Feminist Theory: A Research Agenda for HRD

Abstract

The Problem

Limited research representing the field of human resource development (HRD) has challenged the masculine rationality in organizational culture, processes, and discourse; questioned power or gender hegemony within organizations; or examined how oppression and hegemony are manifested in the lives of different groups of women in a variety of work contexts. This limited scope of research has resulted in a lack of consideration and application of feminist theory, a valuable framework for examining issues relating to inequity and the subjugation of women. Compared with related fields, studies applying feminist theory in HRD research are fewer in number and less robust in terms of issues explored, research design, and target groups examined.

The Solution

A deeper examination of (a) populations beyond White middle class women, (b) the lives and experiences of women from varying backgrounds, (c) asymmetrical power relationships, (d) opportunities for women to gain knowledge and power, (e) the use of language and power to silence women, (f) gender as a social construct and essential category of analysis, and (g) ways to promote social change are presented along with recommendations to broaden the scope of research that applies feminist theory in HRD research and practice.

The Key Stakeholders

The examination of feminist theory is expected to benefit HRD researchers, practitioners, scholars, and women in the workforce.

Keywords

feminism gender hegemony women

Critical scholars in the field of management and human resource development (HRD) have consistently described organizations as hegemonic domains that perpetrate the status and power of privileged groups (Collins, 1998). Acker (2012) argued that “loosely interrelated practices, processes, actions, and meanings” prevalent in organizations “maintain class, gender, [and] racial inequalities” (p. 443). Feminist scholars within HRD have challenged the masculine rationality of the discipline and its failure to prioritize the interests of marginalized groups within organizations (Bierema, 2009; Bierema & Callahan, 2014; Bierema & Cseh, 2003, 2014). They strive to remind HRD of its humanistic roots and the necessity for HRD research and practice to address organizational norms, hegemonic attitudes, and everyday practices that perpetrate patriarchy. Yet, there is a general dearth of empirical research in HRD that explicitly takes a feminist approach and investigates lived experiences of women, examines the power dynamics within organizations that favor men more than women, draws attention to use of language that undermines women, or challenges attitudes and everyday practices that intentionally or unintentionally discriminate against women. There seems to be reluctance among HRD researchers to use feminist theory to challenge the gender hegemony in work contexts even when they are studying the challenges of women (Elliott & Callahan, 2018). In this article, therefore, we provide a basic background of feminist theory and its key concepts and attempt to evoke an interest in pursuing feminist research within HRD. We outline the scope for investigating wider range of issues, extending the population and context of scrutiny, and the intentional use of a feminist theoretical lens in HRD research.

Feminist Ideology

Feminism in general “seeks to eliminate systems of inequality and injustice in all women’s lives” (Shaw & Lee, 2004, p. 9). However, feminism is not a monolithic ideology, but rather consists of a range of political and social ideologies and movements that fight for and promote gender equality. Warren (1993) used the metaphor of a quilt to describe feminism, where the boundaries delimit the territory

without dictating what the interior, the design, the actual pattern of the piece looks like. Because the actual design of the quilt emerges from the multiplicity of voices of women in a cross-cultural context, the design will change over time. It is not something static. (p. 331)

Feminist theory is an extension of the feminist ideology in different disciplines such as, but not limited to anthropology, art, literature, philosophy, politics, and economics. Feminist research aims to understand and deconstruct gender inequality ingrained in the structure of societies.

Background

Historically, feminism reflected the social and political ethos of the times. Running parallel to the suffragist movements throughout the world in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the first wave of feminism demanded that women be considered as legal entities (Dicker & Piepmeier, 2003). The second wave of feminism peaked during the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1960s and continued well into the 1980s. During this phase, the focus was on demanding equal rights for women, equal access and pay, control over their bodies, and creation of sexual harassment policies (Dicker & Piepmeier, 2003). While White, middle class, western women led the first two waves of feminism, the third wave was characterized by the active engagement of women of color and women in developing nations. Arguing that the second wave of feminism essentially focused on White women and ignored the challenges and issues of “other” women, the third wave feminists turned their attention to the intersection of race and gender. Born in the 1990s, third wave feminism shed light on the differences between women and challenged the universalization of women’s issues and emphasized the significance of context and its consequences. Influenced by postmodernism, third wave feminists challenged ideas of beauty, femininity, and masculinity and reinforced that gender was a socially constructed concept (Gedro & Mizzi, 2014). Third wave feminism, with its emphasis on inclusion, ushered in Black feminism, transnational feminism, and global feminism.

