Identity Construction in Gendered Workplaces

Introduction

Interactional Sociolinguistics (IS) is a dominant approach in workplace discourse analysis and gender research within linguistics.
This chapter explores the intersection of gender and gender identity in the workplace, using examples from various workplaces.
Recent discussions focus on agency, structure, and the impact of ideologies, including hegemonic orders that constrain language use at work.
The analysis of gender has shifted from gender identity construction to workplaces as gendered settings, challenging static conceptualizations of gender.
All workplaces are gendered, and gender is indexed, negotiated, and challenged in various ways depending on the context.

Workplace research and IS

IS is well-suited for capturing discursive complexities, connecting micro-practices to sociocultural contexts.
It allows access to gender performativity and helps destabilize notions of a 'core' gender identity.
IS considers the role of the researcher and the importance of reflexivity.
Gender is considered omnirelevant, making IS valuable for investigating gender.
Early IS research on gender was influenced by Tannen, who explored gendered ways of behaving in the workplace.
Workplace discourse analysts emphasize the importance of naturally occurring data to show what we actually do in communication at work.
Data collection techniques involve identifying successful communicators and recording authentic interactions between colleagues.
Recordings are augmented with ethnographic observations, debriefs, member-checking, and interviews to provide both etic and emic perspectives.

Constructing gender identity at work

Identity is a main interest of IS analysts, with gender receiving significant attention.
Normative gendered styles at work include traits stereotypically associated with femininity (e.g., supportive feedback) and masculinity (e.g., competitiveness).
These behaviors are not equated with biological sex but reflect the wider sociopolitical and ideological context.
IS bridges macro- and micro-levels to unpack gendered norms, investigating the indexicality of meaning.
Leadership is an area where gender has been highlighted, challenging the 'think leader, think male' stereotype.
Leadership performances depend on the local context and are signaled, projected, and resisted discursively.

Gendered communities of practice

Gender identity occurs within gendered contexts, with the construction of femininity varying between feminine and masculine workplaces.
The Community of Practice (CofP) framework, derived from Lave and Wenger, is used to understand these contexts.
CofPs are characterized by mutual engagement, joint negotiated enterprise, and a shared repertoire of negotiable resources.
Sociolinguistic work focuses on the discourse practices that CofPs develop, linking micro-contexts to the broader socio-cultural environment.
CofPs are gendered, operating as sites of gendered activity with gendered expectations.
Membership is discursively claimed and negotiated through adherence to gender norms.
Example 1: A builder’s apprentice, Max, enacts masculinity within a team by discussing sports and using expletives.
The construction sector, as a masculinized industry, supports these behaviors.

Gendered occupations

Eldercare is an example of a typically feminized industry.
Example 2: Carer Afato balances identities while interacting with resident Ida, with gendered norms mobilized through interaction.
Afato uses 'love' as a term of endearment, indexical to a professional identity in feminized care contexts.
Ida’s teasing of Afato draws on notions of masculinity, positioning him as ‘out of control’.
Gender identity construction is a two-way process, depending on linguistic negotiation and gender ideologies.
The interaction is humorous, unsettling the assumption that maleness equates to masculine norms.

Normative femininities and masculinities

There is more than one way to enact femininity and masculinity which are not narrowly associated with biological gender.
The terms ‘masculinities’ and ‘femininities’ align with the dynamism and multiplicity of identities.
Forms of gender change over time and space; traditionally, certain forms of gender are accorded more societal status.
Deviation from expected gender behaviors is still seen as marked in many contexts.
Example 3: Rodney teases Darren about wearing a pink shirt, playing with the stereotype of builders as hypermasculine.
The humor relies on ambiguity, referencing societal connotations of pink with femininity and homosexuality.
The team actively challenges the stereotype of builders, contrasting themselves with hypermasculine stereotypes.

Impact of structure/ideologies on agency and identity construction

Adding a critical ethnographic lens to IS allows for further subtleties in capturing gender in interaction.
IS is inherently critical and political, focusing on power and inequality.
'Acceptable' versions of masculinity and femininity are often felt acutely by those who experience marginalization, creating ideological constraints.
Researchers engage with questions of power and inequality, analyzing how sociolinguistic practices have consequences.
Reflexivity involves analyzing ourselves as researchers and the assumptions we bring to our data.
Analyses of gender can be ethnographically enhanced at different levels, considering organizational structure, goals, expectations, and norms.
The gender order and heteronormativity are ingrained ideologies that shape negotiations of gender.
IS provides tools to unveil connections from micro-linguistic features to abstract ideology.
The macro/micro divide is a false dichotomy; one cannot exist without the other when investigating social life.
IS has not traditionally been used for exploring power and politics, but recent work revisits its affordances.
Combining datasets such as meetings and interview interactions allows researchers to unpack different layers of context.
Interviews are co-constructions between the researcher and participants and can be analyzed to reflect on the negotiation of ideals.
Example 4: Mary (interviewer) and Lucy (interviewee) discuss how Lucy navigates male-dominated spaces in higher education.
Hegemonic gender norms are recycled, with femininity associated with childcare responsibilities and masculinity with drinking behavior.
Lucy's narrative frames femininity in hegemonic terms, associating it with caring responsibilities.
The excerpt illustrates how gendered norms are (re)produced at work, with Lucy mobilizing gendered stereotypes.
Academia is a sector where acceptance in work groups is subject to gendered negotiation of norms.
Professionals negotiate ‘belonging’ in their daily routines at work, with societal understandings made relevant.

