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.
AbrassartA. (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
2.
AckerJ. (2012). Gendered organizations and intersectionality: Problems and possibilities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31, 214-224. doi:10.1108/02610151211209072
3.
AdikaramA. 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
4.
AlvessonM.BillingY. D. (2009). Understanding gender and organizations. London, England: Sage.
5.
AtewologunD.SealyR.VinnicombeS. (2016). Revealing intersectional dynamics in organizations: Introducing “intersectional identity work.”Gender, Work & Organization, 23, 223-247. doi:10.1111/gwao.12082
6.
BenschopY. (2009). The micro-politics of gendering in networking. Gender, Work & Organization, 16, 217-237. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00438.x
7.
BieremaL. (2002). A feminist approach to HRD research. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 244-268. doi: 10.1177/1534484302012006
8.
BieremaL. 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
9.
BieremaL. L.CallahanJ. (2014). Transforming HRD: A framework for critical HRD practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16, 429-444. doi:10.1177/1523422314543818
10.
BieremaL. L.CsehM. (2003). Evaluating AHRD research using a feminist research framework. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(1), 5-26. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1047
11.
BieremaL. L.CsehM. (2014). A critical feminist turn in HRD. In N. E.ChalofskyT.RoccoM. LMorris. (Eds.), Handbook of human resource development. London, England: John Wiley.
12.
BillingY. 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.
BroadbridgeA. (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.
BroadbridgeA.HearnJ. (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.
ByrdM. 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.
ByrdM. Y.StanleyC. A. (2009). Bringing the voices together. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 657–666. doi:10.1177/1523422309351817
17.
CollinsJ. 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.
CollinsP. H. (1998). The tie that binds: Race, gender and US violence. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21, 917-938. doi:10.1080/014198798329720
19.
CullenP.MurphyM. 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.
DevinsD.GoldJ. (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.
DickerR.PiepmeierA. (2003). Catching a wave: Reclaiming feminism for the 21st century. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
22.
DiehlA. B.DzubinskiL. M. (2016). Making the invisible visible: A cross-sectoral analysis of gender based leadership barriers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 27, 181-207.
23.
DischL. J.HawkesworthM. (2016). The Oxford handbook of feminist theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24.
EichlerM. (2017). Add female veterans and stir? A feminist perspective on gendering veterans research. Armed Forces & Society, 43, 674-694. doi:10.1177/0095327X16682785
FlaxJ. (1999). Women do theory. In PearsallM. (Ed.), Women and values: Readings in recent feminist philosophy (pp. 9-13). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
27.
FletcherJ. (1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and relational practice at work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
FordJ.HardingN. (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.
FotakiM. (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.
FreedmanJ. (2001). Feminism: Concepts in the social sciences. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
31.
GedroJ.CollinsJ.C.RoccoT. 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.
GedroJ.MizziR. 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.
GoldJ.ThorpeR. (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.
HatmakerD. 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.
HeilmanM. E.OkimotoT. 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.
HirudayarajM.ClayC. (in press). Experiences of women veterans within the private sector: Examining the intersectionality of gender and veteran status. Human Resource Development Quarterly.
37.
HoeberL. (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.
HolvinoE. (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
IsmailM.RasdiR. 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-MarieG.WilliamsV. A.ShermanS. 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.
JohnsonL. N.ThomasK. 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.
KangH. J.ChaiD. S.McLeanG. 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.
KumraS. (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.
KumraS.VinnicombeS. (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-JonesB. (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.
LorberJ. (1997). The variety of feminisms and their contributions to gender equality. Oldenburg, Germany: Bibliotheks-und Informations System der Universität Oldenburg.
48.
MavinS. (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.
MavinS.BryansP.CunninghamR. (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.
MichnaA.KmieciakR.Burzyńska-PtaszekK. (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
ProcknowG.RoccoT. 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.
RakowL. F.WackwitzL. A. (2004). Feminist communication theory: Selections in context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
RaoA.StuartR.KelleherD. (1999). Gender at work: Organizational change for equality. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
55.
RudmanL. A.PhelanJ. 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.
ScottL.DolanC.Johnstone–LouisM.SugdenK.WuM. (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.
SealyR.SinghV. (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.
ShawS.LeeJ. (2004). Women’s voices, feminist visions: Classic and contemporary readings. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
59.
StamarskiC. S.Son HingL. 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.
SyedJ.MetcalfeB. 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 BrinkM.BenschopY.JansenW. (2010). Transparency in academic recruitment: A problematic tool for gender equality?Organization Studies, 31, 1459-1483. doi:10.1177/0170840610380812
62.
WangX.McLeanG. (2007). The dilemma of defining international human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 6, 96-108. doi:10.1177/1534484306296305
63.
WarrenK. J. (1993). The power and the promise of ecological feminism. In ZimmermanM. E.CallicottJ. B.SessionsG.WarrenK. J.ClarkJ. (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: From animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 320-341). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
64.
WendellS. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of disability. Hypatia, 4, 104-124. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1989.tb00576.x
65.
WilsonF.NutleyS. (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.
ZulfiqarG. M.KhanM. (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