By the 1970s, feminism as an ideology was widespread across the western world. Nevertheless, in the 1980s, women in developing countries expressed dissatisfaction with the western brand of feminism (Disch & Hawkesworth, 2016). They claimed that feminism in the western world was ethnocentric, assumed that subjective experiences of women were universal, and ignored local, social, cultural, and economic contexts that shaped their experiences and lives. Thus, transnational feminists challenged universalization of the experiences of women and the existing forms of feminism. Transnational feminism considers issues of gender in the context of colonialism, political systems, economic conditions, race, human rights, and inherent social systems and stratifications. Currently, feminism is said to be experiencing its fourth wave. This recent wave is supported by technology and globally attends to the culture of rape and sexual harassment, body shaming, workplace discrimination, and has ushered in the “Me Too” movement.

Although there are multiple approaches and types of feminism, scholars identify three main conceptualizations of feminist thought: liberal feminism, socialist feminism, and radical feminism. Liberal feminism has its origins in liberal political ideology and seeks to achieve equal rights for women through legal means. Socialist feminism interrogates the intersection of class and gender and examines how these disempower women. The focus of socialist feminism was to challenge capitalism and its power to determine access and opportunities for women. Radical feminism, on the other hand, challenges patriarchy and calls for a radical reorganization of the society where male domination and oppression of women do not exist. Postmodern philosophy led feminist scholarship toward questioning of identity and challenging the gender binary. It contended that gender identity is not fixed but rather fluid and that gender performance can fluctuate between gender identities (Gedro & Mizzi, 2014). Despite the plurality of approaches, all feminist perspectives challenge women’s inferior position in society and seek to address the discrimination against women. Furthermore, “all feminists call for changes in the social, economic, political or cultural order, to reduce and eventually overcome this discrimination against women” (Freedman, 2001, p. 1).

Feminist Theory

Feminist theory centers women and issues that women face in contemporary society and confronts injustice based on gender. A central purpose of feminist theory is a “commitment to change oppressive structures and to connect abstract ideas with concrete problems for political action” (Flax, 1999, p. 11). The main goals of the theory are to examine the power difference between men and women, ascertain the power in relationships, and to end oppression through social change (Flax, 1999). Feminist theory calls for placing gender differences at the center of any investigation and recommends considering the result of these differences in any given context.

Feminist Discourse

Judith Lorber (1997) identified three predominant feminist discourses: gender reform, gender resistant, and gender revolution feminisms. Rooted in liberal political and philosophical ideology, gender reform feminist discourses emphasize individual rights such as right to autonomy over their bodies. Gender resistant feminism has radical roots and focuses on everyday practices and behaviors that subjugate women. Lorber called these “microinequities of everyday life” and argued that practices such as “being ignored and interrupted, not getting credit for competence or good performance, being passed over for jobs that involve taking charge—crystallize into a pattern that insidiously wears women down” (p. 16). Gender revolutionary feminist discourse leaned more toward a critical approach of the 1980s and 1990s challenged prevalent social structures and categories. Moreover, this discourse attempted to deconstruct the power and privilege that accompanied such categorization and challenged cultural reproduction of inequalities (Rakow & Wackwitz, 2004).

Feminism and HRD

Gedro and Mizzi (2014), recommend that feminist theory could be a useful organizing framework for the study and the practice of HRD because it “seeks to understand and then respond to the way systems, structures, policies, processes, and cultures operate to privilege some and suppress others” (p. 446). However, empirical research specifically using the feminist theoretical lens to examine organizational structures, policies, processes, or culture is still scarce. An analysis of all four Academy of Human Resource Development journals (Human Resource Development Review, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Advances in Developing Human Resource, and Human Resource Development International) over the years yielded 64 articles that mention feminism in the text. Yet, hardly 10% of them mentioned feminism or feminist theory in key words. Most of the articles on feminism where conceptual pieces outlining the theory (Bierema, 2002, 2009; Bierema & Cseh, 2003, 2014) or more recently positioning queer theory and feminist theory as useful frameworks within HRD (Gedro and Mizzi, 2014). We found very few empirical articles using feminist theory to examine the lives and challenges of women. In the period between 2008 and 2018, there were 29 articles published across the four journals that used a feminist lens (Elliott & Callahan, 2018). Most of them studied intersection of race and gender and its influence on leadership of women (Byrd, 2009; Byrd & Stanley, 2009; Jean-Marie, Williams, & Sherman, 2009; Lloyd-Jones, 2009; Johnson & Thomas, 2012). Very few specifically challenged the masculine rationality in organizational culture, processes, and discourse; questioned power or gender hegemony within organizations; or examined how oppression and hegemony are manifested in the lives of different groups of women in a variety of work contexts.

