new jobs, old occupational stereotypes: gender and jobs in the new economy

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]On: 21 December 2014, At: 14:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education and WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjew20

New jobs, old occupationalstereotypes: gender and jobs in thenew economyLinda Miller a & Rowena Hayward ba The Institute for Employment Studies , UKb Halfway Houses Primary School , UKPublished online: 22 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Linda Miller & Rowena Hayward (2006) New jobs, old occupational stereotypes:gender and jobs in the new economy, Journal of Education and Work, 19:1, 67-93, DOI:10.1080/13639080500523000

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13639080500523000

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjew20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13639080500523000

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13639080500523000

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Education and WorkVol. 19, No. 1, February 2006, pp. 67–93

ISSN 1363-9080 (print)/ISSN 1469-9435 (online)/06/010067–27© 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13639080500523000

New jobs, old occupational stereotypes: gender and jobs in the new economyLinda Miller1* and Rowena Hayward21The Institute for Employment Studies, UK; 2Halfway Houses Primary School, UKTaylor and Francis LtdCJEW_A_152283.sgm10.1080/13639080500523000Journal of Education and Work1363-9080 (print)/1469-9435 (online)Original Article2006Taylor & Francis1910000002006LindaMillerThe Insitute for Employment Studies Mantell BuildingUniversity of SussexFalmerEast SussexBN1 [email protected]

This paper reports data from a questionnaire-based UK study that examined occupational sex-rolestereotypes, perceived occupational gender segregation, job knowledge and job preferences of maleand female pupils aged 14–18 for 23 jobs. Data were collected from 508 pupils in total. Both boysand girls perceived the majority of the jobs as being gender-segregated. Girls perceived jobs as beingmore gender-segregated than did males, but boys stereotyped jobs more than did girls. Both malesand females preferred jobs that they saw as stereotypically gender-appropriate and dominated bytheir own sex. However, for females, this association between job preference and perceived stereo-typing/segregation decreased with age, while for males, it remained constant across the age groups.Females claimed more knowledge about jobs they preferred, but for males there was no associationbetween job preference and job knowledge. Results are discussed in the context of UK policies tochallenge occupational gender segregation.

Keywords: Occupational segregation; Occupational stereotypes; Job knowldge; Job preferences

Many occupations in the UK remain sex-segregated despite the existence of anti sexdiscrimination legislation for almost 30 years (Miller et al., 2004, 2005). Similarpatterns of occupational gender segregation to those found in the UK are also foundacross Europe, the USA and in Australia (Thewlis et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2002).Such patterns of gender segregation are often attributed to the sex-role stereotypingof occupations (Miller et al., 2004).

This paper reports work to explore the extent to which occupational gender segre-gation and occupational sex-role stereotypes influence young people’s liking for, andknowledge of, jobs. The paper focuses on the way in which occupational sex-rolestereotypes are developing for jobs in newly emerging sectors of the economy and

*Corresponding author. The Institute for Employment Studies, Mantell Building, University ofSussex, Falmer, East Sussex BN1 9RF, UK. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

68 L. Miller and R. Hayward

changing for more traditional jobs, and the impact of these stereotypes on howfavourably young people perceive these jobs.

We start by reviewing research conducted over the past 30 years. Three mainthemes are explored: the impact of sex-role stereotyping and segregation on childrenand young people’s job preferences; the way in which individuals’ stereotypes andpreferences develop and change with age; and the relationship between sex-rolestereotyping and gender segregation of jobs. Gaps in current knowledge of the way inwhich stereotypes of jobs in more traditional sectors are changing, and young people’sknowledge about jobs, are identified in later sections.

We then describe a large-scale survey of pupils aged between 14 and 18. The surveyassessed pupils’ level of knowledge about traditional and new jobs, the extent towhich these jobs are seen as gender-segregated and stereotyped, and the extent towhich they are viewed favourably (or otherwise) as potential jobs. In the analyses weconsider the extent to which views change across this critical life-stage when keyeducational decisions are made, and in the following discussion we consider theimplications of the work in the light of recent campaigns, such as that conducted bythe Equal Opportunities Commission in England (EOC, 2005) to overcome sex-rolestereotyping of jobs and improve young people’s career options.

Sex-role stereotyping, age and job choice

Individual perceptions of the workplace and occupations are fundamental to careerdecisions. The extent to which occupations are seen as sex-stereotyped is one of themost influential factors affecting individuals’ choices. From the 1970s onwards,studies have reported that males and females mostly prefer and aspire to occupationsthat they perceive as being gender-appropriate (Frye & Dietz, 1973; Hewitt, 1975;Albrecht, 1976; Alpert & Breen, 1989; Stockard & McGee, 1990; Helwig, 1998;Miller & Budd, 1999; O’Connor & Goodwin, 2004). Few choose jobs seen as beingtraditionally performed by the opposite sex (Francis, 2002). Stockard and McGee(1990) found the sex-stereotyping of an occupation to be the strongest predictor ofoccupational preference among children, having more influence on preference thanany other aspect of the job such as earnings, perceived importance, difficulty or super-visory responsibilities.

Occupational sex-role stereotypes are formed early on. Gettys and Cann (1981)reported their existence in children as young as 21/2. Other studies have demon-strated their continued existence in elementary and junior school pupils (Hewitt,1975; Garrett et al., 1977; Miller & Budd, 1999), college students (Shinar, 1975;Albrecht, 1976) and adults (Albrecht et al., 1977). However, such studies gener-ally demonstrate two points: that while children of both sexes exhibit sex-stereotyped views of a range of occupations, females of all ages generally stereotypejobs to a lesser extent than do males—i.e. they believe that most jobs can beundertaken by women as well as by men (Alpert & Breen, 1989; Miller & Budd,1999); and that the extent to which individuals sex-stereotype occupationsdecreases through the later stages of adolescence and adulthood, with this pattern

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Occupational gender segregation 69

being particularly marked among females (Franken, 1983; Vogler, 1994; Miller &Budd, 1999).

Despite the development of more liberal views regarding which sex should performvarious jobs, when asked about the jobs they personally would like to do when older,most children and young people continue to prefer gender-appropriate jobs. Femalestypically express a strong preference for traditional ‘female’ occupations (such assecretary, hairdresser, nursery school teacher) and a dislike for traditional ‘male’occupations (such as police officer, scientist, air traffic controller), while malesexpress the converse set of preferences (Miller & Budd, 1999).

It should be noted that the pattern of preferences expressed by girls in the late1990s has changed little from those reported in the 1960s. Recent reanalysis of inter-view data from 1962 to 1964 revealed that the top four jobs mentioned at that timeby young females leaving school to enter work were hairdressing, office work, workingwith children and nurse/doctor (O’Connor & Goodwin, 2004). O’Connor and Good-win comment that the list of career aspirations cited by the young interviewees was‘striking both in its lack of diversity and its reflection of traditional non-aspirational“feminine” occupational trends’ (O’Connor & Goodwin, 2004, p. 105).

The Miller and Budd (1999) study found some decrease in the extent to which theolder boys sex-stereotyped occupations. However, the study revealed no tendency foreither boys or girls to increase or decrease their liking for stereotypically ‘male’ or‘female’ occupations with age. In contrast, when Helwig (1998) asked children toname jobs to which they aspired, he found that while females became less stereotypedin their choices from the 2nd grade through to 6th grade, boys became more stereo-typical in their aspirations. Effectively, this meant that the boys considered a morelimited range of jobs as potential occupations as they grew older.

While many career theories seek to explain job preference in terms of abilities, inter-ests and self-concept, and the overlap of these with various categories of occupation(see e.g. the theories of Holland, 1973; Super, 1953), Gottfredson (1981) was the firstto consider the impact of sex-role stereotyping on job preference. Her theory suggeststhat children gradually integrate information about the ability required to performvarious jobs, the status of those jobs and the people (men or women) who would typi-cally perform them. At first, as they accumulate this information, the range of jobsthey will consider increases; then, as issues such as gender become more salient withage, they reduce (or ‘circumscribe’) their potential choices. Gottfredson went on tosuggest that, if a young person is unsuccessful in their initial attempts to seek a job,they may compromise on certain aspects (such as status). Her theory suggested that,since gender is a central aspect of the person, young people would be most reluctantto abandon attempts to find a job that was gender-appropriate. However, the difficultyfor this theory has been that, for young women, there are few high-status, gender-appropriate occupations. Therefore, for any female aspiring to a high-status job, thereis little alternative other than to consider jobs conventionally considered as male areasof work (Gottfredson, 1996). Conversely, for boys, any move into a female area ofwork may mean lowered employment status. Helwig (1998) suggested this leads boysto become ‘more entrenched’ in choosing male occupations. His findings, that females

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


become less stereotypical in their choice of jobs with age, while boys became morestereotypical in their choices, supported this model.

