Gender Based Tokenism: A Qualitative Research on Female-Dominated and Male-Dominated Professions

Abstract

The phenomenon of tokenism, which is a derivative of gender discrimination, is the main theme of this study. Kanter’s (1977a) theory of tokenism states that individuals who are available in limited numbers in their professions face performance pressures, boundary heightening and role entrapment. The researchers who worked on tokenism after Kanter pointed out that there are different experiences apart from the experiences revealed by Kanter. In this study, performance pressure, boundary heightening, and role encapsulation revealed by Kanter (1977a), and the status differences, the occupational inappropriateness and the intrusiveness dimensions revealed by Yoder (1991, 1996, 2002) are handled together. In this context, the study was carried out with the aim of exploring the experiences of men in female-dominated professions (preschool teachers, nursing and stewardess) and women in male-dominated professions (coaching, prison officers, police officers and forest engineering). In this study, a qualitative research method and a phenomenological pattern were used. 41 participants of the research were selected by a purposeful sampling method. The data collected through in–depth interviews were analysed by the researcher. Later on, the MAXQDA Pro Analytic 2018 software was used to facilitate and manage the process more systematically. In this study, it has been found out that there are very limited evidences to indicate that minority in numbers alone leads to the undesired experiences of tokenism. It has been concluded that women were more exposed to performance pressure and role entrapment, while men did not experience it at all. It has been revealed that women were accepted to have a lower status compared to men due to the nature of their sex category and, therefore, male created boundary heightening and female tokens were more exposed to interventionism.

Keywords

• Tokenism
• Gender
• Status
• Male-Dominated Occupations
• Female-Dominated Occupations

Cinsiyete Dayalı Tokenizm: Kadın Egemen ve Erkek Egemen Meslekler Üzerinde Nitel Bir Araştırma

Abstract

Cinsiyet ayrımcılığının bir türevi olan tokenizm olgusu bu çalışmanın ana temasını oluşturmaktadır. Kanter (1977a)’in ortaya koyduğu Tokenizm Teorisi yer aldığı meslekte sınırlı sayıda bulunan bireylerin performans baskısı, yükseltilmiş sınırlar ve rol kuşatması olarak ifade edilen olumsuz deneyimlere maruz kaldığını belirtmektedir. Kanter’den sonra tokenizm konusunda yapılan araştırmalar, farklı deneyimlerin de olabileceğine dikkat çekmektedir. Bu çalışmada Kanter (1977a)’in ortaya koyduğu performans baskısı, yükseltilmiş sınırlar ve rol kuşatması deneyimleri ile Yoder (1991,1996, 2002)’in ortaya koyduğu cinsiyet statüsü, mesleki uyumsuzluk ve müdahalecilik deneyimleri birlikte ele alınmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışma, kadın egemen mesleklerde (anaokulu öğretmenliği, hemşirelik ve kabin ekibi memurluğu) erkeklerin; erkek egemen mesleklerde (spor antrenörlüği, orman mühendisliği, polis memurluğu ve infaz koruma memurluğu) kadınların deneyimlerini keşfetme amacını taşımaktadır. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemi ve olgu bilim deseni kullanılmıştır. Amaçlı örneklem yöntemi ile belirlenen 41 katılımcı ile derinlemesine mülakat gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler MAXQDA Pro Analytic 2018 programı yardımıyla analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada, sayısal azınlık olmanın tokenizmin olumsuz deneyimlerine tek başına etki ettiğine dair kısıtlı ispat bulunmaktadır. Performans baskısı deneyimi ile en çok karşılaşan grup olan token kadınlar benzer biçimde rol kuşatması deneyimini de en fazla hisseden gruptur. Kadınların cinsiyet kategorisi itibari ile erkeklere kıyasla göreli olarak düşük statüde kabul edildikleri ve bu nedenle erkeklerin sınırlarını yükselterek kendi kültürlerini daha fazla dayattıkları tespit edilirken, çeşitli müdahacilik uygulamalarını da kullandıkları belirlenmiştir. 