Future directions

Workplace scholars need to embrace a social justice perspective and harness political salience.
Investigations should include more diverse workplaces, considering the changing shape of 'work' and new forms of technology.
More gender-diverse voices are needed in research, emphasizing the plurality of experience.
A dual focus on hegemonic ideologies and budding, counter-ideologies will allow scholars to engage with existing structures and new forms that contest the status quo.
This will enable movement beyond boxes and dichotomies into more expansive and inclusive terrain.

The provided text offers a comprehensive exploration of gender and gender identity within workplace discourse, primarily through the lens of Interactional Sociolinguistics (IS). Here's an analysis of its arguments and points, linked with relevant linguistic concepts and scholarship:

Core Argument: The central argument is that gender in the workplace is not a static or inherent attribute but is actively constructed, negotiated, and challenged through discourse. This aligns with broader social constructionist theories of gender, which posit that gender is a product of social practices and interactions rather than biological determinism.
- Link to Linguistic Concepts: This perspective resonates with speech act theory, which emphasizes how language performs actions and constitutes social realities. The examples provided in the text (e.g., Max's enactment of masculinity through sports talk, Afato's use of 'love' as endearment) illustrate how language is used to 'do' gender in specific contexts.
Interactional Sociolinguistics (IS) as a Methodology: The text highlights the suitability of IS for capturing the complexities of gendered discourse. IS allows researchers to connect micro-level linguistic practices with broader sociocultural contexts, revealing how gendered norms and expectations are indexed and performed in interaction.
- Link to Scholarship: This methodological approach builds on the work of scholars like Deborah Tannen, whose early research explored gendered communication styles. It also connects with the broader field of linguistic anthropology, which examines the relationship between language, culture, and social life.
Gendered Communities of Practice (CoP): The application of the CoP framework to workplace settings emphasizes how gender identity is shaped within specific social groups. These communities have shared practices and expectations, which influence how individuals perform gender.
- Link to Concepts: This perspective aligns with the concept of 'communities of discourse,' where language use is central to the formation and maintenance of social identities. The examples of the builder's apprentice and the eldercare worker illustrate how different CoPs foster distinct gendered norms and expectations.
Critique of Normative Gender Performances: The text challenges essentialist views of gender by highlighting the multiplicity of masculinities and femininities. It acknowledges that deviations from expected gender behaviors are often marked but also emphasizes the importance of recognizing and valuing diverse gender expressions.
- Link to Concepts: This aligns with queer linguistic approaches, which seek to disrupt heteronormative language practices and challenge binary categories of gender and sexuality. The example of Rodney teasing Darren about his pink shirt illustrates how language can be used to both reinforce and subvert gender stereotypes.
Impact of Structure and Ideologies: The text emphasizes the role of power, inequality, and hegemonic ideologies in shaping gendered discourse. It calls for a critical ethnographic lens to analyze how organizational structures, goals, and norms influence the negotiation of gender in the workplace.
- Link to Scholarship: This perspective builds on critical discourse analysis (CDA), which examines how language is used to construct and maintain power relations. It also connects with feminist theory, which highlights the systemic inequalities that shape women's experiences in the workplace and other social contexts.
Future Directions: The text advocates for a social justice perspective in workplace research, calling for investigations that include diverse workplaces, consider the changing nature of work, and amplify marginalized voices. It emphasizes the need to move beyond binary categories of gender and embrace more inclusive approaches.
- Link to Concepts: This aligns with calls for 'transformative language practices' that challenge oppressive norms and promote social change. It

While the text offers a robust overview of gender in the workplace through an Interactional Sociolinguistics (IS) lens, some critiques could be considered:

Limited Focus on Intersectionality: The analysis could benefit from a more explicit engagement with intersectionality. While it addresses gender, it could further explore how gender intersects with other social categories such as race, class, sexuality, and disability to shape workplace experiences. Addressing these intersections would provide a more nuanced understanding of how individuals navigate their identities and how power dynamics operate in the workplace.
Potential for Essentialism: Despite advocating for the multiplicity of masculinities and femininities, there remains a risk of falling into essentialist traps. The examples used to illustrate gendered behaviors (e.g., sports talk for masculinity, caring roles for femininity) might inadvertently reinforce stereotypes if not critically examined. It's important to continually question and deconstruct these associations to avoid perpetuating essentialist views of gender.
Researcher Bias and Reflexivity: While the text mentions the importance of reflexivity, it could further elaborate on how researcher biases might influence the analysis. IS involves close engagement with participants and their interactions, making it crucial to acknowledge how the researcher's own gender, background, and assumptions might shape the interpretation of data. More explicit discussion of these factors would enhance the rigor and transparency of the research.
Lack of Longitudinal Perspective: The analysis primarily focuses on static interactions and moments in time. Incorporating a longitudinal perspective could reveal how gendered norms and identities evolve over time, and how individuals adapt to changing workplace dynamics. Tracking these changes would provide a more dynamic understanding of gender in the workplace.
Limited Attention to Non-Dominant Voices: The text could benefit from a greater emphasis on amplifying the voices of individuals who are marginalized or excluded from dominant workplace cultures. Focusing on the experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals, people of color, and those with disabilities would provide valuable insights into the challenges they face and the strategies they use to navigate gendered expectations. This would contribute to a more inclusive and socially just understanding of gender in the workplace.

Note