This article examines the roles that occupational segregation and gender bias in the welfare professions play in persistent failures in inter-agency and inter-professional collaborations. Drawing on case study evidence from a Local Safeguarding Children Board in England, a ‘serendipity pattern’ of gender dominance is identified within professions affecting inter-professional collaborations such as those prevalent in Local Safeguarding Children Boards. As we assign this pattern ‘strategic interpretation’, we suggest that policy measures taken to augment the effectiveness of welfare partnerships have, so far, paid insufficient attention to the critical variable of gender, due to over-emphasis on the organisations, rather than the professions, involved. The article’s contribution to practice is unravelling the potential of this oversight to contribute to failure to establish a collaborative mind-set. Our contribution to theory is highlighting specific cultural barriers to inter-professional collaborations, unravelling the power differentials rooted in gender inequity in public sector workforces and challenging professional and organizational traditionalism. In doing so, we offer empirical evidence of the ‘gender hypothesis’ in welfare partnerships and indicate how future investigations might be pursued in this area.
Aaltion-MarjosolaI (1994) Gender stereotypes as cultural products of the organisations. Scandinavian Journal of Management10(2): 147–162.
2.
AbbottPMeerabeauL (1998) Professionals, professionalization and the caring professions. In: AbbottPMeerabeauL (eds) The Sociology of the Caring Professions, London: Routledge.
3.
AckroydS (1996) Organisation contra organisations: Professions and organisational change in the United Kingdom. Organisation Studies17(4): 599–621.
4.
AllenD (1997) The nursing-medical boundary: A negotiated order?Sociology of Health and Illness19(4): 498–529.
AnkerR (1998) Gender and Jobs: Sex Segregation of Occupations in the World, Geneva: International Labour Organisation Press.
7.
AnnesleyCGainsFRummeryK (2010) Engendering politics and policy: The legacy of New Labour. Policy and Politics38(3): 389–406.
8.
BartonAQuinnC (2001) Mandated ‘joined-up’ working: A Pandora. Box for welfarist organisations?Public Policy and Administration16(2): 50–62.
9.
Beveridge F, Nott S and Stephen K (eds) (2000) Making Women Count: Integrating Gender into Law and Policy Making. Aldershot: Ashgate.
10.
Blattel-MinkBKuhlmanE (2003) Health professions, gender and society: Introduction and outlook. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy23(4/5): 1–21.
11.
BoltonSMuzioD (2008) The paradoxical processes of feminization in the professions: The case of established, aspiring and semi-professions. Work, Employment and Society22(2): 281–299.
12.
BrowneJ (2006) Sex segregation and inequality in the modern labour market, Bristol: Public Policy Press.
13.
BurrV (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism, London: Routledge.
14.
CainM (1972) Police professionalism: Its meaning and consequences. Anglo-American Law Review1(2): 217–231.
15.
CareyGDickinsonH (2015) Gender in public administration: Looking back and moving forward. Australian Journal of Public Administration74(4): 509–515.
16.
Connell R (1995) Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
17.
CurrieGFinnRMartinG (2008) Accounting for the ‘dark side’ of new organizational forms: The case of healthcare professionals. Human Relations61(4): 539–564.
18.
Department for Education and Skills (2004) Every Child Matters: Next Steps, London: HMSO.
19.
Department for Education and Skills (2011) School workforce in England: November 2010.
20.
Department of Health (1991) Child Abuse. A Study of Inquiry Reports 1980–1989, London: TSO.
21.
Department of Health (2005) NHS Hospital and Community Health Service Non-Medical Workforce Census, England: 30 September 2005.
22.
Department of Health (2013) NHS Hospital and Community Health Service Non-Medical Workforce Census, England: 30 September 2012. Detailed results, www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB10393 (accessed August 2013).
23.
EtzioniA (1969) The Semi-Professions and Their Organisation, New York, NY: The Free Press.
24.
Dudau AI and McAllister L (2010) Developing collaborative capabilities by fostering diversity in organizations: evidence from a case study of youth offending teams in local safeguarding children boards. Public Management Review 12(3): 385–402.
25.
Dudau A, Fischbacher-Smith D and McAllister L (2016) The unsung heroes of welfare collaboration: complexities around individualsã contribution to effective inter-agency working in LSCBs. Public Management Review 18(10): 1536–1558.
