Suchergebnisse

Using a nationally representative sample of college faculty from a wide array of institutions and science disciplines, this study investigates links between organizational conditions and women's representation on college faculties. Hypotheses derive from competing explanations for the sharp differences found in women's and men's career outcomes in academia: institutionalized discrimination that protects men's dominant group privileges, statistical discrimination based on expectations of gender differences in academic preparation and scholarship, variations in the female doctoral labor supply by science discipline and locality, political restraints on discrimination and pressure for equal employment opportunity. A multivariate analysis examines organizational conditions associated with women's likelihood of holding faculty appointments at different tenure levels. Results indicate that although the female doctoral labor supply and political constraints are powerful factors in the representation of women faculty, selective organizational contexts play a substantial role as well. Although we find little evidence that insulation from competition or segmented faculty labor markets strongly influence the gender composition of science faculties, women are more often found in entry-level positions where institutionalized discrimination may be checked by unionization and proportionally sizable constituencies of women administrators and students. Consistent with statistical discrimination, women scientists and engineers are poorly represented at the entry level in research-oriented institutions and are more scarce in tenured positions within highly prestigious departments and institutions with very selective admissions. These organizational influences on women's faculty representation hold even after controlling for gender differences in the prestige of academic credentials, level of work experience, and marital and child-rearing responsibilities.

Several distressing aspects of cutbacks in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits for poor working single mothers are distinguished, & their link to psychological well-being is identified. Analysis of case record & interview data on 254 Rs reveals that variations in the severity of benefit losses predict the level of demoralization a year after the cutbacks, even controlling for intervening stressful life events, & for current income, employment, & AFDC status. Among the various mixes of work & welfare for these women, part-time work with or without supplementary AFDC benefits appears to have the least negative emotional outcomes. 5 Tables, 22 References. Modified HA

This article explores differences in the self‐reported drug use and exposure to drugs of an ethnically diverse group of 408 seventh‐grade students from a large city in the southwest. We contrast the explanatory power of ethnic labels (African American, non‐Hispanic White, Mexican American, and mixed ethnicity) and two dimensions of ethnic identity in predicting drug use. One dimension focuses on perceived ethnically consistent behavior, speech, and looks, while the other gauges a sense of ethnic pride. Ethnic labels were found to be somewhat useful in identifying differences in drug use, but the two ethnic identity measures, by themselves, did not generally help to explain differences in drug use. In conjunction, however, ethnic labels and ethnic identity measures explained far more of the differences in drug use than either did alone. The findings indicate that the two dimensions of ethnic identity predict drug outcomes in opposite ways, and these relations are different for minority students and non‐Hispanic White students. Generally, African American, Mexican American, and mixed‐ethnicity students with a strong sense of ethnic pride reported less drug use and exposure, while ethnically proud White students reported more. Ethnic minority students who viewed their behavior, speech, and looks as consistent with their ethnic group reported more drug use and exposure, while their White counterparts reported less. These findings are discussed, and recommendations for future research are provided.

"Diversity, Oppression and Change is an engaging and well-researched book about a timely and controversial topic. The authors unpack complex theory-based concepts related to oppression and privilege so that readers can identify their historically based impact on certain groups and communities. They use an easy to understand style, which makes cultural diversity concepts come to life through specific examples and notes from the field, often coming from their own practice, policy and research experiences. This book is essential reading for social workers and allied professionals committed to anti-oppressive practice. Diversity, Oppression and Change is also about hope and resiliency, and the miraculous ability of individuals and communities to bounce back from oppressive experiences and historical trauma to produce lasting social change and achieve social justice"--