Recent work by Francis (2002) also supports the idea that boys remain moreconservative than girls in their career choices, with few choosing traditionally femi-nine jobs. In contrast, she also found that females were becoming more willing toconsider a wider range of jobs than previously observed and more ambitious ingeneral. The career aspirations identified by the 50 14–16-year-old girls interviewedin her study included businessperson, computer scientist and mathematician.Traditional jobs such as childcarer, clerical worker, hairdresser and nurse were stillchosen by a few, but not many: only two girls chose childcarer and just one mentionedeach of the other jobs. Francis notes that, for nursing, in particular, this might giverise to some concern, given the current problems with recruitment to this profession(Francis, 2002, p. 79).

Despite these shifts in occupational preferences, Francis noted that gender, ratherthan ability, still remains a prime determinant of career choice over and above ability.This is of some concern, and she notes the need for students of both sexes to be betterinformed about patterns of job availability and skill shortage. Miller et al. (2005)noted similar points in recent research conducted as part of the General FormalInvestigation (GFI) into gender segregation for the Equal Opportunities Commission(EOC) in England, noting that many Connexions advisers still do not consider it apriority to inform young people about the full range of possible jobs available, orabout local skill shortages. Many saw their role as being to provide support ratherthan to give information or guidance. Yet evidence indicates that young people lackthe knowledge they require to make informed decisions about careers (Francis,2002). Another survey as part of the GFI indicated that 57% of women (67% in the16–24 age group) believed they would have considered a different career path hadthey been given information about pay differentials between jobs typically performedby women and by men.1 Little appears to have changed since Roger and Duffield(2000) reported there was poor support and guidance available for female students inmaking their career choices and, in particular, noted that female students were notencouraged to consider traditionally male-dominated subjects.

The relationship between occupational sex-role stereotypes and occupational gender segregation

While occupational sex-role stereotypes primarily are beliefs concerning which sexshould perform certain jobs, occupational gender segregation is the extent to whichthe workforce within an occupation is actually segregated along gender lines—i.e.performed largely by either females or males. In contrast to stereotypes, which areusually held to be sets of social inferences that relate certain social groups to certainattributes (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1979), occupational segregation is an objectivemeasure of the proportions of male and female workers in an occupation, which canbe demonstrated by analysis of workforce datasets, such as the Community LabourForce Survey in Europe (see e.g. Thewlis et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2004) and the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Employment and Earnings datasets produced by the Department of Labor in theUSA.

Gender segregation of occupations is a strong influence on the occupationalpreferences of adults (Fricko & Beehr, 1992). Although occupational segregation is acharacteristic of a workforce while stereotypes are beliefs, the two are none the lesslinked. Several researchers and writers have claimed that the gender segregation ofroles leads to the creation of stereotypes. For instance, Eagly (1983) argued that sex-role stereotypes are the result of the segregation of women and men into differentoccupations and social roles. From this perspective, sex-role stereotypes are extremeexamples of role bias—the tendency to attribute to particular role-players the charac-teristics associated with the social role they occupy (Ross et al., 1977).

According to this view, sex segregation effectively creates a class of jobs which isthen subject to societal stereotypes (Gutek, 1988). The way in which stereotypes leadto the persistence of segregation is illustrated by the fact that, while there are manyoccupations in which one sex predominates, in the majority of cases, this cannot beexplained solely on the basis of requirements for sex-specific traits such as physicalstrength. Instead, the majority of such segregation appears to arise from the expecta-tions and beliefs prevalent in a society regarding the different qualities that the twosexes bring to their work. These beliefs lead, in turn, to the expectation that one sexwill perform the job better than the other, and that the job therefore is more appro-priate to be performed by one of the sexes than the other. It is this process (the linkingof expectations about abilities and traits needed in a specific occupation to just onesex) that is referred to by the term ‘occupational sex-role stereotyping’. Once anoccupation has become sex-segregated on such grounds, the tendency for individualsto prefer what they see as gender-appropriate jobs serves to perpetuate such segrega-tion (Hayes, 1986; Miller et al., 2004). In other words, occupational segregationserves to perpetuate occupational stereotypes, and vice versa.

The development of occupational stereotypes in new occupational sectors

One issue of interest is what happens when new jobs emerge within the economy. Agreat number of new types of job have emerged since the early studies wereconducted. It is of value to consider the development of occupational stereotypes forthese jobs and whether these perceptions differ with the age of the individual.

In recent years, there has been a particular surge in the creation of new jobs andnew job titles within the Information and Communications Technology (ICT)sector. The term most often used to describe this sector (at least in the UK) is ‘thenew economy’. The statistics for employment, education and training within thissector in the UK show that women constitute around 20% of employees andstudents. Women constitute just 19% of higher education students in mathematicaland computer sciences (National Audit Commission, 2002). Similarly, womenconstitute 22% of employees in ICT occupations across sectors (Connor et al.,2002). Furthermore, Connor et al. found that, if anything, this proportion had fallensince 1995.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


The lack of women entering education and employment in the ICT sector has beenattributed to the fact that women were less likely to gain experience with computersas young children (Miller et al., 2000). One question arising from this point is theextent to which the increasing use of computers in school and in the home wouldimprove young girls’ attitudes towards jobs in this sector. Wood (1998) has suggestedthat, even where young girls do make significant use of computers, this may fail tohave any positive impact on their attitudes towards jobs in this sector. It was of someinterest therefore to determine the extent to which new jobs in this sector are viewedas gender-segregated and sex-stereotyped and, importantly, how favourably—orotherwise—girls view these jobs, given the now fairly extensive use of computers inschools.

In other sectors too a range of new occupations has appeared in the past 20 years.Across the sciences (another traditionally male area) new jobs have emerged out ofthe rapid growth of all types of technology: posts such as molecular geneticist andbiotechnologist scarcely existed at the start of the 1980s. These jobs have had quitehigh exposure within the media, given the interest in their role in the development ofnew medical approaches (e.g. the proposal of genetic therapies) and (perhaps in a lesspositive light) in the debates over cloning and genetically modified foods.

Concerns have been expressed in the UK regarding the parlous state of science.The number of young people choosing this area is generally falling, and the numberof girls studying physical sciences is considerably less than that of boys (Roberts,2002). In fact, there are currently concerns across Europe regarding the need toencourage more women into science (European Commission, 2003).

One of the recognized problems in encouraging women to consider the science,engineering and technology sector is the common perception of the traditional scien-tist as being a male and, often, an unexciting figure (Haste, 2002). A further focus ofthe research, then, was to determine the extent to which occupational stereotypeswithin these newer, arguably more high-profile, areas of science were developing, andthe extent to which they have become perceived as gender-segregated. As with theother occupations, how favourably they are viewed as potential areas of employmentwas also investigated.

Stereotypes in the ‘old’ economy

It is also of interest to determine the extent to which the perceptions of jobs in tradi-tional female sectors are changing. A group of occupations within education and healthwas therefore also selected for inclusion within this study. One prompt to this wasconcern that recruitment to some traditionally female professions, such as nursing,have been falling (see Francis, 2002). It was therefore of interest to determine theextent to which traditionally female roles were viewed favourably by young people.

Lastly, four jobs found to be strongly sex-stereotyped in the earlier Miller and Budd(1999) study were included to serve as comparison occupations. These were twostereotyped as male (airline pilot and architect) and two stereotyped as female(secretary and hairdresser).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Job knowledge

Given that job preferences are strongly gendered, a further research question was todetermine whether knowledge of these jobs also differed between the sexes. Fewprevious studies have considered whether children or young people claim to know anymore about ‘gender-appropriate’ jobs than they do about jobs they perceive not to beappropriate. Neither is there any evidence regarding whether young people claim tohave any more knowledge about jobs they would like to do and those they would not.

While it would seem intuitively logical that knowledge is a prerequisite upon whichto form a judgement of whether one would like or dislike a job, there has been littledirect research on this point, although it is known that young people often confinetheir job information search to those in which they are already interested (Morriset al., 1995; Stoney et al., 1998; Munro & Elsom, 2000). This would suggest,counter-intuitively, that young people decide first on the jobs in which they areinterested and then seek information. Therefore the research questionnaire askedrespondents to estimate their own level of knowledge of what each job entailed.

Method

Overview of research design

The study examined the influence of occupational sex-role stereotyping andperceived occupational gender segregation on job preference in pupils aged from 14to 18. A further aim of the work was to determine whether there were differencesbetween girls and boys in their knowledge of the jobs.

The work focused on three areas of interest: jobs in the area of the ‘new econ-omy’ (IT), science and technology; jobs in the health and education sectors; and asmall sample of jobs used in earlier surveys to provide comparison data. ‘Occupa-tional gender segregation’ was defined for the purposes of the study as the extentto which an occupation was perceived by pupils as being carried out mainly bymen or mainly by women. Occupational sex-role stereotyping was defined as theextent to which pupils believed that a job should be undertaken by men or bywomen.

