Abstract
Writing this review for the audience of Psychology of Women Quarterly oriented me in a way that was probably not expected by the author. Although I could not find a statement either in Management, Gender, and Race in the 21st Century or from the publisher about the intended audience, I am assuming that Karsten intends to address academics and practitioners in management. Toward this end, I genuinely appreciate Karsten's efforts to meet her audience on their own terms and bring to them a very thorough and research-based understanding of diversity in the workplace. This endeavor is both critically important and highly charged, making this work challenging if not downright intimidating. Thus, I start this review with deep respect for Karsten's gustiness, comprehensiveness, and care.
Moving to my feminist audience, this book continually left me to ponder two thought-provoking issues. I have no easy answers for either, and indeed, pursuing one almost seems to contradict the other. I believe these issues raise important questions for feminist scholars, so let me use Karsten's work as a springboard to grapple with them.
Throughout my musings, I dubbed my first issue “fair and balanced.” I quickly dismissed a basically bogus approach, epitomized by Fox News (Greenwald, 2004), wherein lip service is given to authentically debating multiple sides of an issue while a single agenda is covertly pursued. In scholarly work, we generally see one of two genuine approaches: (a) offering multiple sides of an issue (typically two) without evaluative commentary or (b) making one's biases and assumptions clear at the outset and making a data-based case in support of an assertion. Oftentimes, feminist scholars and teachers promote the latter approach; however, even within the Psychology of Women, we can find “debates” readers.
Karsten takes the former approach. At times, I think this almost forces her to find dissension where none really exists. An example hit home for me in Karsten's discussion of leadership. Although Karsten does an excellent job throughout the book of exploring the impact of social context on women and their experiences, I could not help but follow up on her contention that Powell and Graves (2003) “disagree with Yoder and Kahn” (2003) about contextual influences on women's and men's democratic leadership styles (p. 137). I must admit that I (Janice Yoder) have found little with which to disagree in the Powell and Graves book. However, my broader point here is that setting up an apparent alternative gives reluctant readers an escape route, easily overgeneralized, to discount a fundamentally shared point: context matters. Although Karsten herself makes a strong case for this conclusion in this section (and throughout her book), the loophole is there for readers wishing to essentialize gender differences.
Throughout the book, Karsten's approach lets a skeptical reader waffle. For example, consider Karsten's discussion of comparable worth as a means for achieving pay equity (pp. 56–58). Admittedly, I unabashedly support comparable worth and see its value in an occupationally segregated workforce. Yet, presumably to be balanced, Karsten parrots detractors' worst fears about losing good workers to better paying jobs. She offers the case of a math teacher lost to a school unable to compete with the market forces of higher paying jobs in business rather than tackling the more complex issue of how market forces can work within a comparable worth model to address gender and racial wage inequities (see England, 2000).
My arguments so far build a rather convincing case against forsaking open evaluation of the materials we present in our work. However, my second issue muddles this conclusion by bringing in audience. Sometimes I worry that those of us working in the Psychology of Women preach too much to the choir. As a researcher, I find it more affirming to write my papers for a feminist audience than to deal with the more mainstream outlets in the discipline. As a teacher, I find myself connecting more with self-selected students in my Psychology of Women class than with those unsuspecting souls in my Research Methods class upon whom I often foist research with a social justice message. The former students repeatedly applaud my passion in their evaluations of me; a few of the students in the latter class critically reject and resent my bias.
Laura Brown (2000, 2006) captures this point so well in her discussion of subversion, subtly moving people toward a social-justice agenda. Social psychologists studying persuasion have long known that in-your-face challenges often fail; skeptical audiences respond better to two-sided arguments (Hovland, Lumsdaine, & Sheffield, 1949). My guess is that Karsten knows her audience and is writing effectively for them.
For those of us in the Psychology of Women field, this book then offers a way to address an audience in ways that may open doors to richer and more informed discussion about some powerful issues in working women's lives: pay equity, sexual harassment, employment discrimination, and equal employment. My advice about using this book effectively is to read the chapter summaries before launching into the full chapter, and then use the innovative outcomes introducing each chapter to engage in some spirited, post reading discussion. The end result of reading with discussion might be the persuasive influence I seek among management professionals who can make a positive difference for all women in the workplace.