In contrast, scholars operating in the field of management and organization studies explored a wider range of issues using the feminist framework in the last decade. Management scholars challenged patriarchal norms and attitudes that are openly manifested within organizations. They reported that women often felt silenced and ignored in male dominant work environments (Benschop, 2009; Broadbridge, 2010; Kumra, 2010). Strong, assertive, and task-oriented women were judged adversely and labeled argumentative and difficult to get along with (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). Women were also found to be disempowered within the organizations and to be largely prevented from demonstrating their more “masculine” skills such as critical thinking or problem solving (Ford & Harding, 2010; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007). Management research also established the demands on women to soften up to be accepted (Billing, 2011; Kumra & Vinnicombe, 2010; Mavin, 2009; Mavin, Bryans, & Cunningham, 2010) and that women were often forced to negotiate their identities to be accepted in male dominant work environments (Atewologun, Sealy, & Vinnecombe, 2016; Hatmaker, 2012). In addition to demonstrating patriarchal attitudes, management studies also focused on organizational structures and processes that marginalized women and gave preference to men at management levels, thereby perpetuating male privilege (Broadbridge & Hearn, 2008; Diehl & Dzubinski, 2016; Sealy & Singh, 2010). It was not just men in the workplace who contributed to the perpetuation of such oppression and hegemony, but women also participated in the process and dictated in-group membership (Stamarski & Hing, 2015).

Recommendations to Broaden the Scope of Feminist Research in HRD

Bierema and Cseh (2003) identified at least seven categories of feminist research that HRD scholars could undertake: (a) studying populations beyond White middle class women, (b) focusing on lives and experiences of different groups of women, (c) examining asymmetrical power relationships based on different categories of oppression in organizations, (d) exploring opportunities for women to gain knowledge and power, (e) studying gender as a social construct and an essential category of analysis and not just as an independent variable, (f) investigating the use of language and power to silence women, and (g) promoting social change. Here we outline the potential for research in each of these categories within the HRD domain.

Populations Beyond White Middle Class Women

Of the HRD articles that explore issues through a feminist lens, the populations studied tend to be rather limited. Women leaders and academics are the most visible subjects while less accessible populations are not adequately represented. To have a positive impact on HRD practice from a feminist perspective, the field must expand its study to include marginalized populations and create inclusive theories, models, and interventions that recognize and represent all facets of diversity.

Nationality

HRD research has had a limited geographic reach for their studies. Much of the research has taken place in the United States, United Kingdom, and select Asian countries. Management scholars have been slightly more inclusive in their research; one example is study of a Pakistan-based nongovernmental organization (NGO) whose goal was to improve the labor rights of women homeworkers in the country (Zulfiqar & Khan, 2018). The researchers used a feminist perspective to investigate the relationship between the NGO and its constituents. There is little HRD research from Asia that specifically takes a feminist perspective.

There are very few examples of HRD research from Asia, Africa, Middle East, and South America that focus on women. Ismail and Rasdi (2007) studied the impact of networking on career development for women academics in Malaysia. In one of the rare investigations of the experiences of Black women leaders in South Africa, Johnson and Thomas (2012) compared their experiences within academia with those in the United States. Postcolonial and transnational perspectives would help HRD research identify feminist issues that cross national barriers and help reject the assumption that women in the developing world are always oppressed and are in need of western researchers to give them voice (Syed & Metcalfe, 2017).

Focusing on Lives and Experiences of Different Groups of Women

Women in academia are a popular subject for HRD and management researchers alike. Especially prevalent is the work on women in leadership roles in higher education (Fotaki, 2013; van den Brink, Benschop, & Jansen, 2010). Presumably, the accessibility and researchers’ personal investment in the experiences of faculty and administrators in colleges and universities have contributed to this trend. However, there are many other groups of women who are not adequately represented in HRD research.

Nonfaculty staff in academia

As mentioned above, even though HRD researchers have spent considerable energy in examining the experiences of women leaders in higher education, nonfaculty employees in administrative roles within academic settings and their complicated power dynamics have been ignored. In excluding non-instructional staff who make up 62% of a university’s employees, with 20% more women than men in these positions (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 2016), HRD researchers seem to affirm the elitist tendencies prevalent within academia, and prioritize faculty and leaders holding terminal degrees or higher positions. Using the feminist theory, HRD researchers could focus on exploring existing programs for staff, providing an understanding of the benefits of career development for this group, and determining training, mentoring, and advancement interventions.