Participants

A cross-sectional, opportunity sample of 508 pupils (222 girls and 286 boys) wassurveyed at six schools across the south of England: 109 in Year 10 (age 14–15),218 in Year 11 (age 15–16), 136 in Year 12 (age 16–17) and 45 in Year 13 (age17–18). Letters of invitation to participate in the research were sent to the heads of20 schools across Hertfordshire, Kent and London. The letters gave assurancesthat anonymity would be respected and stated that there was no intention to makecomparisons between schools. Six consented to participate. The schools that agreedto participate consisted of three mixed-sex comprehensive schools (one each inLondon, Kent and Hertfordshire); two single-sex (male) grammar schools, one

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


each in Hertfordshire and Kent; and one female single-sex comprehensive school inLondon.

Measures

A questionnaire based on that used in Miller and Budd (1999) was designed,extended to take into account the additional issues outlined within the introduction.Twenty-three occupations were included; these are shown in Table I. The question-naire had two main sections. In the first section, for each of the listed job titles pupilswere asked to rate their knowledge of what the job involved, on a scale from ‘No—Idon’t know what this job involves’ through ‘Some idea’ and ‘A fairly good idea’ to‘Yes, I know what this job involves’ (‘job knowledge’).

In the second section, the questionnaire provided a short definition of each occu-pation. Following the definition of each job were three questions: ‘Who shouldperform this job?’ (response options: ‘men’, ‘women’ or ‘both’) to assess the extentto which each job was viewed as stereotyped (‘occupational sex-role stereotyping’);‘Who mainly does this job?’ (response options: ‘mainly men’, ‘mainly women’, or‘both’) to assess the extent to which each job was perceived as gender segregated(‘occupational gender segregation’); and lastly, pupils were asked: ‘How much wouldyou like to do this job?’ (response options: ‘hate’, ‘dislike’, ‘okay’, ‘like’ and ‘love’) asa measure of preference or liking for the job (‘job preference’). Order of presentationof the list of job titles was counterbalanced across the questionnaires.

Procedure

Teachers handed each child a questionnaire in class and the pupils were asked tocomplete it at their own speed. At the end, teachers told the pupils the purpose of theresearch and thanked them on behalf of the researchers for their help.

Table I. List of occupations used in the survey

Science, technology and the ‘new economy’ Health and education

DentistBiotechnologist Diagnostic radiographerCivil engineer Health and fitness instructorComputer engineer Maths teacherFinancial adviser NurseForensic scientist Occupational therapistMaterials scientist PhysiotherapistMedical laboratory scientific officer (MLSO) Therapeutic radiographerMolecular geneticist Comparison jobsSoftware engineer Airline pilotSystems analyst ArchitectWebmaster Hairdresser

Secretary

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Results

Extent of sex-role stereotyping of occupations

To determine the extent to which boys and girls in the four age groups saw occupa-tions generally as being stereotyped, an occupational sex-role stereotyping score wasderived for each respondent, calculated by summing the number of ‘both’ responses(out of a possible 23) endorsed in answer to the question ‘Who should perform thisjob?’. A higher score indicates a lower level of sex-role stereotyping (i.e. a more liberalview). Column A in Table II displays mean number of ‘both’ responses and standarddeviations for participants, grouped by age and sex.

A two-factor analysis of variance indicated main effects on liberality arising fromboth age and gender, with no interaction between the two factors. Girls held signifi-cantly more liberal views regarding who should perform this range of jobs than didboys (F = 20.26, df 3, 498, p < 0.001). Occupational sex-role stereotypingdecreased significantly with age for both girls and boys (F = 5.42, df 3, 498, p =0.001).

However, for girls, when the overall main effect of age (F = 2.72, df 3, 217,p = 0.046) was analysed pairwise between the age groups using the Tukey HSD test,the analysis showed no significant difference between any of the age groups otherthan between the youngest and oldest. For boys, similar post hoc analyses using theTukey HSD indicated that the main component of the age difference was accountedfor by the difference between Year 10 and Year 13 (p = 0.004). There were no other

Table II. Means and standard deviations for number of ‘both’ responses given to the questions ‘Who should do this job: men, women, both?’ and ‘Who mainly does this job: men, women,

both?’, grouped by school year and sex

A B

Who should do this job?

Who mainly does this job?

Mean no. of ‘both’ responses†

Mean no. of ‘both’ responses*

School year Age range Sex N SD in brackets SD in brackets

10 14–15 Male 55 15.1 (6.08) 9.4 (5.25)Female 54 19.4 (4.24) 10.8 (5.60)

11 15–16 Male 134 17.5 (5.86) 11.7 (5.65)Female 82 19.1 (5.12) 10.3 (5.74)

12 16–17 Male 71 17.8 (6.33) 10.8 (5.65)Female 65 21.0 (4.07) 10.1 (5.47)

13 17–18 Male 25 20.0 (4.68) 9.7 (3.90)Female 20 21.1 (5.23) 9.3 (5.44)

NB: maximum score = 23

† A higher score indicates lower sex-role stereotyping of jobs (increasing liberalism).* A higher score indicates lower perceived sex-segregation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


significant pairwise differences. In each year, except the oldest (Year 13: age range17–18), girls held significantly more liberal views than did boys (Year 10: F = 17.79,df 1, 107, p < 0.001; Year 11: F = 4.32, df 1,214, p = 0.039; and Year 12: F = 11.80,df 1,134, p = 0.001).

Occupational gender segregation

A similar approach was adopted to determine the extent to which boys and girls inthe four age groups saw occupations generally as being sex-segregated (i.e. performedmainly by men or women); an occupational segregation score was derived for eachrespondent by summing the number of ‘both’ responses made in answer to the ques-tion: ‘Who mainly does this job?’ A higher number of ‘both’ responses indicates alower number of jobs perceived as being sex-segregated. Column B in Table IIdisplays the mean number of ‘both’ responses and standard deviations for partici-pants grouped by age and sex.

A two-factor analysis of variance on these data indicated no main effect arising fromeither age or gender, nor was there any interaction between these two factors; thisshowed that, in contrast to the findings for occupational stereotyping, there were nosignificant differences between boys and girls, nor between the age groups, in theirperceptions of which gender mainly performed each job. Across all four age groups,the majority of jobs were perceived as being performed either mainly by men ormainly by women, and boys and girls largely agreed on which sex was most likely toperform each job.

Comparison of occupational gender segregation and occupational sex-role stereotyping

The previous calculations indicate the extent to which pupils saw a range of jobs asbeing sex-stereotyped and/or gender-segregated. In order to display the extent towhich each job was seen as being stereotyped and/or segregated, a measure ofoccupational gender segregation and of occupational sex-role stereotyping weregenerated for each of the 23 listed occupations. For both of these measures, aresponse of ‘both’ was taken as the central tendency—i.e. the response that wouldbe seen if no segregation or stereotyping existed—and was given a value of zero;responses indicating that a job is or mainly should be done by men were coded as+1, and responses indicating that a job is or should be mainly performed bywomen were coded as −1. These values were summed and averaged separately forboys and girls for each occupation, providing an indication of the extent of stereo-typing and segregation for each occupation that could range from −1 (completelyfemale sex-segregated or stereotyped) through 0 (gender neutral) to +1 (completelymale sex-segregated or stereotyped). The computed indices for extent of occupa-tional gender-segregation (OGS) and occupational sex-role stereotyping (OSRS)for each of the 23 occupations are shown in Table III. Figures 1 and 2 displaythese indices as bar charts that allow a visual comparison of the mean scores forboys and girls.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Figure 1. Perceptions of occupational sex-role stereotyping for 23 occupationsFigure 2. Perceptions of extent of occupational gender segregation for 23 occupationsBoys gave more extremely stereotyped scores for all but two of the jobs than didgirls. The only exceptions were the two least-stereotyped jobs, biotechnologist andmaths teacher, for which the girls’ scores were marginally higher.

Despite holding less stereotyped attitudes regarding the various jobs, girls none theless viewed the majority of the jobs (17 of the 23) as being more gender-segregatedthan did boys. Just six of the jobs did not conform to this pattern: medical laboratoryscientific officer (MLSO), financial adviser, health and fitness adviser, therapeutic

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0

Occ

upat

iona

l sex

-rol

e st

ereo

typi

ng in

dex

Airplan

e pilo

tArc

hitec

t

Biotec

hnol

ogist

Civil

engi

neer

Compu

ter en

gine

erDen

tist

Diagno

stic r

adio

grap

her

Finan

cial a

dvise

r

Foren

sic sc

ientis

tHair

dres

ser

Health

and f

itnes

s ins

tructo

r

Mate

rials

scien

tist

Math

s tea

cher

MLSO

Mol

ecul

ar ge

netic

istNur

se

Occup

ation

al th

erap

ist

Physio

ther

apist

Secre

tary

Softw

are e

ngin

eer

System

s ana

lyst

Thera

peut

ic ra

diog

raph

erW

ebm

aster

Boys Girls

Figure 1. Perceptions of occupational sex-role stereotyping for 23 occupations

Airplan

e pilo

tArc

hitec

t

Biotec

hnol

ogist

Civil

engi

neer

Compu

ter en

gine

erDen

tist

Diagno

stic r

adio

grap

her

Finan

cial a

dvise

r

Foren

sic sc

ientis

tHair

dres

ser

Health

and f

itnes

s ins

tructo

r

Mate

rials

scien

tist

Math

s tea

cher

MLSO

Mol

ecul

ar ge

netic

istNur

se

Occup

ation

al th

erap

ist

Physio

ther

apist

Secre

tary

Softw

are e

ngin

eer

System

s ana

lyst

Thera

peut

ic ra

diog

raph

erW

ebm

aster

Boys Girls

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0

Occ

upat

iona

l sex

-rol

e st

ereo

typi

ng in

dex

Figure 2. Perceptions of extent of occupational gender segregation for 23 occupations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


radiographer, maths teacher and occupational therapist, which girls viewed as beingslightly less gender-segregated than did boys, while for a seventh job, dentistry, girlsviewed this as slightly female-dominated and boys saw it as slightly male-dominated.

