gendered institutions and gender roles: understanding the experiences of women in policing
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Colorado State University], [Tara O’Connor Shelley]On: 08 November 2011, At: 17:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Criminal Justice StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gjup20
Gendered institutions and gender roles:understanding the experiences ofwomen in policingTara O’Connor Shelley a , Melissa Schaefer Morabito b & JenniferTobin-Gurley ca Department of Sociology, Center for the Study of Crime andJustice, Colorado State University, B238 Clark, Fort Collins, CO,80523, USAb Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Boston,100 Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA, 02125, USAc Department of Sociology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,CO, 80523, USA
Available online: 07 Nov 2011
To cite this article: Tara O’Connor Shelley, Melissa Schaefer Morabito & Jennifer Tobin-Gurley(2011): Gendered institutions and gender roles: understanding the experiences of women inpolicing, Criminal Justice Studies, 24:4, 351-367
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2011.625698
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
Gendered institutions and gender roles: understanding theexperiences of women in policing
Tara O’Connor Shelleya*, Melissa Schaefer Morabitob and Jennifer Tobin-Gurleyc
aDepartment of Sociology, Center for the Study of Crime and Justice, Colorado StateUniversity, B238 Clark, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA; bDepartment of Sociology, Universityof Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA 02125, USA; cDepartment of
Sociology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
Men are disproportionately represented in many institutions including law,politics, the academy, and the economy. Women have made great strides inincreasing representation in many of these professions with the exception ofpolicing; where police departments have had difficulty hiring, retaining, andpromoting female officers. The available literature on women in policing, how-ever, is largely atheoretical and does not thoroughly address advancement barriersand the retention of women. To address this gap in the literature, this articleutilizes Acker’s theory of gendered institutions to provide a historical review ofwomen’s experiences in law enforcement. Acker’s four gendered processes areused to organize the existing literature regarding women’s experiences as well ascoping and adaptation strategies in the gendered institution of policing. Finally,implications are explored and an agenda for future research is discussed.
Keywords: gender; women; police; law enforcement; gendered institutions
Introduction
Men are disproportionately represented in law, politics, religion, the academy, thestate, and the economy (Acker, 1992). Yet, women have made great strides inincreasing their representation in many of these social institutions. One glaringexception, however, has been the public safety sector where police departmentshave had difficulty in hiring, retaining, and promoting female police officers. In1972, women comprised as little as 2% of sworn officers and current estimates indi-cate that women still only comprise 11.3% of all police officers (Hickman &Reeves, 2006). In 2001, women comprised 7.3% of top command/supervisory posi-tions in large agencies and only 3.8% in smaller agencies (Lonsway et al., 2002).Of additional concern is the fact that more than half of all police agencies reportthat no women hold high-level positions (Lonsway et al., 2002). The situation isparticularly dire in small and rural agencies that often receive less attention frompolice researchers (Maguire, 1997). In these small and rural agencies, almost halfdo not receive applications from females (Jordan, Fridell, Faggiani, & Kubu, 2009)and 97.4% have no women in any command/supervisory positions (Lonsway et al.,2002). Despite this lack of progress, only one in five law enforcement agenciesutilize targeted recruitment strategies for women (Jordan et al., 2009).
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Criminal Justice StudiesAquatic InsectsVol. 24, No. 4, December 2011, 351–367
ISSN 1478-601X print/ISSN 1478-6028 online� 2011 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2011.625698http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
These trends suggest that the hiring and retention of women has stalled (Lon-sway et al., 2002), creating a ‘leaking pipeline’ (Bailyn, 2003). This metaphordescribes the factors that affect the funneling out of women in many male-domi-nated professions, and can be extended to explain the unique situation of women inpolicing (White, 2004). As in other professions, there may be several points of leak-age throughout the course of a policing career. For policing, these points includeacademy training, field training, while working in patrol, marriage, parenting, earlyretirement, or following an injury. At each of these turning points, female officersmay advance, maintain the status quo, or drop out of the organization.
These employment trends and existing academic research suggest the presenceof institutional barriers that negatively affect women in policing. Unfortunately, theavailable literature that documents various recruitment, retention, and promotionalbarriers is increasingly outdated and often lacks a theoretical framework.1 Further-more, the majority of this research is comprised of small and unrepresentative sam-ples and does not include multivariate analyses (Gustafson, 2008). Among the morerecent studies that do utilize multivariate techniques, none were able to find strongempirical support of existing hypotheses related to tokenism (Gustafson, 2008;Stichman, Hassell, & Archbold, 2010). Thus, the existing literature is no longer suf-ficient on its own for understanding the experiences of women in policing and analternative theoretical framework should be considered for future research.
Acker (1992) offers a perspective from which to explore the experiences ofwomen in policing. Her theory of gendered institutions provides an appropriateframework from which to explore the various institutional barriers experienced bywomen in policing. Acker’s theory indicates there are four gendered processes thatmaintain opposition to women working in male-dominated professions. Acker theo-rized that each process perpetuates inequitable gendered practices making it difficultfor women to adapt and advance in gendered institutions. First, the construction ofimages, symbols, and ideologies in male-dominated occupations legitimize hege-monic masculinity (see also Connell, 1987). Second, deliberate decision-making andpractices are used to control and segregate women. Such practices may include vio-lence, exclusion, or political and legal practices that support the negative actions ofmale co-workers. Acker’s third and fourth mechanisms of maintaining or creating agendered institution involve the processes of interaction or ‘doing gender’ and theconstruction of ‘gendered personas’ based on the creation of differences within theinstitutional setting (Acker, 1992, p. 568).
In the sections that follow, the existing police literature was reviewed to evaluatepolicing as a gendered institution, relying on Acker’s four gendered processes pres-ent in gendered institutions (i.e. legitimization of hegemonic masculinity, controland segregation, doing gender, and gendered personas) to organize the discussion.The literature reviewed in these sections represent a wide timeframe (i.e. 1970s topresent) to demonstrate similar or divergent experiences over time. The findingsfrom various studies were grouped into Acker’s four categories of gendered institu-tions based on the relevance of fit.2
Acker’s theory of gendered institutions
Legitimization of hegemonic masculinity
Acker (1992) argued that gendered institutions marginalize female employeesthrough the construction of images, symbols, and ideologies in the workplace that
352 T. O’Connor Shelley et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
legitimize hegemonic masculinity.3 Furthermore, hegemonic masculinity is ‘thedominant form for reinforcing men’s power on the cultural and collective levels’through a variety of forms including ‘work in the paid labor force, subordination ofwomen, heterosexism, uncontrollable sexuality, authority, control, competitive indi-vidualism, independence, aggressiveness, and capacity for violence’ (Prokos &Padavic, 2002, p. 442). It is also important to note at the outset that the construc-tion of images, symbols, and ideologies that legitimize hegemonic masculinity inthe police industry (see Discussion section) are supported and reinforced by the var-ious control and segregation tactics that will be discussed in the next section.
Police organizations and male officers have long drawn on ‘masculine’ images/symbols to define what it means to be a cop and to resist the inclusion of womeninto the force (Prokos & Padavic, 2002). Recruiting and professional materials uti-lized by police agencies often include images of male officers engaged in SpecialWeapons and Tactics (SWAT) and other traditional crime-fighting activities (Gascon& Schaefer, 2003). These images convey what is valued and desired by the agencyand its employees. Frequently, these materials do not include images of women orrecognize their role in policing. As such, when coupled with the designation ofmale recruiting officers, these images and symbols may dissuade women fromentering the profession.
Hunt (1990) also noted that police are identified as masculine both organization-ally and culturally particularly in reference to ‘real police work’ – crime-fighting andarresting offenders. Under the traditional model of policing, crime fighting, and phys-ical aspects of policing are favored even though in reality felony arrests and the useof force are relatively rare events (Herbert, 2001; Prokos & Padavic, 2002). In fact,most police work is sedentary with the occasional need for physical exertion (Garcia,2003; Ireland & Berg, 2008) and is dominated by service and order maintenanceresponsibilities (Black, 1980; Goldstein, 1979; Walker & Katz, 2005). Nevertheless,male officers often cling to the image of the physical crime fighter and downplay theamount of paperwork and social service required because it is seen as feminine work(Prokos & Padavic, 2002). Thus, it appears from the available research that tradi-tional crime fighting tasks are still characterized as real and masculine police work.For example, officers in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) have openlylabeled fellow cops as either ‘hard chargers’ or ‘station queens’ based on their pro-pensity to be aggressive and take dangerous assignments (Herbert, 2001). ‘Hardchargers’ are those officers who have embraced the traditional crime fighter/mascu-line image whereas ‘station queens’ are those who rely on softer skills that are oftenassociated with femininity. As such, this terminology feminizes the less valued posi-tion, creating an occupational ideology that favors masculinity (Herbert, 2001;Martin, 1999). Those who contradict or threaten this masculine ideology andconstruction of valued police roles will likely experience a range of control andsegregation tactics (see next section).
