At the British Sociological Association’s Work Employment and Society Conference 2018 in Belfast: September 12-14: Legislation on Increasing Flexible Working Has Failed: New Research Finds

 

 

 

|| September 13: 2018 || ά. Research presented at the British Sociological Association Conference in Belfast has found that there has been no significant overall increase in the number of employees working flexibly since the legislation came into effect in 2014. Researcher Ms Joanna Wilson from the University of Manchester analysed survey data from a sample of up to 24,736 UK employees. She found that when comparing the same people in 2010 and 2015, there was little change in the uptake of flexible working; those working flexible start and finish times, fewer hours or from home.

In 2010, 44.1% of all employees worked flexibly and by 2015 the figure was 44.3%. While there were small changes in some areas, such as, decreases in the use of term- time working and job shares and increases in the use of flexi-time and home working, with the exception of the increase in home working, these changes were not statistically significant. Ms Wilson said that the Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition had brought in a statutory right for staff to request flexible working in June 2014. The British Sociological Association’s Work, Employment and Society Conference takes place on September 12-14 at the Europa Hotel, Belfast.

“The extension of the right to request flexible working to all employees, regardless of caring responsibilities, was aimed at increasing its use in the hope that this would lead to the creation of better paid and better quality flexible jobs, thus, helping close the gender pay gap.” she said.

“On the whole, the use of flexible working in the UK appears to have changed very little from 2010 to 2015 and there is no early evidence of an increase since the extension of the right to request legislation in 2014.” She said that the findings, might, reflect a limitation of the legislation, that employees must be employed for at least six months before having the right to request and that not all employees, might, in fact be aware of their right to request flexible working.

"Many employers, may, remain sceptical about the benefits of flexible working and under the legislation are able to refuse requests providing they have a valid business reason, such as, a burden of additional costs, an inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff or a detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand.

Barriers, such as, negative line manager attitudes and a cultural presumption against flexible working in organisations, may, also, exist to dissuade employees from submitting a flexible working application in the first place and those employees, who have applications approved, may, experience a stigma associated with working flexibly, which has been found to lead to limited career progression."  

The research, also, found that: i: Part-time flexible work continues to be predominantly used by women, with little sign of change; ii: Flexi-time was more likely among employees in the largest firms, those working in a management role, those in the public sector and those educated to degree level and iii: Homeworking was less likely in the public sector compared to the private sector. It was, also, up to three times more likely to be used by those educated to degree level.

Ms Wilson used data from the Understanding Society survey, which is a nationally-representative study of the UK population containing information on various aspects of the respondents’ lives, including, working conditions. The survey is a rolling panel study, meaning that the same households participate in the survey each year.

The above focuses on the more formal use of flexible working, that which leads to changes in the employment contract as opposed to informal flexible working, where an employee, may, alter their working time or place on an ad hoc basis to accommodate medical appointments for example.:::ω.

|| Readmore || 140918 || Up || 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Sociology of Why More Girls are Not Studying Mathematics and Physics: It is in the Culture of Misogyny in All Spheres of Society That Keeps on Beating and Tearing Down at the Confidence of Women

|| August 27: 2018: Rachel Cassidy: Sarah Cattan and Claire Crawford: IFS Writing || ά. The gender composition of those staying in education beyond school leaving age has been one of the most dramatic changes in education over the last 50 years: from a situation of significant under-representation, girls took 22% more A levels than boys this year and are over a third more likely to go to university. Indeed, these gaps are now so large that the under-representation of men in higher education, especially, those from poorer white families, has become a topic of significant policy interest in recent years.

Yet, against this backdrop of female success, there remain areas in which women are significantly under-represented. The A level results released last week confirmed that girls were still less likely to take science, technology, engineering and maths A levels than boys: despite receiving 55% of A levels overall this year, girls received just 43% of A levels awarded in STEM subjects. This is not the case for all STEM subjects: girls are just as likely as boys to take chemistry and more likely to take biology. The most striking gaps are in physics and maths: girls accounted for 39% of this year’s maths A levels, 28% of further maths A levels and just 22% of all physics A levels.