For both of these sets of scores, the pair of scores for the boys and girls for eachoccupation was coded + or − depending on whether the boys’ score was higher (+) orlower (−) than that of the girls. Analysis using the sign test indicated that the distri-butions differed significantly. Boys saw a majority of jobs as more stereotyped thandid girls (sign test p < 0.001), but girls saw the majority of jobs as being more segre-gated than did boys (sign test p = 0.017). In general, then, girls saw the majority of

Table III. Indices of occupational gender segregation and occupational sex-role stereotyping for 23 occupations

Occupational gender segregation

Occupational sex-role stereotyping

Occupation Boys Girls Boys Girls

Civil engineer +0.76 +0.85 +0.42 +0.29Software engineer +0.66 +0.74 +0.34 +0.16Computer engineer +0.50 +0.61 +0.24 +0.10Webmaster +0.63 +0.68 +0.26 +0.16Airline pilot +0.54 +0.66 +0.16 +0.08Materials scientist +0.41 +0.42 +0.16 +0.06Architect +0.40 +0.60 +0.18 +0.11MLSO +0.37 +0.36† +0.11 +0.05Financial adviser +0.34 +0.30† +0.16 +0.07Health and fitness instructor +0.30 +0.23† +0.12 +0.01Systems analyst +0.29 +0.31 +0.15 +0.06Forensic scientist +0.27 +0.32 +0.08 +0.02Molecular geneticist +0.14 +0.23 +0.08 +0.02Diagnostic radiographer +0.12 +0.25 +0.06 +0.04Biotechnologist +0.06 +0.16 +0.01 +0.05*Therapeutic radiographer +0.04 +0.02† +0.02 +0.01Maths teacher −0.04 −0.03† −0.01 −0.04*Dentist −0.17 +0.01 −0.10 0.00Nurse −0.12 −0.30 −0.14 −0.07Physiotherapist −0.37 −0.40 −0.17 −0.11Hairdresser −0.47 −0.52 −0.18 −0.08Occupational therapist −0.49 −0.40† −0.23 −0.07Secretary −0.51 −0.68 −0.27 −0.21

Note: Occupations sequenced from most masculine at top to most feminine at bottom of table.Key:0 = sex neutral; from 0 to +1 = male dominated/stereotyped as masculine (+1 = all male/masculine stereotyped); from 0 to −1 = female dominated/stereotyped as feminine (−1 = all female/feminine stereotyped).† Boys see these jobs as marginally more sex segregated than do girls.* Girls hold marginally more stereotyped view of these jobs than do boys.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


occupations as being more sex-segregated than did boys, but believed that they shouldbe performed by either sex. Boys thought jobs were not as sex-segregated as did girls,but were more likely to believe they should be undertaken by one or the other sex.

Occupational preference—differences between males and females

The preference ratings given by girls and boys in the four age groups were comparedusing analysis of variance. For only one job (civil engineering) was there a significantdifference for age of the pupils, and so Table IV shows the rating data collapsed acrossage groups. In keeping with previous studies, occupational preference was found tobe strongly related to occupational stereotyping. Boys gave significantly higher pref-erence ratings than girls for 11 of the occupations, all of which were occupationswhich pupils had identified as being masculine stereotyped: webmaster, softwareengineer, computer engineer, systems analyst, civil engineer, airline pilot, materialsscientist, health and fitness instructor, molecular geneticist, architect and MLSO (seeTable IV, section A).

Girls gave significantly higher preference ratings for five jobs, and these were jobsthat had been identified as female-stereotyped: nurse, secretary, occupational thera-pist, hairdresser and physiotherapist (see Table IV, section B). For seven occupations(Table IV, section C), each of which had low stereotyping and segregation ratings,there was no significant difference between boys’ and girls’ preference ratings. Theseoccupations were: diagnostic radiographer, maths teacher, financial adviser, forensicscientist, therapeutic radiographer, biotechnologist and dentist.

There were few changes in the perceived desirability of these jobs with age. Just onejob (civil engineering) was viewed as significantly more desirable by older pupils (F =4.08, df 1,3, p = < 0.01). Secretary and hairdresser both showed a tendency tobecome slightly more popular with boys, and less popular with girls, with age (secre-tary: F = 1.3, df = 4.53, p < 0.01; hairdresser: F = 3.64, df 1,3, p < 0.05). Table Vgives an overview of the order of preference for the jobs as rated by boys and by girls,based on the mean preference ratings shown in Table IV.

Occupational gender segregation, sex-role stereotyping and occupational preference

Both occupational sex-role stereotyping and gender segregation of jobs were stronglycorrelated with the perceived desirability of the jobs. This was the case for both boysand girls, although in keeping with expectations, direction of the association variedwith gender. Overall, boys preferred jobs that were stereotyped as masculine (OSRSand preference, r = +0.68, p < 0.01) and perceived as male-dominated (OGS andpreference, r = +0.78, p < 0.01); and girls preferred jobs that were stereotyped asfeminine (OSRS and preference, r = − 0.63, p < 0.01) and perceived to be female-dominated (OGS and preference, r = − 0.67, p < 0.01) (Table VI).

When these data are analysed separately for each of the four age groups, a furtherdifference emerges in the patterns of male and female preference. The correlationsreveal that, as they get older, boys remain strongly attracted to occupations that are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


seen as masculine and performed by males. For girls, both segregation and stereotyp-ing of occupations are powerful factors between the ages of 14 and 16, but around theage 16–17 this effect starts to weaken, although it still remains significant at this age.By the time girls reach their final year in school (age 17 to 18), the effect has disap-peared (Table VII).

Sex differences in job knowledge

Comparison of male and female pupils’ ratings of their confidence in their knowl-edge of what each job entailed reflected the patterns found in the previous analyses

Table IV. Mean preference ratings given by boys and girls in school Years 10–13 for 23 occupations

(a) Jobs for which boys gave significantly higher preference ratings than girls

Boys Girls F and significance level

Webmaster 3.3 (1.11) 2.3 (1.11) 72.2***Computer engineer 3.3 (1.17) 2.2 (1.12) 78.7***Software engineer 3.2 (1.09) 2.1 (0.93) 86.4***Civil engineer 3.1 (1.11) 2.0 (1.02) 77.3***Health and fitness instructor 3.0 (1.12) 2.6 (1.12) 13.1***Systems analyst 3.0 (1.17) 2.4 (1.12) 24.5***Architect 2.8 (1.18) 2.4 (1.06) 6.9**Airline pilot 2.6 (1.10) 2.3 (1.00) 5.4*MLSO 2.6 (1.15) 2.3 (0.98) 10.9**Materials scientist 2.6 (1.17) 2.1 (1.04) 19.5***Molecular geneticist 2.2 (1.01) 2.1 (0.96) 4.4*

(b) Jobs for which girls gave significantly higher preference ratings than boysSecretary 2.5 (1.08) 2.9 (1.06) 5.0*Physiotherapist 2.4 (1.04) 2.8 (1.06) 29.8***Occupational therapist 2.1 (0.99) 2.7 (1.03) 32.1***Hairdresser 2.1 (0.97) 2.8 (1.13) 22.3***Nurse 2.2 (0.89) 2.5 (1.01) 5.6*

(c) Jobs for which there was no difference in preference ratings between boys and girlsForensic scientist 2.8 (1.09) 2.6 (1.17) n.s.Financial advisor 2.6 (1.08) 2.5 (1.07) n.s.Biotechnologist 2.3 (1.02) 2.1 (0.91) n.s.Diagnostic radiographer 2.2 (0.96) 2.1 (0.92) n.s.Therapeutic radiographer 2.2 (1.00) 2.3 (1.00) n.s.Dentist 2.1 (0.97) 2.2 (0.96) n.s.Maths teacher 2.1 (0.98) 2.1 (1.08) n.s.

