• Login
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    Exploring the Norwegian paradox of vertical sex segregation: strategies and experiences in politics, academia and company boards 
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • Exploring the Norwegian paradox of vertical sex segregation: strategies and experiences in politics, academia and company boards
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • Exploring the Norwegian paradox of vertical sex segregation: strategies and experiences in politics, academia and company boards
    ‌
    ‌

    Browse

    All of QMROCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    ‌
    ‌

    Administrators only

    Login
    ‌
    ‌

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Exploring the Norwegian paradox of vertical sex segregation: strategies and experiences in politics, academia and company boards

    View/Open
    SEIERSTADExploringThe2011.pdf (1.856Mb)
    Publisher
    Queen Mary University of London
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    On all international measures of gender equality Scandinavian countries emerge as more equal with Norway as the most equal of countries. Yet, despite an apparent equality, vertical segregation is resilient in Scandinavian countries. The use of affirmative action (AA) has been offered as a potential way to challenge inequality and occupational sex segregation, yet, as illustrated by Acker (2006b) these strategies often fail. Few studies have investigated women’s experience of gender segregation in Norway, moreover, we know little of the experience of women in occupations influenced by AA strategies. This thesis aims to contribute to understanding the experience of women in the ‘most equal of countries’ and it draws on Acker’s (2006b) ‘inequality regimes’ as an analytical framework. This thesis takes a multilevel approach to explore gendering practices within Norway in three occupational groups; politics, academia and corporate boards of directors to understand the processes underpinning vertical segregation. The rationale for focusing on these three occupational groups lies in the nature of the groups and their use of AA, as well as the different representation of women. The thesis builds on a variety of methods of both a qualitative and quantitative nature and will demonstrate the nature of the interrelationship of structural factors and individual agency in understanding the Norwegian paradox. In particular, 66 in-depth interviews with women employed in senior positions within the three occupational groups form the key method. In addition, the thesis draws on secondary quantitative data to situate women in the three occupational groups and in Norway. Findings reveal that the idea of Norway’s equality is still more of an aspiration than reality as gender inequality regimes are present in politics, academia, and boards of directors, but they take different forms. The thesis finds that Norwegian organisations are not gender neutral; instead they provide a set of institutional conditions that encourage forms of vertical segregation. In particular, the thesis identifies the importance of political strategies, both related to AA as well as welfare for improving equality. Nevertheless, the thesis also acknowledges the complexity of these strategies and the importance of designing country and occupational group specific strategies in order to progress. The thesis uncovers the resilience of gendered social processes in women’s exclusion but also highlights the fewer and more constrained conditions under which ‘woman’ may also have an advantage. Hence, this thesis contributes to the literature on occupational sex segregation and AA.
    Authors
    Seierstad, Cathrine
    URI
    http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/2349
    Collections
    • Theses [3321]
    Copyright statements
    The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author
    Twitter iconFollow QMUL on Twitter
    Twitter iconFollow QM Research
    Online on twitter
    Facebook iconLike us on Facebook
    • Site Map
    • Privacy and cookies
    • Disclaimer
    • Accessibility
    • Contacts
    • Intranet
    • Current students

    Modern Slavery Statement

    Queen Mary University of London
    Mile End Road
    London E1 4NS
    Tel: +44 (0)20 7882 5555

    © Queen Mary University of London.