|
|||||
New Zealand Engineering 1999 September Essay  Women
in a World of Engineering By Professor Sandra Harding, Ms Deborah Messer, Ms Marnie King, Queensland University of Technology Women's disadvantages in engineering Women’s under-representation in engineering positions has been well documented, with participation rates of between three and five percent consistently reported in countries such as the USA and UK (Jones and Wheatley 1989 in Johnson, Leasure and Llinas 1992; National Science Foundation 1990; Carter and Kirkup 1990 in Evetts 1998). Researchers have argued that there are both structural and individual impediments that explain women’s progress in engineering (Maskell-Pretz and Hopkins 1997; Fox 1996). It is recognised that women are also under-represented in engineering courses, however, this will not be addressed in this review. The purpose of this review will present issues around women engineers in the workplace. First, this review will present research that has illustrated women’s disadvantage in the engineering sphere; specifically under-representation, unemployment, retention, pay and sexual harassment. This review will then be structured around the two basic explanations of this disadvantage, structural and individual. Finally, these concepts are summarised in point form to aid the development of survey items. Women's disadvantages in engineering Preston (1994) found that female engineers and scientists are nearly two and a half times more likely to become unemployed than male engineers and scientists. In 1986, women engineers and scientists in the USA had twice the unemployment rate of men, 2.7 percent compared to 1.3 percent (National Science Foundation 1990). Estimates from the United States suggest that women engineers tend to leave organisations after approximately five years of service (Catalyst Report 1992 cited in Maskell-Pretz and Hopkins 1997). Preston (1994) found that "the biggest differences in male and female exit behaviour occur within two categories: exit from the labour force, and exit to other occupations for reasons other than promotion" (p. 1446). Further in Preston’s study, 20.1 percent of all women working in science and engineering in 1982 had left by 1989. Only 10.7 percent of men had left engineering positions in this time. Shenhav (1992) found in a longitudinal study of engineers, that whilst "black workers" had promotion advantages in private and public sectors, and women in the private sector; "blacks and women have higher attrition rates" (p 899). Preston found that "family reasons" only partially explained why women exited from science or engineering positions. "Women are more likely than men to leave the labour force for reasons other than family within every age cohort" (p. 1460). It is crucial to attain a finer grained understanding of reasons for leaving engineering. If, for example, as Preston’s study suggests, women are leaving engineering positions for other positions, what is it about engineering that made them leave, or what was it about the new positions that made them more attractive than engineering? Pay Patrinos (1995) found that women engineers in Greece earn substantially less than men. Education and experience did not account for the differences in wages, suggesting, they argue, that the difference is attributable to discrimination. In Australia Consultant Cullen Egan Dell found that male project engineers, design engineers and production managers at present earn 16 percent more than women in comparable positions. Last year the gap was nine percent (Mahony 1995:36). Inequities also exist in other forms of remuneration. This survey found that men in senior positions are more likely to have a car of higher value than women in similar positions. Male executives tend to enjoy greater superannuation as they are calculated on their base salary. Finally Cullen Egan Dell found that the typical upper limit for women engineers is A$40,000 (Mahony 1995). Another pay issue which may negatively impact on women engineers in Australia is that market forces have driven down professional engineering fee scales, while increasing the amount of unsalaried working hours to a point where they are incompatible to the co-existence of work and family (Drake 1995:3). Sexual
Harassment " I have had someone try to kiss me in the stores; I have had someone try to help me up into an engine in a rather too familiar way; I’ve had wolf whistles… At the end of me giving a serious talk to a designer, I’ve had- ‘It’s a pity you have got blue eyes isn’t it, I prefer women with brown’. I’ve been patted on the head "(p. 286). Having outlined some of the evidence of women’s current status in engineering, the following section provides some of the structural and individual explanations of their disadvantage. Kvande and Rasmussen (1995) found that companies that had better opportunities for male engineers could be characterised as "static hierarchies", whereas companies that had similar opportunities for men and women were more like "dynamic networks". Dynamic networks were organisations that had a flexible and changing organisation of tasks. The tasks were organised in teams where everybody could have their say. The communication channels within the groups and between the groups in different departments were horizontal and used according to need. The decision making was decentralised (p. 124). These "dynamic network" organisations still had formal hierarchies; the difference lay in the organisation of work within projects, the working-groups and departments. Planning, decision making and coordination were all discussed by the team (Kvande and Rasmussen 1995: p. 124). Further, these dynamic organisations had adapted to an unpredictable and turbulent market. "They have profited from trying out new ideas and non-traditional approaches" (p. 125). "Static hierarchies" were characterised by centralised decision making, vertical and formal communication and "strict and specialized division of work between and within departments" (p. 124). Interestingly some "static hierarchy" companies were involved with affirmative action programs. Kvande and Rasmussen (1995) argue that it is the centralised, pyramid structure that perpetuates the status quo within the "static hierarchy" organisation. Structural