This matters because these A levels are important routes into studying STEM subjects at university and into STEM careers: an under-representation of women in maths and physics at A level leads to an under-representation of women in careers, that use these subjects. This is important for society, for example, some research suggests that workplace diversity can aid innovation. These choices, also, matter for the individuals themselves: having a maths A level appears to bring financial rewards in the labour market and both subjects can open doors to potentially lucrative university degrees.

For example, recent IFS research suggests that, compared to the average female graduate five years after graduation, women with a maths degree earn 13.4% more, those with an engineering degree earn 09.7% more and those with an economics degree, another subject in which girls are significantly under-represented and for which maths is often a gateway subject, earn 19.5% more.

The fact that fewer girls study maths and physics at A level is not because they are less well prepared: attainment in maths and physics GCSE is very similar for girls and boys. Moreover, the gender gap in the likelihood of taking maths and physics A level is very similar, if, we focus only on students, who achieved top grades at GCSE and so are likely to be the best prepared for A level study. For example, among pupils, who achieved grade A or A*, equivalent to grades 07-09 under the new system, in GCSE maths in 2010, 37% of girls compared to 51% of boys took maths A level. Among those, who achieved grade A or A* in GCSE physics, just 13% of girls compared to 39% of boys took physics A level.

So, why do so few girls choose to study maths and physics? As part of a pilot study for a new project investigating why girls are under-represented in maths and physics, funded by the STEM Skills Fund, we surveyed just under 300 girls across 40 schools, who were predicted to achieve at least grade 07, at least grade A, in either maths, physics or combined science at GCSE. We, also, surveyed their teachers. The aim was to understand what drives girls’ A level choices, including, why they, may or may not, opt for maths or physics. These findings were summarised in a recent IFS report.

The gender gap in maths and physics does not seem to arise because girls don’t find maths and physics interesting or because they don’t understand or value the prospects offered by a STEM career. So, what else is going on? Confidence seems to be a big part of the issue, particularly, when it comes to physics. We found that, despite their high predicted grades, about half of the girls in our sample agreed or strongly agreed with the statements ‘I, often, worry that it will be difficult for me in physics classes’ or ‘I worry I will get poor grades in physics’.

The figures were about half that for maths. Teachers, also, cited a lack of confidence as the biggest factor affecting the gender gap in pursuing STEM subjects to A level: 80% agreed or strongly agreed that ‘these girls are just as able but not as confident in their ability to learn STEM subjects as boys’. This chimes with research by the OECD and others, suggesting that a lack of confidence amongst girls, might be, an important determinant of gender differences in attainment in STEM subjects or the decision to pursue STEM careers.

Perhaps more challenging from a policy perspective is the fact that being one of the only girls in a physics class at school or university or indeed in a STEM job, seems to be a major factor putting off some girls. Two thirds of the girls we surveyed viewed STEM jobs as male dominated and a similar proportion of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that ‘these girls don’t want to feel discouraged from pursuing STEM subjects at A level because many of their female peers do not’. The fact that girls attending single-sex schools are more likely to study these subjects than girls in mixed-sex schools supports this idea.

This raises a tricky issue: if, girls’ hesitations about studying and working in male-dominated environments are an important determinant of their decision not to study maths or physics at A level, then interventions, that attempt to encourage one or two girls in a school to change their behaviour, may not, be enough. What, may be, required are interventions, which send a strong signal to girls that not just they but, also, a significant number of their peers, are being encouraged to pursue physics and maths. But even this alone, may not, be enough: after all, girls attending single sex schools are still less likely to take maths and physics than boys. So, what is likely to work? That is exactly what we hope to explore in future research.

: In this new observation and report, Rachel Cassidy, Post-doctoral Fellow, Sarah Cattan, Associate Director and Claire Crawford, Research Fellow, look in detail at the results of a study, conducted in partnership with the STEM Skills Fund, which seeks to understand the barriers that stop girls from taking maths and physics at A-level. The observation ‘Why don’t more girls study maths and physics?’ and report 'How can we increase girls’ uptake of maths and physics A-level?' were published online yesterday: