|
Showing 1 - 3 of
3 matches in All Departments
In 1979, serious research was just beginning on the connections
between stratification outcomes and organizations. Data suitable
for investigating these connections were scarce, and the general
wisdom was that they would remain scarce--since organizational case
studies were seen as the only means of gathering linked individual
and organizational data. The case study approach does allow one to
link the two types of data, but gathering such data on more than a
few organizations is prohibitively expensive and difficult, and
having only a few organizations limits g- eralizability. To help
solve this problem, we developed the idea of a survey of a random
sample of several thousand employed individuals, followed by a
second survey of their several thousand employing or- nizations.
This method, we reasoned, would provide us with a gen- alizable,
simple random sample of individuals, coupled with a weighted random
sample of organizations (weighted, of course, by size of orga-
zation). An added benefit would be that these valuable data could
be gathered by a survey organization for the price of two simple
surveys. It was not an easy idea to sell. We developed it into a
proposal to the National Science Foundation (NSF), and though the
reviewers were o- erwise sympathetic, they were almost unanimous in
their contention that such a survey would not work because
"obviously" the great maj- ity of respondents would refuse to
reveal exactly who their employers were.
In 1979, serious research was just beginning on the connections
between stratification outcomes and organizations. Data suitable
for investigating these connections were scarce, and the general
wisdom was that they would remain scarce--since organizational case
studies were seen as the only means of gathering linked individual
and organizational data. The case study approach does allow one to
link the two types of data, but gathering such data on more than a
few organizations is prohibitively expensive and difficult, and
having only a few organizations limits g- eralizability. To help
solve this problem, we developed the idea of a survey of a random
sample of several thousand employed individuals, followed by a
second survey of their several thousand employing or- nizations.
This method, we reasoned, would provide us with a gen- alizable,
simple random sample of individuals, coupled with a weighted random
sample of organizations (weighted, of course, by size of orga-
zation). An added benefit would be that these valuable data could
be gathered by a survey organization for the price of two simple
surveys. It was not an easy idea to sell. We developed it into a
proposal to the National Science Foundation (NSF), and though the
reviewers were o- erwise sympathetic, they were almost unanimous in
their contention that such a survey would not work because
"obviously" the great maj- ity of respondents would refuse to
reveal exactly who their employers were.
Based on case studies of four organizations that were sued for pay discrimination, Legalizing Gender Inequality challenges existing theories of gender inequality within economic, sociological, and legal contexts. The book argues that male-female earnings differentials cannot be explained adequately by market forces, principles of efficiency, or society-wide sexism. Rather it suggests that employing organizations tend to disadvantage holders of predominantly female jobs by denying them power in organizational politics and reproducing male cultural advantages. The book argues that the courts have, by uncritically accepting the market explanation for wage disparity, tended to legitimate and to legalize a crucial dimension of gender inequality.
|
You may like...
Tenet
John David Washington, Robert Pattinson
Blu-ray disc
(1)
R54
Discovery Miles 540
Higher
Michael Buble
CD
(1)
R487
Discovery Miles 4 870
|