Immigrants

Immigration status is another identity category that intersects with gender to complicate the work experiences of women (Holvino, 2010). Across the world, women are less likely to be labor immigrants than men and are more likely to immigrate for family reasons (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/European Union [OECD/EU], 2018). That is, women are more likely to immigrate because their husbands or families immigrated for work, a situation that could result in gender disparities in employment outcomes in the foreign country. This translates to a higher concentration of immigrant women in low-skilled occupations, and more likely than men to be in occupations for which they are over-qualified (OECD, 2018). However, immigrant women are rarely represented in HRD research. One study of this phenomenon cites the dominance of men in Korean society, the women’s financial reliance on their husbands, and their husbands’ lower socioeconomic status as factors contributing to their career development challenges (Kang, Chai, & McLean, 2015).

Women with disabilities

In one of the few attempts in the last decade to focus on workers with disabilities, Procknow and Rocco (2016) chronicled studies that explored the interplay between mental disability, sexual identity, and gender within HRD. Although the reviewed studies examined how these identities impact career advancement, the literature review does not cite a single study that looked at the intersection of gender and disability status through a feminist lens. Given the general dearth of attention on experiences of employees with disabilities within HRD research, it is not surprising that investigation of the intersection of gender and disability status is very rare. In a recent article, Michna, Kmieciak, and Burzyńska-Ptaszek (2017) studied the experiences of 1,041 workers with disabilities in 150 small- and medium-sized enterprises in Poland. They found that employers recruited disabled employees because it made business sense by way of tax breaks and subsidies, rather than employing them for their skills or the value of their unique perspectives and experiences as people with disabilities. However, the authors did not consider if men and women participants experienced their disability differently. Using a feminist lens will allow HRD researchers to investigate if and how prevalent gender stereotypes combine with ableist attitudes in the workplace and result in disabled women experiencing the workplace differently than their male counterparts (Wendell, 1989).

Low-skilled workers

Workers in low-skilled and low-pay positions rarely receive attention from HRD researchers. Few authors have discussed this population and those who have chose to focus on the business case for performance improvement among low-skilled employees (Gold & Thorpe, 2008). Women are overrepresented in low-skilled and vulnerable occupations that involve caregiving or provision of service (Abrassart, 2015). Devins and Gold (2014) drew attention to the dearth of HRD literature on the Precariat or the low-skilled employees in low paid jobs who enjoy very little job security and social protection. The authors argued for HRD researchers to include employees in low-skills, low-wages jobs as subjects of investigation and advocate for skills development for this group of employees as well.

Women in the informal economy

Women in the informal economy are another group that HRD research has not focused much on. Despite continued arguments about the boundaries of HRD, the scope of the discipline, and the repeated calls for focusing on “for-profit, not-for-profit, and/or governmental entities, and individuals, cooperating in some form across national borders” (Wang &McLean, 2007, p. 105), HRD research rarely forays beyond the formal economy. In one study in management literature, Scott, Dolan, Johnstone-Louis, Sugden, & Wu (2012) examined women in South Africa engaged in sales of Avon products from their homes. They suggested that schemes like Avon sales could provide a way to empower poor women through entrepreneurship. Furthermore, with the recent increase in the gig economy where organizations employ people based on need and only when required, it may be important for HRD to consider the challenges and needs of women engaged in short-term contract-based work.

Examining Asymmetrical Power Relationships

Power is an integral concept of feminist theory, yet different definitions of power exist in feminist literature. Radical feminism defined power in terms of “power over” where men exerted power over women in overt and subtle ways. These include economic exploitation, social marginalization, denial of autonomy, systematic violence, and exercising hegemonic masculinity (Disch & Hawkesworth, 2016). In one of the few articles in HRD that discusses the way gender roles and stereotypes influence the distribution of power in the workplace and applies critical feminism to HRD work, Adikaram (2018) studied the prevalence of harassment in relation to women’s marital status, specifically the experiences of divorced women in Sri Lanka. More recently, Hirudayaraj and Clay (in press) investigate the influence of gender norms and expectations of performing gender on the personal and professional experiences of women veterans in the private sector. In this article, the researchers discuss how everyday practices and behaviors in the workplace reinforce hegemonic masculinity and deny women veterans access and opportunities to grow. Despite repeated calls for research in HRD that examine issues of power, privilege, and structural inequalities in work contexts, there is not much empirical research in these areas (Bierema & Callahan, 2014; Bierema & Cseh, 2014; Gedro, Collins, & Rocco, 2014). A few studies (Byrd, 2009; Jean-Marie et al., 2009; Lloyd-Jones, 2009) explicitly took a feminist perspective and examined how women in leadership roles experienced power asymmetry, but did not include women in non-leadership roles.