26.
EvansJ (1997) Men in nursing: Issues of gender segregation and hidden advantage. Journal of Advanced Nursing26: 226–231.
27.
Evetts J (2002) New directions in state and international professional occupations: discretionary decision-making and acquired regulation. Work, Employment and Society, 16(2): 341–353.
28.
Ferguson KE (1991) Interpretation and genealogy in feminism. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 16(2): 322–339.
29.
GherardiS (1995) Gender, Symbolism and Organisational Cultures, London: SAGE.
30.
GittelJHGodfreyMThistlethwaiteJ (2013) Interprofessional collaborative practice and relational coordination: Improving healthcare through relationships. Journal of Interprofessional Care27: 210–213.
31.
GoodeWJ (1957) Community within a community: The professions. American Sociological Review22(2): 194–200.
32.
GuyMNewmanMA (2004) Women's jobs, men's jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. Public Administration Review63(4): 289–298.
33.
HallP (2005) Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care19(Suppl 1): 188–196.
34.
HakimC (1993) Segregated and integrated occupations: A new approach to analysing social change. European Sociological Review9(3): 289–314.
35.
Halford S and Leonard P (2001) Gender, Power and Organisations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
36.
HearnJ (1982) Notes on patriarchy, professionalization and the semi-professions. Sociology16(2): 184–202.
37.
HenrikssonLWredeSBurauV (2006) Understanding professional projects in welfare service work: Revival of old professionalism?Gender, Work & Organization13(2): 174–192.
38.
HM Government (2006) Working Together to Safeguard Children. A Guide to Inter-agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children, London: TSO.
39.
HMSO (2004) Children Act 2004, London: TSO.
40.
Hochschild A (1983) The Managed Heart: The Commercialization of the Human Heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.
HormanDJCampbellJDDeGregoryJL (1987) Gender and the attribution of the nurse practitioner and physician status. Medical Care25(9): 847–855.
43.
Hudson B (1987) Collaboration in social welfare: a framework for analysis. Policy & Politics 15(3): 175–182.
44.
Hudson B (2007) Pessimism and optimism in inter-professional working: the Sedgefield integrated team. Journal of Interprofessional Care 21(1): 3–15.
45.
Hussein S (2009) Social care workforce profile: Age, gender and ethnicity. Social Care Workforce Periodical (2). Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King College London.
46.
Jacobs JA (1999) The sex segregation of occupations: Prospects for the 21st century. In Powell, G (ed.) Handbook of Gender and Work. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. pp.125–144.
47.
Johnston MillerKMcTavishD (2014) Representative bureaucracy: A typology of normative institutional strategies for the representation of women. Policy & Politics42(4): 531–546.
48.
Kanter RM (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
49.
Keiser LR, Wilkins VM, Meier KJ and Holland CA (2002) Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96(3): 553–564.
50.
KellyRMNewmanM (2001) The gendered bureaucracy: Agency mission, equality of opportunity, and representative bureaucracies. Women & Politics22(3): 1–33.
51.
KerrBMillerWReidM (2002) Sex based occupational segregation in the US State Bureaucracies 1987-97. Public Administration Review62(4): 412–423.
52.
KnealeSJ (1994) Discrimination – A hidden barrier to the development of interprofessional practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care8(2): 151–155.
53.
Krook M and Mackay F (eds) (2015) Gender, Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
54.
LamingL (2003) The Victoria Climbie Inquiry. Report of an Inquiry by Lord Laming (chairman) January 2003, London: The Stationery Office.
55.
Leathard A (ed) (1994) Going Inter-professional. Working Together for Health and Welfare. London: Routledge.
LowiTJ (1985) The state in politics: The relation between policy and administration. In: NollRG (ed.) Regulatory Policy and the Social Sciences, Berkeley: University of California Press.
59.
LuptonCNorthNKhanP (2001) Working Together or Pulling Apart? The National Health Service and Child Protection Networks, Bristol: The Policy Press.
60.
MackayF (2005) Women’s representation in Wales and Scotland. Contemporary Wales17(1): 140–161.
61.
MackayFWaylenG (2014) Gendering new institutions. Politics and Gender10(4): 489–494.
62.