and individual explanations of women's disadvantage in engineering In their more recent work, Robinson and McIlwee (1991) argue that organisations high in informal processes may disadvantage women. They found that in organisations that were highly formal, there was no significant difference in the occupational standing of women and men (where experience and qualifications were similar). Organisations that were informal had significant differences in occupational standing of women and men. It may be argued that informal processes allow for privileged or closed opportunities to go unchecked. They argue that in this environment, personal reputations impact on promotion rather than formal evaluations. Furthermore, organisations use informal networks (often male dominated) to recruit engineers. This does not provide women with an equal access to an organisation and perpetuates the norm. Organisational
culture Robinson and McIlwee (1991) and the National Research Council (1994) argue that a "male" culture, "male" definitions of competencies and performance are barriers to women engineers’ status and mobility. Evetts (1993) also argues that qualities traditionally attributed to men such as assertiveness, authority and dominance are also seen as the qualities of good managers. This, she argues, is another barrier to women engineers to move into management positions in engineering firms. Robinson and McIlwee (1991) argue it is important to draw on both the "conflict and interactionalist discussions of cultural reproduction". They suggest that culture needs to be understood in terms of values, norms and power relations. Promotion When (my daughter) starts school I might ask for four weeks unpaid leave a year to help cover school holidays. There’s no way if I was doing that, that they would consider me for a (manager’s) job. If I got promoted before that happened I wouldn’t feel happy about it because you come under so much pressure at that level to do overtime. (p. 21) A perception of lack of acceptance for women in managerial positions was also found. A lot of people find it fairly easy to come to terms with women working in (engineering) provided they haven’t got any authority. I think it is a bit of a problem; people have problems if you’ve got a woman in authority. Men tend to find it a bit difficult to relate to. That’s one of the reasons why I prefer to keep on the technical side (rather than managerial). Maskell-Pretz and Hopkins (1997) identified and discussed some of what they call "professional" and "psychological" barriers to the advancement of women engineers. Factors said to influence progression and retention included mentoring and training opportunities, family responsibilities, the presence or not of "family friendly" policies and harassment and discrimination within the workplace. A number of Maskell-Pretz and Hopkins’ recommendations involved "improving" individual women rather than address the structural barriers that may be impeding their progress. For example, Maskell-Pretz and Hopkins suggest that training should address "networking, self management and organisational savvy" (p. 34). This perspective suggests that women engineers are in some way deficient, and it is these deficiencies that prevent advancement. Further, notions of organisational savvy suggest that women should understand and comply with the organisation to be promoted, regardless of the inappropriateness of its functioning. The structures, views and processes that have limited the participation, promotion and retention of women remain unchallenged. Fox (1996) argues that it is not enough for women’s supposed "personal deficits" to be remedied. "Programs or policies for improvement of women’s careers must attend to enabling and disabling organizational processes" (p. 284). Interestingly Evetts (1996) found that there was less specification about managerial roles and promotions than the technologists positions. Senior staff positions, like management positions were by invitation only. Further, only management positions led to senior staff positions. Interestingly, management careers represent a significant hurdle for women engineers (Evetts 1993). Evetts (1996) identified similarities in engineers and scientists who were promotion-successful. All four had made frequent, regular and systematic moves. Most moves had been accompanied by promotion but moves to widen and extend their experience or to change to a different area were also common(p115). Another interesting finding which may provide a greater understanding of differing promotion rates, is research conducted in the US. Jagacinski (1987) found that men were given higher levels of supervisory responsibility in their first positions as engineers than women. It may be argued that this then provides male engineers with more experience, an advantage for future promotion opportunities. Conclusion This paper is abridged slightly from that on the IEAUST web site (http://www.ieaust.org.au/wie). It is part of the Careers Review of Engineering Women project being undertaken by IEAust. |
|||||
 |
|
|
|