Opportunities for Women to Gain Knowledge and Power

Fletcher (1999) observed that knowledge production is an area where hegemony is exercised within organizations. It is the dominant group that determines whose voices are heard and what is valued as knowledge: “the gendered nature of knowledge production and the way it maintains and reinforces the power relationships between the sexes” in organizations (Fletcher, 1999, p. 21). In this process, gendered hierarchies are made to appear normal and gendered assumptions get embedded as organizational values. Power is exercised when attitudes, beliefs, and practices of the dominant group are reinforced and those of women are silenced (Alvesson & Billing, 2009). For instance, Wilson and Nutley (2003) examined how disciplinary power is exercised in the staff appraisal process in Scottish Universities to marginalize the contribution of women. Studying issues of power within organizations involves investigating the four ways in which exclusionary power is manifested: positional power, agenda-setting power, hidden power, and power of dialogue (Hoeber, 2007; Rao, Stuart, & Kelleher, 1999). Feminist HRD research examining power and hegemony needs to investigate who has power in organizations; specifically, who sets the agenda and decides what issues get discussed and attended to and what do not.

Gender as a Social Construct and an Essential Category of Analysis

Feminist theorists view gender as socially constructed. That is, they argue that gender is primarily shaped by societal beliefs and cultural norms about biological categories. Taking a gender perspective involves focusing on how gender plays a role in distribution of power, status, resources, access, or opportunities (Eichler, 2017). Often in management and HRD literature, gender is not examined as an essential category of analysis, but as just another variable to report. When researchers adopt a gendered perspective, or when gender is an essential category of analysis in organizational contexts, their research will focus on how gender differences influence experiences and outcomes of employees. Using intersectionality as a framework allows researchers to examine how multiple identities such as race, class, nationality, disability, or veteran status intersect with gender to influence the experience of women. To date, HRD research on intersectionality between gender and one or more other identities has primarily focused on race or LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) status (Collins, 2012). Very few authors such as Hirudayaraj and Clay (in press) have moved beyond these categories and explored other identities that may interact with gender to influence power and oppression, and that may be enhanced by investigating through a feminist lens. There is great scope for empirical research within HRD that challenges gender norms and gender performance in organizations and investigate how gender intersects with other categories of marginalization to affect personal and professional development of women.

The Use of Language and Power to Silence Women

Feminist theory examines the policing of language used by women and use of negative and derogatory language to refer to strong and assertive women. Management literature over the years has scrutinized the use of language to silence women in the workplace. Researchers and authors have shown how assertive women are judged adversely and advised to soften up to be accepted in the workplace (Mavin, 2009; Rudman & Phelan, 2008). The management literature has also shown how women were often talked over in male dominated workplaces, denied credit for their contributions (Benschop, 2009; Broadbridge, 2010; Kumra, 2010), and discouraged from exercising “masculine” skills such as critical thinking (Ford & Harding, 2010; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007). However, there is dearth of empirical literature in the field of HRD that examines use of language and everyday practices that undermines women in the workplace. In one of the few empirical studies reported on language use against women, Hirudayaraj and Clay (in press) showed how women were labeled aggressive and often called “tiger lady” for being assertive. The researchers also showed how organizational norms and societal stereotypes combined to affect the career development of women. HRD research has potential to further explore the use of language to silence different groups of women in different work contexts. For instance, HRD research can explore how immigrant women are silenced and excluded from opportunities, or how women of color who are not in positions of power are stereotyped and consequently denied opportunities.

Promoting Social Change

To embrace feminist practices in the workplace, HRD research needs to find common ground between business sense and social justice. Cullen and Murphy (2018) observed that any push for gender equality as a business tactic, in today’s neoliberal economy, has been profit and compliance based; it is not at all altruistic or rooted in a sense of justice. They found that gender equality was often co-opted to sell more, maintaining the status quo of inequality as hegemonic organizations continue to profit (Cullen & Murphy, 2018). By focusing on organizational development activities such as organizational culture work, HRD research can challenge the structures that perpetuate male domination in the workplace. Without creating more egalitarian and gender-neutral environments, diversity training and development practices can only do so much. The more difficult task of widespread, deep level change in attitudes and beliefs is more challenging than behavioral changes, but are critical in improving every person’s experiences at work.