Scale 5 = ‘love’; 4 = ‘like’; 3 = ‘OK’; 2 = ‘dislike’ 1 = ‘hate’. Standard deviations given in parentheses.* = p <0.05 ** = p <0.01 *** = p <0.001.D

ownl

oade

d by

[Se

lcuk

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

14:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


for job preference. Boys claimed significantly more knowledge of eight of the 11masculine-stereotyped jobs that were preferred more by boys than girls; girlsclaimed significantly more knowledge of what was involved in four of the fivefemale-stereotyped jobs that were preferred more by girls than boys. For none of theseven jobs that had previously been identified by the pupils as less sex-stereotyped(i.e., close to neutral) was there any significant difference in the knowledge claimedby boys and girls. Data for all 23 occupations are displayed in Table VIII, groupedin three sections according to whether they were preferred by boys or girls or therewas no sex difference.

Table V. Occupations listed in order of preference given by girls and boys

Order of preference for girls Order of preference for boys

Secretary WebmasterHairdresser Computer engineerPhysiotherapist Software engineerOccupational therapist Civil engineerHealth and fitness instructor Health and fitness instructorForensic scientist Systems analystNurse ArchitectFinancial adviser Forensic scientistArchitect Financial adviserSystems analyst Medical laboratory scientific officerMedical laboratory scientific officer Airline pilotWebmaster Materials scientistAirline pilot SecretaryTherapeutic radiographer PhysiotherapistComputer engineer BiotechnologistDentist Molecular geneticistDiagnostic radiographer Diagnostic radiographerSoftware engineer NurseMaths teacher Therapeutic radiographerMaterials scientist Maths teacherBiotechnologist HairdresserMolecular geneticist Occupational therapistCivil engineer Dentist

Table VI. Correlations of preference ratings with occupational gender segregation and occupational sex-role stereotyping indices for 23 occupations

Boys Girls

Preference × occupational gender segregation 0.78** −0.67**Preference × occupational sex-role stereotyping 0.68** −0.63**

** p <0.01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Knowledge and liking for jobs

To determine whether pupil’s liking for jobs was related to the amount of knowledgeclaimed for the job, the mean desirability rating for each job was correlated withclaimed level of knowledge. This was calculated separately for boys and girls in eachage group. Table IX shows the outcomes of these calculations. For girls, there is aclear link between knowledge of what the job entails and liking for the job. For boys,the calculations reveal no relationship between knowledge of, and liking for a job, atany age (Table IX).

Discussion

Most of the previous research in this area has focused exclusively on either segrega-tion or stereotyping. The research reported here considered both of these factorstogether.

The majority of occupations were viewed as strongly sex-stereotyped, in keepingwith the patterns reported in Miller and Budd (1999) and the many other researchstudies stretching back to the 1970s. Some of the newer jobs were among the moststrongly masculine sex-stereotyped and, perhaps unsurprisingly therefore, the mostpreferred by boys. Software engineer, computer engineer and webmaster were thejobs ranked second, third and fourth most strongly stereotyped as masculine, andwere also the three occupations most preferred by boys. Among girls, the jobs moststrongly stereotyped as female remained the most popular: secretary, physiotherapist,hairdresser and occupational therapist. Out of the 23 jobs, these were the four mostpreferred by girls. In addition, pupils in all four of the age groups saw the majority ofthe listed jobs as being performed mostly by just one sex. Only a minority of jobs wereperceived as being performed by both sexes.

Table VII. Correlations of preference ratings with occupational gender segregation and occupational sex-role stereotyping indices for 23 occupations for boys and girls in each of the four

age groups

Boys Girls

OSRSI correlated with preferenceAge range 14–15 0.648** −0.648**Age range 15–16 0.772** −0.759**Age range 16–17 0.729** −0.470*Age range 17–18 0.782** −0.189OGSI correlated with preferenceAge range 14–15 0.645** −0.638**Age range 15–16 0.779** −0.749**Age range 16–17 0.724** −0.517*Age range 17–18 0.779** −0.288

** p <0.01; * p <0.05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Occupational gender segregation 83T

able

VII

I.K

now

ledg

e ra

ting

s gi

ven

by b

oys

and

girl

s in

Yea

rs 1

0–13

for

23

occu

pati

ons

(a)

Jobs

for

whi

ch b

oys

clai

med

sig

nific

antly

gre

ater

kno

wle

dge

than

gir

ls

Boy

sG

irls

F-v

alue

and

si

gnif

ican

ce le

vel

Yea

r 10

Yea

r 11

Yea

r 12

Yea

r 13

Yea

r 10

Yea

r 11

Yea

r 12

Yea

r 13

Sex

Age

gro

up

Com

pute

r en

gine

er2.

81 (

1.10

)2.

68 (

1.05

)2.

61 (

0.93

)2.

68 (

0.99

)2.

44 (

0.97

)2.

19 (

0.85

)2.

38 (

0.98

)2.

20 (

1.00

)14

.37*

**n.

s.S

oftw

are

engi

neer

2.71

(1.

07)

2.51

(0.

97)

2.41

(0.

94)

2.42

(0.

88)

2.20

(1.

00)

2.04

(0.

90)

2.18

(1.

04)

2.10

(0.

72)

13.9

0***

n.s.

For

ensi

c sc

ient

ist

2.65

(1.

25)

2.31

(0.

988)

2.71

(0.

90)

3.04

(0.

94)

2.07

(1.

04)

1.93

(1.

03)

2.49

(1.

02)

2.80

(1.

11)

10.8

7**

10.6

5***

ML

SO

2.38

(91

.16)

2.08

(1.

09)

2.89

(1.

12)

3.16

(1.

03)

2.27

(1.

17)

1.75

(1.

01)

2.29

(1.

21)

2.85

(1.

14)

8.16

**16

.89*

**W

ebm

aste

r2.

24 (

1.12

)2.

31 (

1.01

)2.

48 (

0.88

)2.

54 (

0.93

)2.

28 (

1.07

)1.

71 (

0.93

)2.

08 (

0.99

)2.

00 (

0.97

)12

.98*

**2.

67*

Civ

il en

gine

er2.

29 (

0.94

)2.

18 (

0.94

)2.

39 (

0.78

)2.

88 (

0.88

)1.

77 (

0.85

)1.

69 (

0.75

)2.

02 (

0.97

)2.

25 (

0.91

)29

.90*

**7.

46**

*M

ater

ials

sci

enti

st2.

24 (

1.04

)2.

22 (

0.93

)2.

62 (

1.14

)2.

88 (

1.01

)1.

98 (

0.86

)1.

69 (

0.91

)2.

11 (

1.17

)2.

50 (

1.00

)16

.03*

**8.

97**

*S

yste

ms

anal

yst

2.35

(1.

24)

2.21

(1.

00)

2.93

(1.

06)

2.92

(0.

95)

1.91

(1.

09)

1.70

(0.

92)

2.20

(1.

15)

2.55

(1.

36)

20.0

0***

12.6

6***

The

rape

utic

ra

diog

raph

er2.

07 (

1.21

)1.

92 (

1.18

)2.

59 (

1.32

)2.

84 (

1.18

)1.

96 (

1.26

)1.

61 (

0.98

)2.

23 (

1.28

)2.

50 (

1.43

)4.

84*

11.6

1**

Mol

ecul

ar

gene

tici

st1.

65 (

0.97

)1.

45 (

0.72

)1.

71 (

0.96

)1.

88 (

0.83

)1.

15 (

0.53

)1.

42 (

0.70

)1.

31 (

0.66

)1.

55 (

0.83

)15

.14*

**n.

s.

Bio

tech

nolo

gist

1.60

(0.

92)

1.43

(0.

76)

1.70

(0.

93)

1.60

(0.

82)

1.22

(0.

57)

1.27

(0.

50)

1.43

(0.

77)

1.45

(0.

51)

9.25

*n.

s.

(b)

Jobs

for

whi

ch g

irls

clai

med

sig

nific

antly

gre

ater

kno

wle

dge

than

boy

s

Boy

sG

irls

F-v

alue

and

si

gnif

ican

ce le

vel

Yea

r 10

Yea

r 11

Yea

r 12

Yea

r 13

Yea

r 10

Yea

r 11

Yea

r 12

Yea

r 13

Sex

Age

gro

up

Nur

se3.

07 (

1.03

)2.

70 (

0.96

)3.

03 (

0.93

)3.

32 (

0.69

)3.

30 (

0.82

)3.

02 (

0.81

)3.

14 (

0.86

)3.

70 (

0.57

)7.

69**

7.86

***

Mat

hs t

each

er2.

69 (

1.28

)2.

52 (

1.19

)2.

17 (

1.20

)2.

20 (

1.12

)2.

98 (

1.30

)3.

08 (

1.02

)2.

85 (

1.25

)2.

70 (

1.34

)16

.44*

**2.

78*

Sec

reta

ry2.

96 (

1.02

)2.

97 (

0.96

)2.

