Caven, V (2006) Career building: Women and non-standard employment in architecture. Construction Management and Economics, 24(5), pp. 457-464. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Non-standard working arrangements are traditionally associated with insecure employment and thus said to act as a constraint on women architects' careers. The working patterns of 37 women architects have been examined using a career life history approach and findings indicate that to follow non-standard working patterns in professional employment need not necessarily serve to constrain and may even enhance women's career development. Many of the women architects following non-standard forms of employment find that it has been beneficial to their career. The recurring theme from these interviews was the need to be able to follow a career but on certain terms. The time commitment required prior to qualification provides a strong motivation to continue working throughout their working lives.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; career; women |
| Index terms: | interview, employment, architect, women, commitment, motivation, qualification, history, career |
| Subjects: | professional development, educational resources, data collection methods, psychology, management, profession, architectural and construction history, sociology |
| Topics: | Information Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Human Resources, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here