Implications for HRD Research

Our examination of HRD research revealed that there is a serious dearth of empirical research based on feminist theory. The recommendations we have offered could be useful for HRD researchers to apply feminist theory, widen the range of populations they cover, and broaden the scope of issues addressed. The recommendations are by no means exhaustive as there are an abundance of ways to study women in contexts and roles, such as women nontraditional roles like pilots or scientists or politicians. Moreover, we have intentionally limited our scope to focus on women and exclude men from the conversation, because the aim was to provide a research agenda for feminist theory rather than for gender studies.

We also recognize the need for incorporating feminist perspectives in conceptual definitions and discussions of HRD. Given the changing nature of work, the gig economy, and the precariousness of employment, there is a need to reconsider the definition of an organization and a need to examine populations of women outside traditional organizations. There is a compelling need for HRD researchers to reach outside of the developed world and explore the experiences of women in different social, cultural, economic, and political contexts. Doing so will give space for HRD researchers to examine how work and life affect the experiences and career development of women in other regions of the world.

More specifically, we see great potential for HRD research to further investigate the micro-inequities that subjugate women in the workplace as identified by Lorber (1997). Deconstructing the manifestation of power and privilege in organizations that produce gender inequalities paves a path forward for HRD research.

Conclusion

Feminist theory is very broad and is applied in many forms in varying disciplines. Consequently, there are ongoing arguments and debates about the key concepts and how they are defined in the study of feminism. In this article, we have attempted to provide a basic outline of the fundamental concepts of feminist theory with the goal of highlighting the potential for the theory to be applied in HRD research. Our goal was not to critique feminist theory or its application in different disciplines.

We advocate for HRD researchers and practitioners to act as change agents that examine the barriers women face in realizing their potential within organizations. Research along these lines is essential to draw attention to both overt and subtle practices and behaviors that result in women being denied access and opportunities. With the support of research, HRD practitioners can be encouraged to challenge the structural and systemic barriers that subjugate women and help to develop systems that encourage equality.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Malar Hirudayaraj is an assistant professor of human resource development (HRD) at the Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York. She researches diversity, inclusion, and social justice issues in organizational contexts, graduate employability and employability challenges of marginalized populations, workforce development. She holds a PhD in workforce development from Southern Illinois University.

Lauren Shields has an MS degree in HRD from the Rochester Institute of Technology. Her research interests include diversity climates and cultures within organizations as well as the impact of cognitive diversity on team dynamics and performance.

References

Abrassart

(2015). Low-skill jobs or jobs for low-skilled workers? An analysis of the institutional determinants of the employment rates of low-educated workers in 19 OECD countries, 1997-2010. Journal of European Social Policy, 25, 225-241. doi:10.1177/0958928715573485

Acker

(2012). Gendered organizations and intersectionality: Problems and possibilities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31, 214-224. doi:10.1108/02610151211209072

Adikaram

A. S.

(2018). “An opportunity for other men and a threat to other women”: Workplace harassment at the intersection of marital status and gender in Sri Lanka. Human Resource Development International, 21, 186-211. doi:10.1080/13678868.2017.1413877

Alvesson

Billing

Y. D.

(2009). Understanding gender and organizations. London, England: Sage.

Atewologun

Sealy

Vinnicombe

(2016). Revealing intersectional dynamics in organizations: Introducing “intersectional identity work.” Gender, Work & Organization, 23, 223-247. doi:10.1111/gwao.12082

Benschop

(2009). The micro-politics of gendering in networking. Gender, Work & Organization, 16, 217-237. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00438.x

Bierema

(2002). A feminist approach to HRD research. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 244-268. doi: 10.1177/1534484302012006

Bierema

L. L.

(2009). Critiquing human resource development’s dominant masculine rationality and evaluating its impact. Human Resource Development Review, 8, 68-96. doi:10.1177/1534484308330020

Bierema

L. L.

Callahan

(2014). Transforming HRD: A framework for critical HRD practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16, 429-444. doi:10.1177/1523422314543818

10.

Bierema

L. L.

Cseh

(2003). Evaluating AHRD research using a feminist research framework. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(1), 5-26. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1047

11.

Bierema

L. L.

Cseh

(2014). A critical feminist turn in HRD. In N. E.

Chalofsky

Rocco

M. L

Morris

. (Eds.), Handbook of human resource development. London, England: John Wiley.

12.

Billing

Y. D.

(2011). Are women in management victims of the phantom of the male norm? Gender, Work & Organization, 18, 298-317. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00546.x

13.