90 (

0.86

)3.

08 (

0.86

)3.

33 (

0.89

)3.

35 (

0.81

)3.

34 (

0.87

)3.

40 (

0.75

)15

.84*

**n.

s.H

aird

ress

er3.

06 (

1.07

)2.

79 (

1.22

)2.

65 (

1.17

)2.

28 (

1.02

)3.

19 (

1.17

)3.

47 (

0.86

)3.

26 (

1.00

)3.

05 (

1.23

)22

.56*

**n.

s.D

enti

st3.

59 (

0.66

)3.

13 (

0.81

)3.

40 (

0.83

)3.

90 (

0.31

)3.

28 (

0.98

)3.

02 (

0.97

)3.

48 (

0.79

)3.

36 (

0.91

)6.

17*

9.04

***

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Tab

le V

III.

Con

tinue

d

(c)

Jobs

for

whi

ch th

ere

was

no

sign

ifica

nt s

ex d

iffer

ence

in k

now

ledg

e cl

aim

ed

Boy

sG

irls

F-v

alue

and

si

gnif

ican

ce le

vel

Yea

r 10

Yea

r 11

Yea

r 12

Yea

r 13

Yea

r 10

Yea

r 11

Yea

r 12

Yea

r 13

Sex

Age

gro

up

Dia

gnos

tic

radi

ogra

pher

1.35

(0.

73)

1.34

(0.

79)

1.34

(0.

65)

1.72

(0.

68)

1.30

(0.

69)

1.17

(0.

38)

1.48

(0.

85)

1.60

(0.

88)

n.s.

4.40

**

Occ

upat

iona

l the

rapi

st2.

20 (

1.15

)2.

10 (

1.13

)2.

83 (

1.25

)3.

24 (

1.05

)2.

37 (

1.15

)1.

93 (

1.01

)2.

54 (

1.21

)2.

85 (

1.09

)n.

s.15

.44*

**F

inan

cial

adv

iser

2.46

(1.

08)

2.52

(0.

97)

2.59

(1.

03)

2.56

(0.

96)

2.52

(1.

08)

2.37

(0.

91)

2.65

(0.

89)

3.20

(1.

12)

n.s.

n.s.

Hea

lth

& f

itne

ss

inst

ruct

or2.

85 (

1.15

)2.

64 (

1.12

)2.

59 (

0.96

)2.

36 (

1.00

)2.

75 (

1.24

)2.

75 (

1.03

)2.

63 (

1.08

)2.

85 (

1.18

)n.

s.n.

s.

Arc

hite

ct2.

76 (

1.18

)2.

57 (

1.11

)2.

41 (

1.14

)2.

21 (

1.02

)2.

56 (

1.19

)2.

69 (

1.04

)2.

38 (

1.13

)2.

70 (

1.30

)n.

s.n.

s.P

hysi

othe

rapi

st2.

96 (

1.07

)2.

79 (

1.02

)3.

28 (

0.88

)2.

92 (

1.10

)3.

02 (

1.09

)2.

71 (

1.00

)2.

95 (

1.04

)3.

63 (

0.76

)n.

s.5.

37**

Air

line

pilo

t2.

55 (

1.15

)2.

33 (

1.02

)2.

13 (

1.03

)2.

16 (

1.00

)2.

44 (

1.13

)2.

28 (

0.98

)2.

75 (

1.02

)2.

75 (

1.02

)n.

s.n.

s.

Not

es: 4

= ‘I

kno

w w

hat

this

job

invo

lves

’; 3

= ‘A

fai

rly

good

idea

’; 2

= ‘S

ome

idea

’; 1

= ‘I

don

’t k

now

wha

t th

is jo

b in

volv

es’.

Sta

ndar

d de

viat

ions

in p

aren

thes

es.

*p

<0.

05;

**p

<0.

01;

***

p <

0.00

1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Preference for a job was found to be strongly correlated with the extent to whichit was seen as appropriately gender-stereotyped, in keeping with earlier studies;however, the study also demonstrated that preference was more strongly correlatedwith the extent to which the job was perceived as being congruently gender-segre-gated. Boys preferred jobs that they believed were and should be performed bymales; and girls preferred jobs that they believed were and should be performed byfemales.

However, for girls, these patterns significantly weakened with age. The correlationof liking with perceived gender segregation and stereotyping decreased between theage of 16–17 and disappeared by the time girls reached the age of 17–18. For boys,the correlation of liking with the extent to which the job is perceived as gender-segre-gated and stereotyped remained significant between the ages of 14 and 18 and did notweaken at all (indeed, if anything, this correlation grew somewhat stronger).

The data suggest that by the time girls reach the sixth form they have become muchmore liberal not just in their views of jobs, but in the extent to which they find thesejobs potentially attractive. It is likely, of course, that young people continuing on intopost-compulsory education are likely to be educational achievers.2 While noting thiscaveat, none the less the data support the observation of Francis (2002) that youngwomen are increasingly attracted to a wider, more diverse, range of jobs as they getolder. However, by the time young women start to fully consider a wider range of jobsas attractive options (age 17–18), critical decisions about qualifications will alreadyhave been made, restricting the actual options available to them.

Job knowledge and occupational choice

Careers advice research suggests that young people tend only to seek information onjobs in which they are already interested (Morris et al., 1995; Stoney et al., 1998;Munro & Elsom, 2000). The data reported here suggested that there may be previ-ously unrecognized differences between girls and boys in this regard.

For girls, there was a strong relationship between the extent to which they liked ajob and their knowledge of what the job entailed, for each of the four age bands. Forboys, there was no significant relationship between the extent to which they claimedto know anything about a job and the extent to which they liked it, in any of the four

Table IX. Correlations between knowledge of, and liking for, the occupation for girls and boys within the four age groups

Girls Boys

Age 14–15 0.579** 0.219Age 15–16 0.556** 0.128Age 16–17 0.621** 0.081Age 17–18 0.519** 0.057

**p. < 0.01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


age groups. With age, the lack of any relationship between job knowledge and prefer-ence among boys became even more apparent.

One possible explanation for this lack of correlation between knowledge andliking among boys could be that boys generally claim higher levels of knowledge forall jobs—i.e. a ceiling effect. However, inspection of the knowledge ratings revealsthis not to be the case, with boys’ mean job knowledge ratings showing, if anything,a wider range than girls.’ There are two further possible explanations: one is thatthey gather roughly equivalent amounts of information on a range of jobs and usethis in making job-choice decisions, but then seek little additional information relat-ing to their preferred occupation; and the second is that boys from strong impres-sions of jobs with little real understanding of what they actually entail. Withoutfurther evidence, however, it is not possible to tell if either of these is the correctinterpretation.

Neither is it possible to determine from these data whether girls start to like jobsafter finding out what they involve, or find out more about jobs that appeal to them.The work of Morris et al. (1995), Stoney et al. (1998) and Munro & Elsom (2000)suggests that it is the latter interpretation—that girls find out more about the jobs thatappeal to them—that is correct. However, the current data as they stand do notenable any conclusions to be drawn on this point and clearly this would be an areaworthy of further investigation. Irrespective of the likely direction of this relationship,it is worth noting that, in recent years in the UK, professional associations in areassuch as construction and engineering have attempted to improve the careers informa-tion they provide to girls and young women, to encourage them to consider jobs inthese sectors. At the time that this article was being drafted (2004), the UK EqualOpportunities Commission had just started a compaign to promote atypical jobs tofemales. Irrespective of whether knowledge follows liking, or liking follows knowl-edge, such initiatives to raise awareness of atypical jobs to young women would seemto be wise.

Stereotyping and segregation: beliefs versus the real world of work

This study extended earlier research in this field by disaggregating and investigatingthe impact of both occupational sex-role stereotyping and occupational segregation.The data revealed that, while perceptions of occupational gender stereotyping changewith age, perceptions of the extent to which an occupation is gender-segregated donot. This is in keeping with the idea that stereotypes effectively are networks ofbeliefs, and subject to revision as the child’s world view matures, while estimates ofgender segregation are based on fairly accurate perceptions of the working environ-ment, and therefore do not change unless the environment itself changes.

Two main findings emerged from the segregation and stereotyping data. Boys andgirls in general agreed that the majority of jobs were performed largely by just one sex;however, girls saw most jobs as being more extremely gender-segregated than didboys. Therefore, while not believing that jobs should be stereotyped, girls were morelikely to notice that in reality jobs were segregated, than were boys. It should be noted

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


that, in general, the extent to which occupations were seen as segregated was aroundtwice the extent to which they were viewed as stereotyped.

Age, segregation, stereotyping and liking for jobs

The Miller and Budd (1999) study considered the beliefs and preferences of pupilsaged between 8 and 16. Girls showed a significant increase in career liberality overthat age range, while boys retained quite strong views about who should performvarious jobs. The current study looked at a slightly older age range, from 14 to 18. Bythe time they have reached the age of 16–17, girls appear to have reached a point ofmaximum liberality regarding occupational stereotyping. Boys appear to have justabout ‘caught up’ with girls in terms of their views regarding the stereotyping of occu-pations by the time they reach the age of 17–18.