Keywords

• Tokenizm
• Toplumsal Cinsiyet
• Statü
• Kadın Egemen Meslekler
• Erkek Egemen Meslekler

References

1. Anastas, J. W. (2004). Quality In Qualitative Evaluation: Issues And Possible Answers. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(1), 57-65.
2. Archbold, C. A. ve Schulz, D. M. (2008). Making Rank: The Lingering Effects Of Tokenism On Female Police Officers' Promotion Aspirations. Police Quarterly, 11(1), 50-73.
3. Budig, M. J.(2002). Male Advantage And The Gender Composition Of Jobs: Who Rides The Glass Escalator?. Social Problems. 49(2): 258-277.
4. Cognard‐Black, A. J. (2004). Will They Stay, Or Will They Go? Sex‐Atypical Work Among Token Men Who Teach. Sociological Quarterly, 45(1), 113-139.
5. Cohen, L. L. ve Swim, J. K. (1995). The Differential Impact Of Gender Ratios On Women And Men: Tokenism, Self-Confidence, And Expectations. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin. 21(9): 876-884.
6. Comas-Diaz, L. ve Beverly G. (1994). Women Of Color: Integrating Ethnic And Gender Identities In Psychotherapy. Guilford Press.
7. Cook, B. (1978). Women Judges: The End Of Tokenism. Women In The Courts. 84-105. Ed. W.L. Hepperly ve L. Crites. Washington: National Center For State Courts.
8. Creswell, J. W. ve Clark, V. L. P. (2016). Designing And Conducting Mixed Methods Research. New York: Sage.

9. Cross, S. ve Bagihole, B. (2006). It Never Struck Me As Female: Investigating Men’s Entry Into Female Dominated Occupations. Journal Of Gender Studies. 15(1): 35–48.
10. Floge, L. ve Merrill, D.M. (1986). Tokenism Reconsidered: Male Nurses And Female Physicians In A Hospital Setting. Social Forces. 64(4): 925-947.
11. Goldenhar, L. M., Swanson, N. G., Hurrell Jr, J. J., Ruder, A., ve Deddens, J. (1998). Stressors And Adverse Outcomes For Female Construction Workers. Journal Of Occupational Health Psychology. 3(1): 19.
12. Quadagno, J. ve Fobes, C. (1995). The Welfare State And The Cultural Reproduction Of Gender: Making Good Girls And Boys İn The Job Corps. Social Problems, 42(2), 171-190.
13. Gustafson, J. L. (2008). Tokenism In Policing: An Empirical Test Of Kanter's Hypothesis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(1), 1-10.
14. Hammond, J. A. ve Mahoney, C. (1983). Reward-Cost Balancing Among Women Coalminers. Sex Roles. 9 (1): 17-29.
15. Jackson, P. B., Thoits, P. A. ve Taylor, H. F. (1995). Composition Of The Workplace And Psychological Well-Being: The Effects Of Tokenism On America's Black Elite. Social Forces, 74(2), 543-557.
16. Jurik, N. C. (1985). An Officer And A Lady: Organizational Barriers To Women Working As Correctional Officers In Men's Prisons. Social Problems. 32(4): 375-388.
17. Kane, M. J. ve Stangl, J. M. (1991). Employment Patterns Of Female Coaches In Men's Athletics: Tokenism And Marginalization As Reflections Of Occupational Sex-Segregation. Journal of Sport and Social Issues. 15(1), 21-41.
18. Kanter, R.M. (1976). The Impact Of Hierarchical Structures On The Work Behavior Of Women And Men. Social Problems. 23(4): 415-430.
19. Kanter, R.M. (1977a). Men And Women Of The Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
20. Kanter, R.M.(1977b). Some Effects Of Proportions On Group Life, The Gender Gap In Psychotherapy. Springer: Boston, Ma.
21. Kanter, R. M. (1987). Men And Women Of The Corporation Revisited: Interview With Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Human Resourc e Management. 26(2), 257-263.
22. Kanter, R. M. (1994). Change In The Global Economy: An Interview With Rosabeth Moss Kanter. European Management Journal. 12(1), 1-9.
23. King B. E., Hebl R. M. ve George M. J. (2010). Understanding Tokenism: Antecedents and Consequences Of A Psychological Climate Of Gender Inequity. Journal Of Management. 36 (2): 482 – 510.
24. Kraiger, K. ve Ford, K. (1985). A Meta-Analysis Of Ratee Race Effects In Performance Ratings. Journal Of Applied Psychology. 70(1): 56-65.
25. LaSala, M. C., Jenkins, D. A., Wheeler, D. P. ve Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I. (2008). LGBT faculty, research, and researchers: Risks and rewards. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 20(3), 253-267.
26. Lupton, B. (2006). Explaining Men's Entry İnto Female‐Concentrated Occupations: Issues Of Masculinity And Social Class. Gender, Work & Organization, 13(2), 103-128.
27. Martin, S. (1980). Breaking And Entering: Policewomen On Patrol. Berkeley: University Of California Press.
28. Mcdonald, T. W., Toussaint L. ve Schweiger A. J. (2004). The Influence Of Social Status On Token Women Leaders’ Expectations About Leading Maledominated Groups. Sex Roles. 50(5/6): 401-409.
29. Niemann, Y. F. (1999). The Making Of A Token: A Case Study Of Stereotype Threat, Stigma,Racism, And Tokenism In Academe. Frontiers: A Journal Of Women Studies, 20(1), 111-134.
30. Ott, E. M. (1989). Effects Of The Male–Female Ratio At Work: Policewomen And Male Nurses. Psychology Of Women Quarterly. 13(1):41–58.
31. Podmore, D. ve Spencer, A. (1982). Women Lawyers In England: The Experience Of Inequality. Work And Occupations. 9(3):337- 361.
32. Reskin, B. F.(1988). Bringing The Men Back In: Sex Differentiation And The Devaluation Of Women's Work. Gender & Society. 2(1): 58-81.
33. Riordan, C. M. ve Lynn M.S.(1997). Demographic Diversity And Employee Attitudes: An Empirical Examination Of Relational Demography Within Work Units. Journal Of Applied Psychology. 82(3): 342.
34. Roth, L. M. (2004). The Social Psychology Of Tokenism: Status And Homophily Processes On Wall Street, Sociological Perspectives, 47(2), 189-214.
35. Sackett, P. R., Dubois, C. L. ve Noe, A. W. (1991). Tokenism In Performance Evaluation: The Effects Of Work Group Representation On Male-Female And White-Black Differences In Performance Ratings. Journal Of Applied Psychology. 76(2): 263.
36. Segal, M. W. (2006). Gender and the Military. Handbook of the Sociology of Gender. Springer, Boston, MA.
37. Spangler, E., Marsha A. G. ve Pipkin, R.M.(1978). Token Women: An Empirical Test Of Kanter's Hypothesis. American Journal Of Sociology. 84(1): 160-170.
38. Stichman, A. J., Hassell, K. D. ve Archbold, C. A. (2010). Strength in numbers? A test of Kanter's theory of tokenism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 633-639.
39. Terborg, J.R. (1977). Women In Management: A Research Review. Journal Of Applied Psychology. 62(6): 647.
40. Williams, C. L. (1995). Still a man's world: Men who do women's work (Vol. 1). Univ of California Press.
41. Worchel, S., Grossman, M. ve Coutant, D. (1994). Minority Influence In The Group Context: How Group Factors Affect When The Minority Will Be Influential. Minority Influence. 97-114. Ed. Worchel, Stephen, Michele Grossman, And Dawna Coutant. Chicago, Il, Us: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
42. Yoder, J. D. (1983). Another Look At Women In The Army: A Comment On Woelfel’s Article. Sex Roles. 9(3): 285-288.
43. Yoder, J. D. (1992). Rethinking Tokenism: Looking Beyond Numbers. Gender & Society. 5(2):178-192.
44. Yoder, J. D. (2002). 2001 Division 35 Presidential Address: Context Matters: Understanding Tokenism Processes And Their Impact On Women’s Work. Psychology Of Women Quarterly. 26(1): 1-8.
45. Yoder, J. D. (1994). Looking Beyond Numbers: The Effects Of Gender Status, Job Prestige, And Occupational Gendertyping On Tokenism Processes. Social Psychology Quarterly. 57: 150-159.
46. Yoder, J. D. ve Sinnett, L.M. (1985). Is It All In The Numbers? A Case Study Of Tokenism, Psychology Of Women Quarterly 9(3): 413-418.
47. Yoder, J. D. ve Schleicher, T. L. (1996). Undergraduates Regard Deviation From Occupational Gender Stereotypes As Costly For Women. Sex Roles. 34(3-4): 171–188.
48. Yoder, J. D., Aniakudo, P. ve Berendsen, L. (1996). Looking Beyond Gender: The Effects Of Racial Differences On Tokenism Perceptions Of Women. Sex Roles. 35(7-8), 389-400.
49. Yoder, J. D., Schleicher, T. L. ve Mcdonald, T. W. (1998). Empowering Token Women Leaders: The Importance Of Organizationally Legitimated Credibility. Psychology Of Women Quarterly. 22(2): 209–222.
50. Zimmer, L.(1988). Tokenism And Women In The Workplace: The Limits Of Gender-Neutral Theory. Social Problems. 35(1): 64-77.