Broadbridge

(2010). 25 years of retailing; 25 years of change? Reflecting on the position of women managers. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25, 649-660. doi:10.1108/17542411011092318

14.

Broadbridge

Hearn

(2008). Gender and management: New directions in research and continuing patterns in practice. British Journal of Management, 19, S38-S49. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00570.x

15.

Byrd

M. Y.

(2009). Telling our stories of leadership: If we don’t tell them they won’t be told. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5, 582-605. doi:10.1177/1523422309351514

16.

Byrd

M. Y.

Stanley

C. A.

(2009). Bringing the voices together. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 657–666. doi:10.1177/1523422309351817

17.

Collins

J. C.

(2012). Identity matters: A critical exploration of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity and leadership in HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 11, 349-379. doi:10.1177/1534484312446810

18.

Collins

P. H.

(1998). The tie that binds: Race, gender and US violence. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21, 917-938. doi:10.1080/014198798329720

19.

Cullen

Murphy

M. P.

(2018). Leading the debate for the business case for gender equality, perilous for whom? Gender, Work & Organization, 25, 110-126. doi:10.1111/gwao.12199

20.

Devins

Gold

(2014). Re-conceptualising talent management and development within the context of the low paid. Human Resource Development International, 17, 514-528. doi:10.1080/13678868.2014.954191

21.

Dicker

Piepmeier

(2003). Catching a wave: Reclaiming feminism for the 21st century. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

22.

Diehl

A. B.

Dzubinski

L. M.

(2016). Making the invisible visible: A cross-sectoral analysis of gender based leadership barriers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 27, 181-207.

23.

Disch

L. J.

Hawkesworth

(2016). The Oxford handbook of feminist theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

24.

Eichler

(2017). Add female veterans and stir? A feminist perspective on gendering veterans research. Armed Forces & Society, 43, 674-694. doi:10.1177/0095327X16682785

25.

Elliott

Callahan

J. L.

(2018). Gender hegemony and its impact on HRD research and practice: A call for papers. Human Resource Development International, 11(3). Retrieved from: https://think.taylorandfrancis.com/human-resource-development-international-si-gender-hegemony/?utm_source=CPB&utm_medium=cms&utm_campaign=JOA07961#?utm_source=CPB&utm_medium=cms&utm_campaign=JOA07961

26.

Flax

(1999). Women do theory. In Pearsall

(Ed.), Women and values: Readings in recent feminist philosophy (pp. 9-13). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

27.

Fletcher

(1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and relational practice at work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

28.

Ford

Harding

(2010). Get back into that kitchen, woman: Management conferences and the making of the female professional worker. Gender, Work & Organization, 17, 503-520. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00476.x

29.

Fotaki

(2013). No woman is like a man (in academia): The masculine symbolic order and the unwanted female body. Organization Studies, 34, 1251-1275. doi:10.1177/0170840613483658

30.

Freedman

(2001). Feminism: Concepts in the social sciences. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

31.

Gedro

Collins

J.C.

Rocco

T. S.

(2014). The “critical” turn: An important imperative for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16, 529-535. doi: 10.1177/1523422314543847

32.

Gedro

Mizzi

R. C.

(2014). Feminist theory and queer theory: Implications for HRD research and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16, 445-456. doi:10.1177/1523422314543820

33.

Gold

Thorpe

(2008). “Training, it’s a load of crap!”: The story of the hairdresser and his “Suit.” Human Resource Development International, 11, 385-399. doi:10.1080/13678860802261579

34.

Hatmaker

D. M.

(2012). Engineering identity: Gender and professional identity negotiation among women engineers. Gender, Work & Organization, 20, 382-396. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2012.00589.x

35.

Heilman

M. E.

Okimoto

T. G.

(2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81-92. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81

36.

Hirudayaraj

Clay

(in press). Experiences of women veterans within the private sector: Examining the intersectionality of gender and veteran status. Human Resource Development Quarterly.

37.

Hoeber

(2007). Exploring the gaps between meanings and practices of gender equity in a sport organization. Gender, Work & Organization, 14, 259-280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00342.x

38.

Holvino

(2010). Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and class in organization studies. Gender Work & Organization, 17, 248-277. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00400.x

39.

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (2016). Statistical tables Full- and part-time staff by occupational category and race/ethnicity and gender [Data file]. Available from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Default.aspx?gotoReportId=3&fromIpeds=true

40.

Ismail

Rasdi

R. M.

(2007). Impact of networking on career development: Experience of high-flying women academics in Malaysia. Human Resource Development International, 10, 153-168. doi:10.1080/13678860701347131

41.