At face value, this suggests that both boys and girls would end up having less stereo-typed views regarding the job options potentially available to them. However, as boththis and the 1999 study demonstrate, believing that jobs should be available to bothmales and females does not mean that individuals will necessarily go on to choose anatypical job for themselves. This is indicated, first, by the preference ratings for themale- and female-stereotyped jobs across the age groups (which largely remainconstant despite increasing liberality); and second, by inspection of the correlationstatistics for the association of liking with stereotyping and with segregation. Thisindicates that, although girls believe that most jobs should be done by either sex, theydo not find the atypical jobs particularly attractive, at least until they reach the olderage groups.3

However, while with age girls start to see a wider range of jobs as attractive, includ-ing atypical ones, boys retain their preference for segregated, masculine jobs. This isin keeping both with Hegwil’s interpretation of Gottfredson’s theory of career choiceand with Francis’s (2002) finding that boys were more conservative in their careerchoices than girls. While factors such as status and pay may push girls towardsconsidering atypical jobs, for boys there are few similar factors to pull them towardsfeminine jobs, and increasing awareness of status and pay is likely to make them morestrongly attached to masculine jobs.

The data show that new and emerging jobs in male-dominated sectors, such as IT,have rapidly become identified as ‘masculine’ jobs in which the majority of the work-force is male. These jobs are strongly attractive to boys, but significantly less attractiveto girls. These findings suggest that increased access to computers in schools has hadlittle impact on girls’ attitudes towards jobs in this sector, providing further supportfor Wood (1998) who reported that increasing use of the Internet by young girls hadfailed to improve girls’ views of jobs using computers. The data also endorse Francis’s(2002) finding that few girls (in fact, just one from her sample of 50) wished to enterthis area of work.

Four strongly stereotyped jobs from the earlier Miller and Budd (1999) study wereincluded (airline pilot, architect, secretary and hairdresser). The two female-stereotyped jobs (secretary and hairdresser) remained among the most strongly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


stereotyped jobs for women, and were the two jobs most preferred by girls. Airplanepilot and architect are no longer seen as so strongly male-stereotyped; they now fallin the mid-range of the ratings for male stereotyped and segregated jobs. Boys andgirls did not differ in the knowledge they claimed of these two jobs.

Contrary to expectations, many of the scientific occupations were not viewed asstrongly stereotyped, but also were not very popular. Forensic scientist was the oneexception to this, being the seventh and ninth most popular job among girls and boysrespectively. It should be noted that forensic science has been the subject of severalTV series in the UK in recent years, and this may account for why it alone of thenewer scientific occupations achieved some level of popularity. It is noteworthy thatforensic science was rated more favourably than nursing by both boys and girls.Nursing was not viewed as a particularly strongly stereotyped job. Again, it should benoted that several UK TV series in recent years have featured male nurses. Assuggested by Francis (2002), these patterns of data may be attributable to the impactof such programmes on the ideas young people form of occupations. However, itshould be noted that while nursing was rated as the seventh most attractive occupa-tion by girls (although this only amounted to a mean score of 2.5, half-way between‘OK’ and ‘dislike’), for boys nursing was not viewed as an attractive option, beingplaced eighteenth out of the list of 23 jobs.

Boys gave higher preference ratings than did girls for all the science-based jobs, andparticularly for jobs in the IT sector. The continuing reluctance of females to enterscientific and technological fields has been of concern to the UK government formany years (Hewitt, 2001; Roberts, 2002; Miller, 2004) and the Greenfield review(Greenfield, 2002) was commissioned to explore the factors that lead to low numbersof women entering, and remaining in, this sector. This led the UK government toestablish the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science and Technology (http://setwomenresource.org.uk) to provide support and research to address this problem.The data reported here suggest that there will be a need for the Centre’s work tocontinue for many years to come.

Conclusion and recommendations

Overall, these findings suggest that many young people continue to prefer jobs thatare strongly and congruently sex-segregated. If young people are drawn to jobs inwhich they see their own sex predominating, how can we promote the attractivenessof those jobs, while, at the same time, trying to overcome stereotypes regarding thetypes of individuals who can do these jobs?

The results suggest that influence through the media may be one key route intoyoung people’s awareness. How best to raise young people’s awareness of a widerrange of jobs will need to be a central research issue for careers theorists, professionalassociations and teachers in the future, if current patterns of segregation are to bechallenged.

In particular, the finding that boys do not seem to have any additional knowledgeabout jobs they believe they will prefer, suggests that identifying ways of providing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


boys with more careers information should perhaps be one priority. The data showedthat girls do appear to have more knowledge about jobs they perceive as attractive.Furthermore, their views of the desirability of jobs changed as they moved nearer tothe age at which they would enter the workforce, when they started to view a widerrange of jobs as attractive. By this age, though, it may be too late to alter educationaldirection.

A key challenge here will be finding ways of making information on jobs availableto young people before key educational decisions have been made. Current policiesfocus on providing information (and, in the UK now, employment experience) fromthe age of 14 onwards (primarily through the Connexions service), but by this agepupils in the UK often have already made decisions about education and qualificationroutes. The research suggests that any interventions aimed at raising young people’sawareness of the opportunities available in ‘atypical’ sectors need to be made at amuch earlier age to be effective. The work also suggests it would be of general benefit,but particularly to girls, if teachers and careers advisers were to provide informationon the range of jobs available at an early age.

Although the outcomes of the research were in line with those produced by previ-ous research, some questions remain unanswered due to the opportunistic nature ofthe sample. There was a relatively high proportion of boys drawn from grammarschools (two schools out of the total of six) and, given that it was not possible toanalyse the data separately by type of school, it remains unclear the extent to whichthe relative contributions of the schools to these data has skewed the findings. Giventhe close similarity to the patterns seen in the Miller and Budd (1999) study, in whichall of the schools that took part were mixed-sex comprehensive schools, we believethe particular patterns found for the boys probably would not change very much werethe study to be replicated with a different sample. A more serious question, however,concerns the extent to which the views of those young women and men who stay onpast the end of compulsory education (at age 16) are mirrored by those who leave at16. It should be noted that it is largely those who leave school at 16 who go intoapprenticeships, and so tangential evidence may be gleaned from vocational statistics.Our analyses for the EOC (Miller et al., 2004) indicate that only a very small minorityof young women and men enter atypical areas of vocational training (although it isacknowledged that, in part, this is due to employer attitudes and recruitment policies;see Miller et al., 2005). This suggests that the more expanded career horizons of theyoung women in this sample may not be entirely representative of the views of thisage group. However, it is also the case that while these young women could see that,potentially, the atypical jobs were attractive, we have no information as to whetherthey would actually consider moving into these areas of work in the future.

Given these observations, it is clear that further research would be valuable todetermine any differences between the views of the young women who go into jobsand/or further training at age 16 and those who continue in education. In addition,there is a need for research to determine the best age at which to provide young peoplewith information on a fuller range of occupations. The recent EOC campaign ‘Freeto Choose’ has noted the need for improved information to be made available to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


young people to widen the opportunities available to them and reduce current levelsof gender segregation in the UK economy. This is of particular urgency given the factthat young apprenticeship schemes4 are currently being introduced, and once theseare fully implemented, decisions regarding career path and qualifications potentiallywill be made at much earlier ages. It is also supported by the work of Francis (2002),who reported that many secondary school pupils—both females and males—havelittle knowledge either of the adult workplace or of the qualifications that are neededto enter specific occupations, as well as by reports from young people themselves whospeak of the difficulties they have encountered in gaining access to a broad range ofinformation while at school (Miller et al., 2005).

The work suggests that TV programmes can have a fairly strong and immediateimpact on the impressions young people form of occupations. One of the initiativesimplemented by the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering andTechnology has been to introduce an award for the best TV production presentingimages of women in science, engineering and technology (the EuroPaws (EuropeanPublic Awareness of Women in Science) MIDAS Prizes). The Centre is also workingwith scriptwriters and producers to consider how plot lines concerning jobs in thesector might be introduced into TV ‘soaps’. Given the widespread influence of TV,such actions are to be encouraged.

While occupational stereotypes and gender segregation are important factors influ-encing job preferences, many factors other than these also serve to influence jobchoice. Parental and peer-group influences remain strong determinants of choice (seee.g. Fitzpatrick & Silverman, 1989; Marks & Houston, 2002; Miller et al., 2002), asdo teaching style and activities outside of school (Miller et al., 2002; SQW, 2002).Perceptions of the extent to which various jobs are amenable to combining withfamily life also play a part in determining career choice (Marks & Houston, 2002).While these issues do not constitute the focus of attention in this paper, this factshould not be construed as implying we do not consider such factors to be important.Indeed, it is probably the case that expectations regarding the sex-appropriateness ofvarious jobs may be transmitted in large part through the family.

Work to explore the ways in which beliefs and knowledge about jobs develop, thevarious influences on this process and the relative influential weight or value of infor-mation gained via family, friends, TV, out-of-school activities, careers advisers andcareers information is clearly of importance. An understanding of the way in whichthese various information sources and social influences interact to sway career deci-sions is an essential next step if we are to understand the way in which views of occu-pations are formed and decisions made. Without such information, we cannot movetowards improving young people’s employment opportunities.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank: all of the pupils and teachers who participated in theresearch; Laura Murdoch and Rosemin Najmudin for their help with data collection;Sally Dench, Fiona Jones, Christopher R. Hayward, Jim Hillage, Jennifer Hurstfield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


and Fiona Neathey for their comments on earlier drafts of the paper; and MichaelThewlis, Emma Hart and James Walker-Hebburn for their assistance in producingthe figures. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpfulcomments.

Notes

Part of this work was undertaken while the authors were at the University ofHertfordshire.1. The source is the BMRB survey of 1000 adults, conducted in April 2004, on behalf of the EOC.2. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for making this observation.3. It should be noted that the lessening of correlation statistics for the girls arises in large part from

increasing interest in non- and masculine-stereotyped jobs; reduction in liking occurs for fewerof the feminine-stereotyped jobs with age.

4. Young apprenticeships will allow children as young as 14 to complete vocational programmesof study in work placements while continuing in school. They were just starting to be intro-duced at the time this article was written.

References

Albrechi, S. L. (1976) Social class and sex-stereotyping of occupations, Journal of VocationalBehavior, 9, 321–328.

Albrechi, S. L., Bahr, H. M. & Chadwick, B. A. (1977) Public stereotyping of sex roles, personalcharacteristics and occupations, Sociology and Social Research, 61, 223–240.

Alperi, D. & Breen, D. T. (1989) ‘Liberality’ in children and adolescents, Journal of VocationalBehavior, 34, 154–160.

Ashmore, R. D. & Del Boca, F. K. (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory: towarda cognitive-social psychological conceptualisation, Sex Roles, 5, 219–248.

Connor, H., Hillage, J., Millar, J. & Willison, R. (2002) An assessment of skill needs in informationand communications technology (Sheffield, DfES).

Eagly, A. H. (1983) Gender and social influence: a social psychological analysis, AmericanPsychologist, 38, 971–981.

Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) (2004) Plugging Britain’s skills gap: challenging gendersegregation in training and work: the report of phase one of the EOC’s investigation into gendersegregation and modern apprenticeships (Manchester, EOC).

European Commission (2003) She figures: women and science statistics and indicators (Brussels, ECDirectorate-General for Research).

Fitzpairick, J. L. & Silverman, T. (1989) Women’s selection of careers in engineering: dotraditional–nontraditional differences still exist? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 266–278.

Francis, B. (2002) Is the future really female? The impact and implications of gender for 14–16year olds’ career choices, Journal of Education and Work, 15(1), 75–87.

Franken, M. W. (1983) Sex role expectations in children’s vocational aspirations and perceptionsof occupations, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 59–68.

Fricko, M. A. M. & Beehr, T. A. (1992) A longitudinal investigation of interest congruence andgender concentration as predictors of job satisfaction, Personnel Psychology, 43, 99–117.

Frye, V. A. & Dietz, S. C. (1973) Attitudes of high school students toward traditional views ofwomen workers, Journal of Student Personnel Association for Teacher Education, 11, 103–108.

Garrett, C. S., Ein, P. L. & Tremaine, L. (1977) The development of gender stereotyping of adultoccupations in elementary school children, Child Development, 48, 507–512.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Gettys, L. D. & Cann, A. (1981) Children’s perceptions of occupational stereotypes, Sex Roles, 7,301–308.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1981) Circumscription and compromise: a developmental theory of aspira-tions, Journal of Counselling Psychology, 28(6), 545–579.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1996) Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription and compromise, in: D. Brown& L. Brooks (Eds) Career choice and development (3rd edn) (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass),179–232.

Greenfield, S. with Peters, J., Lane, N., Rees, T. & Samuels, G. (2002) SET fair: a report on womenin science, engineering and technology from the Baroness Greenfield to the Secretary of State for Tradeand Industry (London, Department for Trade and Industry).

Gutek, B. (1988) Sex segregation and women at work, Applied Psychology: an International Review,37(2), Special issue on women’s occupational plans and decisions, 103–120.

Haste, H. (2002) Prometheus, Pandora and the sorcerer’s apprentice. Friday Evening Discourse, TheRoyal Institution, London, February.

Hayes, R. (1986) Gender non-traditional or sex atypical or gender dominant or … research: are wemeasuring the same thing? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29(1), 79–88.

Helwig, A. A. (1998) Gender-role stereotyping: testing theory with a longitudinal sample, SexRoles, 38(5–6), 403–423.

Hewitt, L. S. (1975) Age and sex differences in the vocational aspirations of elementary schoolchildren, Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 173–177.

Hewitt, P. (2001) The IT skills shortage: interview on Today, BBC Radio 4, 6 March; transcriptavailable from the Media Monitoring Unit, Government Information and CommunicationService.

Holland, J. L. (1973) Making vocational choices: a theory of careers (Englewood Cliffs, NJ,Prentice-Hall).

Marks, G. & Houston, D. M. (2002) The determinants of young women’s intentions abouteducation, career development and family life, Journal of Education and Work, 15(3), 321–336.

Miller, L. (2004) Tomorrow’s scientists: where will they come from? Paper presented to the Energyand Society Conference, International University of Bremen, Germany, March.

Miller, L. & Budd, J. (1999) The development of occupational sex-role stereotypes, occupationalpreferences and academic subject preferences in children at ages 8, 12 and 16, EducationalPsychology, 19(1), 17–35.

Miller, L., Lietz, P. & Kotte, D. (2002) On decreasing gender differences and attitudinal changes:factors influencing Australian and English pupils’ choice of a career in science, Psychology,Evolution and Gender, 4(1), 69–92.

Miller, L., Neathey, F., Pollard, E. & Hill, D. (2004) Occupational segregation, gender gaps andskill gaps (EOC Working Paper Series No. 15) (Manchester, Equal OpportunitiesCommission).

Miller, L., Pollard, E., Neathey, F., Hill, D. & Ritchie, H. (2005) Gender segregation in apprentice-ships (Manchester, EOC).

Miller, L., Wood, T. A., Halligan, J., Keller, L., Hutchinson-Pike, C., Kornbrot, D. & de Lotz, J.(2000) Saying ‘welcome’ is not enough: women, information systems and equity in work,Career Development International, 5(7), 379–389.

Morris, M., Simpkin, C. & Stoney, S. (1995) The role of the Careers Service in careers education andguidance in schools (London, Department for Education and Employment).

Munro, M. & Elsom, D. (2000) Choosing science at 16: the influence of science teachers and careersadvisers on students’ decisions about science subjects and science and technology carers (Cambridge,CRAC).

National Audit Commission (2002) Widening participation in higher education in England (HC485)(London, TSO).

O’Connor, H. & Goodwin, J. (2004) ‘She wants to be like her mum’: girls’ transitions to work inthe 1960s, Journal of Education and Work, 17(1), 95–118.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Roberts, G. (2002) SET for success: the supply of people with science, technology, engineering andmathematics skills: Report of Sir Gareth Roberts’ Review (London, TSO).

Roger, A. & Duffield, J. (2000) Factors underlying persistent gendered option choices in schoolscience and technology in Scotland, Gender and Education, 12, 357–383.

Ross, L., Amabile, T. M. & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977) Social roles, social control and biases in social-perception processes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485–494.

Shinar, E. H. (1975) Sexual stereotypes of occupations, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 7, 99–111.SQW (2002) Review of girls-only hands-on experience in STEM (Watford, EMTA).Stockard, J. & McGee, J. (1990) Children’s occupational preferences: the influence of sex and

perceptions of occupational characteristics, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 287–303.Stoney, S., Ashby, P., Golden, S. & Lines, A. (1998) Talking about ‘careers’: young people’s views of

careers education and guidance at school (London, Department for Education and Employment).Super, D. E. (1953) A theory of vocational development, American Psychologist, 8, 185–190.Thewlis, M., Miller, L. & Neathey, N. (2004) Advancing women in the workplace: statistical analysis

(EOC Working Paper Series No. 12) (Manchester, Equal Opportunities Commission).Vogler, C. (1994) Segregation, sexism and labour supply, in: A. M. MacEwen Scott (Ed.) Gender

segregation and social change (Oxford, Oxford University Press), 39–79.Wood, T. A. (1998) Gender and the ‘new age’ of computers: identity, attitudes and use of the internet in

education (CITE Report No. 241) (Milton Keynes, Open University Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

4:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

new jobs, old occupational stereotypes: gender and jobs in the new economy

Documents