Angaben zur Quelle [Bearbeiten]
| Autor | Romy Fröhlich / Sonja B. Peters |
| Titel | PR Bunnies Caught in the Agency Ghetto? Gender Stereotypes, Organizational Factors, and Women's Careers in PR Agencies |
| Zeitschrift | Journal of Public Relations Research |
| Jahr | 2007 |
| Jahrgang | 19 |
| Nummer | 3 |
| Seiten | 229-254 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1080/10627260701331754 |
Literaturverz. |
no |
| Fußnoten | no |
| Fragmente | 6 |
| [1.] Dsi/Fragment 032 13 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-07-15 20:42:40 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Fröhlich Peters 2007, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 32, Zeilen: 13-18 |
Quelle: Fröhlich Peters 2007 Seite(n): 234, Zeilen: first paragraph |
|---|---|
| Moreover, qualitative U.S. studies (Hon, 1995; Wrigley, 2002) have shown that the organizational context definitely matters in terms of circumstances concerning the work-home conflict or male dominance. Meanwhile, in Germany the number of women varies between different types of public relations organizations (Fröhlich et al., 2005). So, why are there such large differences between different types of organizations?
Hon, L. (1995). Toward a feminist theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 27-88. Wrigley, B. (2002). Glass ceiling? What glass ceiling? A qualitative study of how women view the glass ceiling in public relations and communications management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 27-55. |
The Role of the Organizational Context
As shown previously, in Germany the number of women varies between different types of public relations organizations (Fröhlich et al., 2005). But why are there such large differences between different types of organizations? [...] However, qualitative U.S. studies (e.g., Hon, 1995; Wrigley, 2002) have shown that the organizational context definitely matters in terms of circumstances concerning the work-home conflict or male dominance. Fröhlich, R., Peters, S. B., & Simmelbauer, E.-M. (2005). Public Relations. Daten und Fakten der geschlechtsspezifischen Berufsfeldforschung [Public relations. Data and facts from gender-specific research]. München, Germany: Oldenbourg. Hon, L. C. (1995). Towards a feminist theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 27–88. Wrigley, B. J. (2002). Glass ceiling? What glass ceiling? A qualitative study of how women view the glass ceiling in public relations and communications management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 27–55. |
The true source is not given. There is no Fröhlich et al. 2005 in the reference list of Dsi, only a Fröhlich 2004. |
|
| [2.] Dsi/Fragment 116 09 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-07-18 12:47:20 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Fröhlich Peters 2007, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 116, Zeilen: 9-23 |
Quelle: Fröhlich Peters 2007 Seite(n): 231, Zeilen: first paragraph |
|---|---|
| To summarize briefly, in public relations and feminist research, there are two main perspectives on the sex differences in the field: The radical feminist approach and the liberal feminist approach. The radical feminist or individualist perspective suggests explanations that lie in the structural demands of organizations and society. Advocates point to male-dominated work environments, traditional sex roles, and the overall devaluation of women and women’s work as main process of selection, channeling women into jobs and positions of less prestige and status. Women’s discrimination is described as the “aimed product of patriarchal strategies of power and influence” (Heintz, Nadai, Fischer, & Ummel, 1997, p. 32). Accordingly, changes of social, organizational, and professional circumstances are claimed. In contrast, the liberal feminist approach, or structuralist perspective, focuses on individual, mostly socialized characteristics and preferences – this means processes of self-selection. Supposed less managerial skills (gender stereotypes) and alleged less interest in managerial tasks (socialized preferences, self-stereotyping) are said to explain sex differences. Women are assumed to have specific characteristics caused by gender-specific socialization processes that make them [more suitable for certain tasks (like communications) than others (like management).] | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Different Perspectives on the Feminization and the Segmentation of the Field To summarize briefly, in public relations and feminization research, there are two main perspectives on the sex differences in the field: (a) The radical feminist approach or individualist perspective (see, e.g., Rakow, 1989) suggests explanations that lie in the structural demands of organizations and society. Advocates point to male-dominated work environments, traditional sex roles (i.e., especially women’s work–home conflict), and the overall devaluation of women and women’s work as main processes of selection, canalizing women into jobs and positions of less prestige and status. Women’s discrimination is described as the “aimed product of patriarchical strategies of power and influence” (Heintz, Nadai, Fischer, & Ummel, 1997, p. 32; translated by authors). Accordingly, changes of social, organizational, and professional circumstances are claimed. (b) In contrast, the liberal feminist approach, or structuralist perspective, focuses on individual, mostly socialized characteristics and preferences—this means processes of self-selection (including, e.g., the human capitalists” [sic] model; see, e.g., Aldoory & Toth, 2002). Supposed less managerial skills (gender stereotypes) and alleged less interest in managerial tasks (socialized preferences, self-stereotyping) are said to explain sex differences. Women are assumed to have specific characteristics caused by gender-specific socialization processes that make them more suitable for certain tasks (like communications) than others (like management). Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. L. (2002). Gender discrepancies in a gendered profession: A developing theory for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 103–126. Heintz, B., Nadai, E., Fischer, R., & Ummel, H. (1997). Ungleich unter Gleichen. Studien zur geschlechtsspezifischen Segregation des Arbeitsmarktes [Studies about the gender-specific segregation of the job market]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus. Rakow, L. F. (1989). A bridge to the future: Re-visioning gender in communication. In P. J. Creedon (Ed.), Women in mass communication: Challenging gender values (pp. 299–312). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. |
The true source is not given. There is no Heintz, Nadai, Fischer, & Ummel 1997 in the reference list of Dsi. |
|
| [3.] Dsi/Fragment 117 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-07-18 10:33:02 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Fröhlich Peters 2007, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 117, Zeilen: 1-4 |
Quelle: Fröhlich Peters 2007 Seite(n): 231, Zeilen: 20 ff. |
|---|---|
| [Women are assumed to have specific characteristics caused by gender-specific socialization processes that make them] more suitable for certain tasks (like communications) than others (like management). Accordingly, strategies to overcome the glass ceiling are mainly the individual’s responsibility – namely, that women are recommended to adopt male characteristics and behavior. Others rejected this perspective as “blaming the victim” (Hon, 1995, p. 34).
Hon, L. (1995). Toward a feminist theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 27-88. |
Women are assumed to have specific characteristics caused by gender-specific socialization processes that make them more suitable for certain tasks (like communications) than others (like management). Accordingly, strategies to overcome the glass ceiling are mainly the individual’s responsibility—namely, that women are recommended to adopt male characteristics and behavior. Others rejected this perspective as “blaming the victim” (Hon, 1995, p. 34).
Hon, L. C. (1995). Towards a feminist theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 27–88. |
The source is not given. |
|
| [4.] Dsi/Fragment 118 19 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-07-18 10:37:12 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Fröhlich Peters 2007, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 118, Zeilen: 19-23 |
Quelle: Fröhlich Peters 2007 Seite(n): 232, Zeilen: first paragraph |
|---|---|
| This chapter is important in this study because it analyzes the center of the controversial debate in research on the feminization of public relations, which is marked by the interpretation of presumed gender differences. The two main questions are: 1. Whether, and to what extent, women and men are generally suited to public relations and 2. Women’s and men’s specific suitability for the two main public relations roles – [namely, the technical and the managerial role.] | The Role of Gender Stereotypes
The center of the controversial debate in research on the feminization of public relations is marked by the interpretation of presumed gender differences. The two main questions are (a) whether, and to what extent, women and men are generally suited to public relations and (b) women’s and men’s specific suitability for the two main public relations roles—namely, the technical and the managerial role. |
The source is not given. |
|
| [5.] Dsi/Fragment 119 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-07-18 12:55:03 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Fröhlich Peters 2007, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 119, Zeilen: 1-11 |
Quelle: Fröhlich Peters 2007 Seite(n): 232, 233, 249, Zeilen: 232: 3ff; 233: last sentence ; 249: 5-7 |
|---|---|
| [The two main questions are: 1. Whether, and to what extent, women and men are generally suited to public relations and 2. Women’s and men’s specific suitability for the two main public relations roles –] namely, the technical and the managerial role. Advocates of a model of female superiority in public relations argue that “feminist values” have a positive effect on professional public relations and the efficiency of public relations as a whole, which consequently would lead to a growing valuation of women, particularly at management level (Aldoory, 1998; Aldoory & Toth, 2001; Dozier, L.A. Grunig, & J.E. Grunig, 1995; L.A. Grunig et al., 2000; Rakow, 1989). But there are also voices that express concern about this essential stressing of “feminist values,” saying that they would actually reinforce the traditional gender role socialization and are of little help in changing the male-dominated status quo and structures (Wrigley, 2002; Fröhlich, 2004), and thus won’t have any positive effects on women’s development of self-concepts and rather simply lead women to another kind of self-deception.