Jean-Marie

Williams

V. A.

Sherman

S. L.

(2009). Black women’s leadership experiences: Examining the intersectionality of race and gender. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 562-581. doi:10.1177/1523422309351836

42.

Johnson

L. N.

Thomas

K. M.

(2012). A similar marginal place in the academy: Contextualizing the leadership strategies of Black women in the United States and South Africa. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14, 156-171. doi:10.1177/1523422311436305

43.

Kang

H. J.

Chai

D. S.

McLean

G. N.

(2015). An intersectionality and hope-based career development model for female international marriage immigrants in Korea. Human Resource Development International, 18, 538-555. doi:10.1080/13678868.2015.1076563

44.

Kumra

(2010). The social construction of merit in a professional service firm: What is in and who is out? In British academy of management annual conference (pp. 14-16), Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield.

45.

Kumra

Vinnicombe

(2010). Impressing for success: A gendered analysis of a key social capital accumulation strategy. Gender, Work & Organization, 17, 521-546. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00521.x

46.

Lloyd-Jones

(2009). Implications of race and gender in higher education: An African American woman’s perspective. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5, 606-618. doi:10.1177/1523422309351820

47.

Lorber

(1997). The variety of feminisms and their contributions to gender equality. Oldenburg, Germany: Bibliotheks-und Informations System der Universität Oldenburg.

48.

Mavin

(2009, November). Gender stereotypes and assumptions: Popular culture constructions of women leaders. Paper presented at Women as Leaders, Gender in Management Special Interest Group Seminar Series, London, England.

49.

Mavin

Bryans

Cunningham

(2010). Fed-up with Blair’s babes, Gordon’s gals, Cameron’s cuties, Nick’s nymphets: Challenging gendered media representations of women political leaders. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25, 550-569. doi:10.1108/17542411011081365

50.

Michna

Kmieciak

Burzyńska-Ptaszek

(2017). Job preferences and expectations of disabled people and small and medium-sized enterprises in Poland: Implications for disabled people’s professional development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28, 299-336. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21280

51.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/European Union [OECD/EU]. (2018). Settling in 2018: Indicators of immigrant integration. Paris/European Union, Brussels. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/indicators-of-immigrant-integration-2018_9789264307216-en

52.

Procknow

Rocco

T. S.

(2016). The unheard, unseen, and often forgotten: An examination of disability in the human resource development literature. Human Resource Development Review, 15, 379-403. doi:10.1177/1534484316671194

53.

Rakow

L. F.

Wackwitz

L. A.

(2004). Feminist communication theory: Selections in context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

54.

Rao

Stuart

Kelleher

(1999). Gender at work: Organizational change for equality. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

55.

Rudman

L. A.

Phelan

J. E.

(2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61-79. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003

56.

Scott

Dolan

Johnstone–Louis

Sugden

(2012). Enterprise and inequality: A study of Avon in South Africa. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 543-568. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00507.x

57.

Sealy

Singh

(2010). The importance of role models and demographic context for senior women’s work identity development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 284-300. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00262.x

58.

Shaw

Lee

(2004). Women’s voices, feminist visions: Classic and contemporary readings. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

59.

Stamarski

C. S.

Son Hing

L. S.

(2015). Gender inequalities in the workplace: The effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers’ sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1400. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01400

60.

Syed

Metcalfe

B. D.

(2017). Under western eyes: A transnational and postcolonial perspective of gender and HRD. Human Resource Development International, 20, 403-414. doi:10.1080/13678868.2017.1329367

61.

van den Brink

Benschop

Jansen

. (2010). Transparency in academic recruitment: A problematic tool for gender equality? Organization Studies, 31, 1459-1483. doi:10.1177/0170840610380812

62.

Wang

McLean

(2007). The dilemma of defining international human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 6, 96-108. doi:10.1177/1534484306296305

63.

Warren

K. J.

(1993). The power and the promise of ecological feminism. In Zimmerman

M. E.

Callicott

J. B.

Sessions

Warren

K. J.

Clark

(Eds.), Environmental philosophy: From animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 320-341). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

64.

Wendell

(1989). Toward a feminist theory of disability. Hypatia, 4, 104-124. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1989.tb00576.x

65.

Wilson

Nutley

(2003). A critical look at staff appraisal: The case of women in scottish niversities. Gender, Work & Organization, 10, 301-319. doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00197

66.

Zulfiqar

G. M.

Khan

(2018). NGO-led organizing and Pakistan’s homeworkers: A materialist feminist analysis of collective agency. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3988-x