim's ( , 1998Hakim's ( , 2001Hakim's ( , 2002Hakim's ( , 2003 contention that women have differing orientations to work challenged many of these assumptions and became the subject of much derision from her critics (Crompton and Le Feuvre, 1996;Crompton and Harris, 1998;Ginn et al, 1996;Bruegel, 1996;Walsh, 1999;Procter and Padfield, 1999;McRae 2003aMcRae , 2003b. The only area of common ground appears to be that McRae (2003aMcRae ( , 2003b concurs that most sociological theory is inadequate at explaining women's employment decisions.…”

Gender essentialism and occupational segregation in insolvency practice

“…Thirdly, although students of horizontal segregation tend to conduct macro-analyses of aggregative occupational categories and perform cross-national and longitudinal studies, disaggregated research into individual vocations is also encouraged (Crompton & Harris, 1998;Weeden, 2004). Occupation-specific studies have the potential to unveil the complexities of sex segregation.…”