Search

This thesis focuses on consideration of gender differences in the academic profession. Analysis utilises a unique dataset, rich in its variable base, for academic staff from five old established Scottish universities during 1995-1996. These universities are institutions with a strong sense of tradition and respected research reputations. We therefore analyse the most research orientated segment of the academic profession, the established universities, arguably the most influential, as their behaviour may be an important signal to the entire profession. This study is the first systematic investigation of this sector of the labour market in the UK. It focuses on three main issues: subject specialisation and the distribution of academics across faculties; male and female salaries in academia; and the determinants of job satisfaction for academics across gender and components of job satisfaction. The analysis undertaken attempts to develop the economic literature on gender differences in a number of ways. First it analyses these issues in the context of a single profession. It attempts to replicate with British data some US findings. It undertakes for the academic profession, analysis which has previously only been undertaken at a national level. Finally, it runs analysis with a set of variables more relevant to the study of gender differences in academic than have been used in previous papers. Analysis reveals a gross gender salary differential in the order of 30% for the whole dataset, or 15% when research assistants are excluded. Gender differences in promotion opportunity, subject choice, salary affiliation, but not overall job satisfaction are uncovered, although reports of satisfaction with salary, job security and promotion prospects do vary by gender. We find evidence of the role of discrimination, individual choice and differential productivity in the explanation of gender differences uncovered.

This study first examines the nature of Social Work from a historical perspective, with reference to previous attempts at definition. It then proposes a sociological basis for explaining Social Work as a social system, with reference to the concepts of duality, structural functionalism, evolutionary functionalism, ultimate values, conflict theory, change, power and authority. These concepts are applied to the Social Work system. Education and training and practice are viewed as sub-units of the Social Work system and tension between the sub-units is analysed with regard to one area of interdependence - qualifying training for field social work. One social work training course is used as an evaluative study, and six areas of interdependence and conflict are identified by a paper analysis of all documentation available from the beginning of the course onwards. The findings are converted to a series of exploratory questions posed in questionnaire form to respondents representing each of the sub-units. The questionnaire is also presented to a comparison group. The identified six key areas of interdependence and conflict are confirmed, namely: theory of social work, theory and practice integration, curriculum design, practice competence, assessment and resources. One model for action within the social system of education and training and practice is developed. This is then discussed in relation to current national planning for education and training and conclusions are drawn on the likely success of current plans. The sub-units, and the six key areas are then examined further in relation to the sociological framework propounded. The transferability of the model of research is demonstrated with reference to the sub-units, generic and specialist models of practice, and the implications for future research are thereby identified. The need for further research into areas of interdependence and tension in vocational work is noted.