IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/woemps/v38y2024i5p1175-1196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘It’s One Rule for Them and One for Us’: Occupational Classification, Gender and Worktime Domestic Labour

Author

Listed:
  • Julie Monroe

    (Newcastle University Business School, UK)

  • Steve Vincent

    (Newcastle University Business School, UK)

  • Ana Lopes

    (Newcastle University Business School, UK)

Abstract

In this article, we focus on gender and class to investigate worktime domestic labour. Methodologically, we extend a novel, comparative critical realist method in which occupation-based and gendered positions in productive and reproductive labour are foregrounded. By building theoretical connections between labour process conditions and collective rule-following practices, we illustrate how inequalities are inscribed organisationally. Our analysis provides a more critical contextualisation of technological affordances to develop the literature on how technology is implicated in the reproduction of social inequality. Moreover, our analysis identifies multi-level causal processes, which combine to explain the presence and actualisation of worktime domestic labour or its absence, which is due, principally, to fear of sanction. For realist researchers interested in diversity-based challenges, absences are important because they can point towards specific discriminatory mechanisms. Our investigation thus revealed a surprising level of class-related in-work inequality within the gendered dynamics of domestic work.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie Monroe & Steve Vincent & Ana Lopes, 2024. "‘It’s One Rule for Them and One for Us’: Occupational Classification, Gender and Worktime Domestic Labour," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 38(5), pages 1175-1196, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:38:y:2024:i:5:p:1175-1196
    DOI: 10.1177/09500170241235864
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09500170241235864
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09500170241235864?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tony Lawson, 2022. "Social positioning theory," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 46(1), pages 1-39.
    2. Iñaki R Longarela, 2017. "Explaining vertical gender segregation: a research agenda," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 31(5), pages 861-871, October.
    3. Natalie Galea & Abigail Powell & Fanny Salignac & Louise Chappell & Martin Loosemore, 2022. "When Following the Rules Is Bad for Wellbeing: The Effects of Gendered Rules in the Australian Construction Industry," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 36(1), pages 119-138, February.
    4. Tony Lawson, 2009. "Applied economics, contrast explanation and asymmetric information," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 33(3), pages 405-419, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Agustina Borella, 2012. "Isolation and economic models in critical realism," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 37(34), pages 139-152, july-dece.
    2. Rosario Sánchez & Ángeles Diaz & Amparo Urbano, 2024. "Vertical segregation, innovation, and gender diversity in Spain’s industrial sector," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 4975-4996, March.
    3. Ton, Giel & Vellema, Sietze & DeRuyterDeWildt, Marieke, 2011. "Credible evidence on complex change processes: key challenges in impact evaluation on agricultural value chains," MPRA Paper 32027, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Heffron, Raphael J., 2013. "The application of contrast explanation to energy policy research: UK nuclear energy policy 2002–2012," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 602-616.
    5. Donald Gillies, 2012. "Economics and Research Assessment Systems," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 1(1), pages 1-2, July.
    6. Heffron, Raphael J., 2013. "Nuclear energy policy in the United States 1990–2010: A federal or state responsibility?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 254-266.
    7. Phil Faulkner & Stephen Pratten & Jochen Runde, 2017. "Cambridge Social Ontology: Clarification, Development and Deployment," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(5), pages 1265-1277.
    8. Menšík Josef, 2023. "Tony Lawson on money," Review of Economic Perspectives, Sciendo, vol. 23(4), pages 293-306, December.
    9. Jamie Morgan, 2023. "Systemic stablecoin and the brave new world of digital money," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 47(1), pages 215-260.
    10. Tony Lawson, 2014. "Modelación matemática e ideología en la economía académica," Revista de Economía Institucional, Universidad Externado de Colombia - Facultad de Economía, vol. 16(30), pages 25-51, January-J.
    11. Ann E. Davis, 2023. "Genealogy of Finance: Long-term History and Alternatives," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 55(4), pages 660-669, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:38:y:2024:i:5:p:1175-1196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.