Ideologies constrain and shape the sense that people make of sexual harassment experiences in the workplace. Victims, harassers, and witnesses are all influenced by the discourse that informs the decisions they make in relation to sexual harassment in the workplace. This research examined the implications of ideologies and discourses surrounding sexual harassment through interviews with four male professors from a large, southwestern U.S. university, who describe their experience as victims of sexual harassment.The men’s accounts revealed shifts back and forth between several ideological positions as a way to make sense of their experiences, highlighting the impact of hegemonic masculinity, the complicated process of consent, and the contrast between the experiences of male and female victims.
Alvesson, M. ( 2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28, 13-33.
2.
Ashcraft, K.L. ( 2005). Resistance through consent? Occupational identity, organizational form, and the maintenance of masculinity among commercial airline pilots. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 67-90.
3.
Bingham, S.G., & Scherer, L.L. ( 1993). Factors associated with responses to sexual harassment and satisfaction with outcome. Sex Roles, 29, 239-269.
4.
Charmaz, K. ( 2001). Grounded theory. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 335-352). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
5.
Clair, R.P. ( 1993a). The bureaucratization, commodification, and privatization of sexual harassment through institutional discourse: A study of the big ten universities. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 123-157.
6.
Clair, R.P. ( 1993b). The use of framing devices to sequester organizational narratives: Hegemony and harassment. Communication Monographs , 60, 113-136.
7.
Clair, R.P. ( 1994). Resistance and oppression as a self-contained opposite: An organizational communication analysis of one man’s story of sexual harassment. Western Journal of Communication, 58, 235-262.
8.
Clair, R.P. ( 1998). Organizing silence: A world of possibilities. New York: State University.
Deetz, S.A. ( 2005). Critical theory. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory & research (pp. 85-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Denzin, N.K. ( 1992). Whose Cornerville is it, anyway? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 21, 120-132.
13.
Dougherty, D.S. ( 2001a). Sexual harassment as [dys]functional process: A feminist standpoint analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 29, 372-402.
14.
Dougherty, D.S. ( 2001b). Women’s discursive construction of a sexual harassment paradox. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 2, 6-13.
15.
Dougherty, D.S. ( 2006). Gendered constructions of power during discourse about sexual harassment: Negotiating competing meanings. Sex Roles , 54, 495-507.
16.
Dougherty, D.S., & Smythe, M.J. ( 2004). Sensemaking, organizational culture, and sexual harassment . Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 293-317.
17.
Dzeich, B.W., & Weiner, L. ( 1998). Sexual harassment in higher education: Reflections and new perspectives. New York: Garland .
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ( 2008). Statistics on sexual harassment. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment.cfm
20.
Ferguson, K.E. ( 1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
21.
Frey, L.R. ( 1998). Communication and social justice research: Truth, justice, and the applied communication way. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26, 155-164.
22.
Geist, P., & Hardesty, M. ( 1990). Ideological positioning in professionals’ narratives of quality medical care. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 11, 257-284.
23.
Goffman, E. ( 1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
24.
Gramsci, A. ( 1971). Selections from prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
25.
Kaland, D.M., & Geist, P. ( 1994). Secrets of the corporation: A model of ideological positioning of sexual harassment victims. In S. G. Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice (pp. 139-155). Westport, CT: Praeger.
26.
Lapeter, L. ( 2007, May). More men report sexual harassment by men. St. Petersburg Times (Florida), p. 6B.
27.
Lindemann, K. ( 2010). Cleaning up my (father’s) mess: Narrative Containments of "leaky" masculinities. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 29-38.
28.
Lindlof, T.R., & Taylor, B.C. ( 2002). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Nafstad, H.E., Blakar, R.M., Carlquist, E., Phelps, J.M., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2007). Ideology and power: The influence of current Neo-liberalism in society. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 317-327.
30.
Perry, L.A.M., & Geist, P. ( 1997). Introduction. In L. A. M. Perry & P. Geist (Eds.), Courage of conviction; Women’s words, women’s voices (pp. 1-15). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
31.
Pheko, M. ( 2007, May). Pity the men who don’t enjoy being abused by women. Sunday Times (South Africa), Opinion and Editorial, p. 29.
32.
Scarduzio, J.A., & Geist-Martin, P. (2008). Making sense of fractured identities: Male professors’ narratives of sexual harassment. Communication Monographs, 75, 369-395.
33.
Schneider, B. ( 2000). Managers as evaluators: Invoking objectivity to achieve objectives. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 36, 159-173.
34.
Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. ( 1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35.
Street, A., Gradus, J., Stafford, J., & Kelly, K. ( 2007). Gender differences in experiences of sexual harassment: Data from a male-dominated environment. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 75, 464-474.
36.
Townsley, N.C., & Geist, P. ( 2000). The discursive enactment of hegemony: Sexual harassment and academic organizing. Western Journal of Communication , 64, 190-217.
37.
Waldo, C.R., Berdahl, J.L., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1998). Are men sexually harassed? If so, by whom?Law and Human Behavior, 22, 59-79.
38.
Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. ( 1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology , 9, 335-356.
39.
Wetherell, M., Stiven, H., & Potter, J. ( 1987). Unequal egalitarianism: A preliminary study of discourses concerning gender and employment opportunities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 59-71.
40.
Wood, J.T. ( 1992). Telling our stories: Narratives as a basis for theorizing about sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 349-364.