Aldoory, L. (1998). The Language of Leadership for Female Public Relations Professionals. Public Relations Journal, 10(2), 73-101. Aldoory, L. & Toth, E. L. (2001). Two feminists, six opinions: The complexities of feminism in communication scholarship today (pp. 345–361). In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (24, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fröhlich, R. (2004). Feminine and feminist values in communication professions: Exceptional skills and expertise or 'friendliness trap'? In M. de Bruin and K. Ross (Eds.), Gender & newsroom cultures: Industries [sic] at work (pp. 67-80). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Grunig, L.A., Toth, E. L., & Hon, L. C. (2000). Feminist values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 49–68. Rakow, L.F. (1989). Feminist studies: The next stage. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6(2), 209-213. Wrigley, B. (2002). Glass ceiling? What glass ceiling? A qualitative study of how women view the glass ceiling in public relations and communications management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 27-55. |
[page 232]
The two main questions are (a) whether, and to what extent, women and men are generally suited to public relations and (b) women’s and men’s specific suitability for the two main public relations roles—namely, the technical and the managerial role. Advocates of a model of female superiority in public relations argue that “feminist values” have a positive effect on professional public relations and the efficiency of public relations as a whole, which consequently would lead to a growing valuation of women, particularly at management level (see Aldoory, 1998; Aldoory & Toth, 2001; Dozier, L. A. Grunig, & J. E. Grunig, 1995; L. A. Grunig et al., 2000; Rakow, 1989). [...] But there are also voices that express concern about this essential stressing of “feminist values.” Wrigley (2002) considered that the “new” feminist values really mean a reinforcement of traditional gender role socialization and are of little help in changing the male-dominated status quo and structures (p. 43). And Fröhlich (2004) even went beyond this when she criticized that [...] [page 233] We doubt the positive effects of this meaning making on women’s innovation of self-concepts and rather believe it to lead to simply another kind of self-deception. [page 249] In our opinion, concepts like the “feminist values” (L. A. Grunig et al., 2000) contribute to women’s self-stereotyping instead of supporting a more conscious and individual development of self-concepts. Aldoory, L. (1998). The language of leadership for female public relations professionals. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(2), 73–101. Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. L. (2001). Two feminists, six opinions: The complexities of feminism in communication scholarship today. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 24 (pp. 345–361). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Fröhlich, R. (2004). Feminine and feminist values in communication professions: Exceptional skills and expertise or “friendliness trap?” In M. de Bruin & K. Ross (Eds.), Gender and newsroom cultures: Identities at work (pp. 65–77). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Grunig, L. A., Toth, E. L., & Hon, L. C. (2000). Feminist values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 49–68. Rakow, L. F. (1989). A bridge to the future: Re-visioning gender in communication. In P. J. Creedon (Ed.), Women in mass communication: Challenging gender values (pp. 299–312). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wrigley, B. J. (2002). Glass ceiling? What glass ceiling? A qualitative study of how women view the glass ceiling in public relations and communications management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 27–55. |
The true source is not given. There is no Dozier, L.A. Grunig, & J.E. Grunig 1995 in the reference list. |
|
| [6.] Dsi/Fragment 169 11 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-07-18 12:58:46 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Fröhlich Peters 2007, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 169, Zeilen: 11-14 |
Quelle: Fröhlich Peters 2007 Seite(n): 234, Zeilen: first paragraph |
|---|---|
| Moreover, studies in Western countries (Hon, 1995; Wrigley, 2002, Fröhlich et al., 2005) have shown that the organizational context definitely matters in terms of circumstances concerning the work-home conflict or male dominance, and in some cases the number of women varies between different types of public relations organizations.
Hon, L. (1995). Toward a feminist theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 27-88. Fröhlich, R. (2004). Feminine and feminist values in communication professions: Exceptional skills and expertise or 'friendliness trap'? In M. de Bruin and K. Ross (Eds.), Gender & newsroom cultures: Industries [sic] at work (pp. 67-80). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Wrigley, B. (2002). Glass ceiling? What glass ceiling? A qualitative study of how women view the glass ceiling in public relations and communications management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 27-55. |
The Role of the Organizational Context
As shown previously, in Germany the number of women varies between different types of public relations organizations (Fröhlich et al., 2005). [...] However, qualitative U.S. studies (e.g., Hon, 1995; Wrigley, 2002) have shown that the organizational context definitely matters in terms of circumstances concerning the work-home conflict or male dominance. Hon, L. C. (1995). Towards a feminist theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 27–88. Fröhlich, R. (2004). Feminine and feminist values in communication professions: Exceptional skills and expertise or “friendliness trap?” In M. de Bruin & K. Ross (Eds.), Gender and newsroom cultures: Identities at work (pp. 65–77). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Wrigley, B. J. (2002). Glass ceiling? What glass ceiling? A qualitative study of how women view the glass ceiling in public relations and communications management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 27–55. |
The true source is not given. |
|