A price worth paying?: Women and work – choice, constraint or satisficing

Purpose – Are women held back or holding back? Do women choose their jobs/careers or are they structurally or normatively constrained? The purpose of this paper is to shed fresh light on these questions and contribute to an on-going debate that has essentially focused on the extent to which part-time work is women’s choice, the role of structural and organisational constraints and the role of men in excluding women. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses data from interviews with 80 working women – both full-time and part-time – performing diverse work roles in a range of organisations in the south east of England. Findings – It was found that many women do not make strategic job choices, rather they often ‘‘fall into’’ jobs that happen to be available to them. Some would not have aspired to their present jobs without male encouragement; many report incidents of male exclusion; and virtually all either know or suspect that they are paid less than comparable men. Those working reduced hours enjoy that facility, yet they are aware that reduced hours and senior roles are seen as incompatible. In short, they recognise both the positive and negative aspects of their jobs, whether they work full or part-time, whether they work in male-dominated or female-dominated occupations, and whatever their position in the organisational hierarchy. Accordingly, the paper argues that the concept of ‘‘satisficing’’, i.e. a decision which is good enough but not optimal, is a more appropriate way to view women’s working lives than are either choice or constraint theories. Originality/value – There is an ongoing, and often polarised, debate between those who maintain that women choose whether to give preference to work or home/family and others who maintain that women, far from being self-determining actors, are constrained structurally and normatively. Rather than supporting these choice or constraint theories, this paper argues that ‘‘satisficing’’ is a more appropriate and nuanced concept to explain women’s working lives.

Towards the sustainable use of Europe’s forests: a centre for European forest science! – Some missing catalytic elements?

The Symposium, “Towards the sustainable use of Europe’s forests”, with sub-title “Forest ecosystem and landscape research: scientific challenges and opportunities” lists three fundamental substantive areas of research that are involved: Forest management and practices, Ecosystem processes and functional ecology, and Environmental economics and sociology. This paper argues that there are essential catalytic elements missing! Without these elements there is great danger that the aimed-for world leadership in the forest sciences will not materialize. What are the missing elements? All the sciences, and in particular biology, environmental sciences, sociology, economics, and forestry have evolved so that they include good scientific methodology. Good methodology is imperative in both the design and analysis of research studies, the management of research data, and in the interpretation of research finding. The methodological disciplines of Statistics, Modelling and Informatics (“SMI”) are crucial elements in a proposed Centre of European Forest Science, and the full involvement of professionals in these methodological disciplines is needed if the research of the Centre is to be world-class. Distributed Virtual Institute (DVI) for Statistics, Modelling and Informatics in Forestry and the Environment (SMIFE) is a consortium with the aim of providing world-class methodological support and collaboration to European research in the areas of Forestry and the Environment. It is suggested that DVI: SMIFE should be a formal partner in the proposed Centre for European Forest Science.