MaierM (1999) On the gendered substructure of organizations: Dimensions and dilemmas of corporate masculinity. In: PowellG (ed.) Handbook of Gender & Work, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
63.
Meier KJ and Nicholson-Crotty J (2006) Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review 66(6): 850–860.
64.
MartinJ (1994) The organisation of exclusion: Institutionalisation of sex inequality, gendered faculty jobs and gendered knowledge in organisational theory and research. Organisation1(2): 401–431.
65.
MertonT (1948) The bearing of empirical research upon the development of social theory. American Sociological Review13(5): 505–515.
66.
McConnellA (2015) What is policy failure? A primer to help navigate the maze. Public Policy and Administration30(3–4): 221–242.
67.
McKieLBowlbySGregoryS (2001) Gender, caring and employment in Britain. Journal of Social Policy30(2): 233–258.
68.
MeierKJMastracciSHWilsonK (2006) Gender and emotional labor in public organizations: An empirical examination of the link to performance. Public Administration Review66(6): 899–909.
69.
MolyneuxJ (2001) Interprofessional teamworking: What makes teams work well?Journal of Interprofessional Care15(1): 29–35.
70.
Moreno JL (1934) Who Shall Survive? Foundations of Sociometry, Group Psychotherapy, and Sociodrama. New York, NY: Beacon House.
71.
MullaneyJWListonF (1974) Clinical nurse specialist and social workers-clarifying roles. Social Work Health Care22(7): 712–718.
72.
MurphyR (1988) Social Closure: The Theory of Monopolisation and Exclusion, Oxford: Clarendon.
O’FlynnJ (2013) Crossing boundaries: The fundamental questions in public management. In: O’FlynnJWannaJ (eds) Crossing Boundaries in Public Management and Policy: The International Experience, London: Routledge, pp. 11–44.
75.
Ofsted, Healthcare Commission and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (2008) Joint Area Review Haringey Children’s Services Authority Area: Review of Services for Children and Young People, with Particular Reference to Safeguarding, TSO: London.
76.
ParkinF (1972) Class, Inequality and Political Order, London: Tavistock.
77.
PhillipsA (1995) Politics of Presence, Clarendon Press: Oxford.
78.
PopperKR (1972) Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
79.
RederPDuncanS (2003) Understanding communication in child protection networks. Child Abuse Review12(1): 82–100.
80.
Rothschild J (1992) Principles of Feminist Trade Union Organizations. In Workshop of Feminist Organizations, Washington, DC.
81.
RummeryKColemanA (2002) Primary care and social work services in the UK: Progress towards partnership?Social Science & Medicine56(8): 1773–1782.
82.
ScourfieldJ (2006) The challenge of engaging fathers in the child protection process. Critical Social Policy26(2): 440–449.
83.
ScourfieldJCoffeyA (2002) Understanding gendered practice in child protection. Qualitative Social Work1(3): 319–340.
84.
Simpson RL (1985) Social control of occupations and work. Annual Review of Sociology 11(1): 415–436.
85.
SimpsonRLSimpsonIH (1969) Women and bureaucracy in the semi-professions. In: EtzioniA (ed.) The Semi-Professions and Their Organisation, New York: Holt-Rhinehart-Winston.
86.
Snow DA and Anderson L (1991) Researching the Homeless. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Pp. 148–173.
StiversC (2002) Gender Images in Public Administration: Legitimacy and the Administrative State, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
89.
Tesch R (1990) Qualitative Research. Analysis Types and Software Tools. London: The Falmer Press.
90.
Tolbert PS, Graham ME and Andrews AO (1999) Group gender composition and work group relations: Theories, evidence, and issues. In Powell, G. (ed.) Handbook of Gender and Work. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. pp. 179–202.
91.
Tsui AS and O'Reilly CA (1989) Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2): 402–423.
92.
Van de VenAH (1975) On the nature, formation and maintenance of relations among organisations. Academy of Management Review1(4): 24–36.
93.
Whetten DA (1981) Interorganizational relations: A review of the field. The Journal of Higher Education, 52(1): 1–28.
94.
WilkinsVMKeiserLR (2004) Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16: 87–102.
95.
ZittounP (2015) Analysing policy failure as an argumentative strategy in the policymaking process: A pragmatist perspective. Public Policy and Administration30(3–4): 243–260.
