“孩子的问题怎么办?”招聘情况下性别和父母合同的集体谈判

Pär Löfstrand, Ingrid Zakrisson
{"title":"“孩子的问题怎么办?”招聘情况下性别和父母合同的集体谈判","authors":"Pär Löfstrand, Ingrid Zakrisson","doi":"10.1080/20021518.2017.1317566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Men and women becoming parents are supposed to have equal opportunities in working life. However, inequality and discrimination are not easily avoided. The aim of this study was to investigate how argumentation related to parenthood and careers takes form in group discussions of a fictional recruitment situation, and how stereotypes such as competence and warmth are manifested in such discussions. Thirty-five ad-hoc groups of university students were asked to make a choice between three candidates for a consultancy position. The first two candidates were a man and a woman, while the third alternately was described either as a man or a woman described as having a newborn child. Parenthood was sometimes seen as reducing competence, but it was more often viewed as adding to competence. Parenthood was also considered to add warmth to the organization. Interestingly, all groups avoided relating the parenthood issue to gender. Three conversation patterns were found, differing in the amount of elaboration of the topic of parenthood and work. It was concluded that the most elaborated kind seems to foster a situation where implicit norms are made visible more easily.","PeriodicalId":254363,"journal":{"name":"Society, Health & Vulnerability","volume":"199 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“What about the child issue?” Group negotiations of gender and parenthood contracts in recruitment situations\",\"authors\":\"Pär Löfstrand, Ingrid Zakrisson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20021518.2017.1317566\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Men and women becoming parents are supposed to have equal opportunities in working life. However, inequality and discrimination are not easily avoided. The aim of this study was to investigate how argumentation related to parenthood and careers takes form in group discussions of a fictional recruitment situation, and how stereotypes such as competence and warmth are manifested in such discussions. Thirty-five ad-hoc groups of university students were asked to make a choice between three candidates for a consultancy position. The first two candidates were a man and a woman, while the third alternately was described either as a man or a woman described as having a newborn child. Parenthood was sometimes seen as reducing competence, but it was more often viewed as adding to competence. Parenthood was also considered to add warmth to the organization. Interestingly, all groups avoided relating the parenthood issue to gender. Three conversation patterns were found, differing in the amount of elaboration of the topic of parenthood and work. It was concluded that the most elaborated kind seems to foster a situation where implicit norms are made visible more easily.\",\"PeriodicalId\":254363,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Society, Health & Vulnerability\",\"volume\":\"199 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Society, Health & Vulnerability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20021518.2017.1317566\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Society, Health & Vulnerability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20021518.2017.1317566","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

成为父母的男性和女性在工作生活中应该有平等的机会。然而,不平等和歧视是不容易避免的。本研究的目的是调查在一个虚构的招聘情境的小组讨论中,与父母身份和职业相关的争论是如何形成的,以及诸如能力和热情等刻板印象是如何在这种讨论中表现出来的。35个特别的大学生小组被要求从三个候选人中选择一个顾问职位。前两个候选人是一男一女,而第三个候选人被交替描述为一个男人或一个女人,被描述为有一个新生儿。为人父母有时被视为削弱能力,但更多时候被视为增强能力。为人父母也被认为能给组织增添温暖。有趣的是,所有的人都避免将为人父母的问题与性别联系起来。我们发现了三种谈话模式,它们对为人父母和工作话题的阐述程度各不相同。最后得出的结论是,最复杂的一种似乎会促进一种情况,即隐性规范更容易被看到。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“What about the child issue?” Group negotiations of gender and parenthood contracts in recruitment situations
ABSTRACT Men and women becoming parents are supposed to have equal opportunities in working life. However, inequality and discrimination are not easily avoided. The aim of this study was to investigate how argumentation related to parenthood and careers takes form in group discussions of a fictional recruitment situation, and how stereotypes such as competence and warmth are manifested in such discussions. Thirty-five ad-hoc groups of university students were asked to make a choice between three candidates for a consultancy position. The first two candidates were a man and a woman, while the third alternately was described either as a man or a woman described as having a newborn child. Parenthood was sometimes seen as reducing competence, but it was more often viewed as adding to competence. Parenthood was also considered to add warmth to the organization. Interestingly, all groups avoided relating the parenthood issue to gender. Three conversation patterns were found, differing in the amount of elaboration of the topic of parenthood and work. It was concluded that the most elaborated kind seems to foster a situation where implicit norms are made visible more easily.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信