Clearly, hegemonic masculinity is thoroughly embedded into the police culture(Haarr, 1997, 2005; Prokos & Padavic, 2002). Terms such as ‘canteen culture’ and‘cult of masculinity’ are used to describe the organizational culture of policing,which glorifies violence and enhances the ‘masculine’ characteristics of the jobwhile undermining many duties socially constructed as ‘feminine’,4 ultimately mis-characterizing and devaluing women’s contribution to police work (Dick &Jankowicz, 2001, p. 182). Indeed, research indicates that some male officers useoffensive humor (often in the form of sex jokes), sexual stereotypes, harassment,
Criminal Justice Studies 353
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
and profanity to reinforce the masculinity of policing and segregate women as anout-group (Brown & Fielding, 1993; Herbert, 2001; Martin, 1978; Morash & Haarr,1995; Pogrebin, Dodge, & Chatman, 2000). The following quote illustrates howoffensive humor and profanity can be used to reinforce hegemonic masculinity inpolice culture:
Law enforcement training instructors often showed us episodes of the television showCOPS as a teaching tool. In one episode, the cops arrested a shirtless many after hisgirlfriend had called the police. Angry at being arrested, the man yelled out, ‘Thereoughtta be a law against bitches!’ Our classroom exploded with laughter. For theremaining four months of training, when students wanted to joke about something awomen trainee had done or about women in general, they would exclaim, ‘There ough-tta be a law against bitches’. I estimate that I heard the phrase 25 times or more. To me,it came to epitomize the way many men recruits felt about women becoming police offi-cers with them; women simply did not belong. (Prokos & Padavic, 2002, p. 439)
Morash and Haarr (1995) posited that this type of work environment signals towomen that the department is not ‘their place’, but rather an area controlled bymale officers who are antagonistic and have no desire to change their behavior. Theparamilitary models that typify policing coupled with the presence of masculinistand machismo environments can also negatively impact the retention rate of femaleofficers (Haarr, 2005). Some female officers often distance themselves from otherwomen in the department in order to gain acceptance by male officers (Martin,1979). They do this in order to compete for advancement opportunities and unitewith those in authoritative positions, predominantly White males (Dodge &Pogrebin, 2001). This particularly disenfranchises African-American women whoare doubly isolated and discriminated against (Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001). Thosewomen who adhere to the ‘cult of masculinity’ often deny and persecute otherwomen for exposing discrimination (Martin, 1979). Behavior like this further ‘limitsthe ability of women to act as an effective political faction or group in departmentalpolitics’ (Martin, 1979, p. 323).
Control and segregation
Another gendered process identified by Acker (1992) is the control and segregationof women through constructed hierarchies implemented to secure the position ofWhite males. This constructed hierarchy of male dominance is supported by theprevailing management style in policing that relies on a hierarchal, military-basedcommand structure with institutionalized patterns of control and subordinationbetween command staff and line level employees. Thus, women face difficultiesthat their male peers do not – namely – they must navigate the overt and increasingcovert forms of control and segregation that are legitimized through the military-based management style of many police agencies while also traversing the sociallyconstructed gender hierarchy typified by White male dominance (Westmarland,2001). The constructed hierarchy of male dominance in policing exerts itself viaindividual, organizational, and possibly community levels and segregates femaleofficers through words, acts, and organizational policies. It is important to note thatalthough these practices can manifest consciously or unconsciously, they result insignificant ramifications for female officers. Indeed, when women and minorities areeither consciously excluded or relegated to inferior positions within the department
354 T. O’Connor Shelley et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
(or in any profession), they are unable to advance and are expected to accept asubordinated role within the organization.
Control and segregation propagated by individuals
One mechanism of control and segregation in male-dominated institutions is sexualharassment between individuals. Policewomen experience a great deal of control,exclusion, and stress associated with sexual harassment from individual officers andan organizational subculture that tolerates, endorses, and/or ignores/denies suchbehaviors (Brown & Fielding, 1993; Ireland & Berg, 2006; Martin, 1978; Timmins& Hainsworth, 1989). Various studies have found that the majority (between 53 and99%) of female police officers report having been sexually harassed by their col-leagues (e.g. see Bartol, Bergen, Volckens, & Knoras, 1992; Brown & Heidensohn,2000; Chaiyavej & Morash, 2009; Prenzler & Ransley, 2002). Negative behaviorsexhibited by male officers and superiors include remarks on sexual orientation,derogatory name-calling, putdowns, affectionate terms of address, and hostility anddegradation (Balkin, 1988; Dick & Jankowicz, 2001; Haarr, 2005). In manyinstances, these behaviors are used to prevent the full integration of females intodepartments (Haarr, 1997).
Such tactics have been well documented in the literature over the past 30 years(Balkin, 1988; Bartol et al., 1992; Brown & Heidensohn, 2000; Chaiyavej & Mor-ash, 2009; Dick & Jankowicz, 2001; Haarr, 2005; Martin, 1978). For example, Mar-tin’s (1978, p. 47) study examined the interactions of female and male officers in aWashington, DC patrol district. She reported that, ‘male officers frequently engagein interaction rituals and ceremonies calculated to convey male dominance andsexualize the work environment to keep interaction on a(n) (asymmetrical) male–female level with negative consequences for the female officers’ occupationalself-image and behavior’. These ceremonies included the use of language, jokes,swearing, touching, and many other rituals that sexualize the workplace.
Officers have been reported to use this approach in an overt and hostile way tocontrol and segregate female police officers. For example, one female officerdescribed her experiences in the 1970s:
What they did to me-this was 1975; I was working solo-one man squad. So everymorning I’d come out, get in the squad car-and taped around the steering wheel was acenterfold of Penthouse magazine, the scratch and sniff, and you know what part ofthe anatomy you had to scratch and sniff. So I’d take it off, crumple it up, and throwit away. And the next morning there would be a brand-new fresh one. So, by thattime, I figured anyone willing to spend five dollars or whatever for a new magazine aday, Hey! Knock your socks off. Doesn’t bother me at all. It took a good year for thatstuff to simmer down and for some of the guys to stand up and say, ‘Hey, enough.Those broads are ok’. (Fletcher, 1995, pp. 152–153)
This quote demonstrates the overt tactics utilized by male officers to create a hostileand sexualized work environment to send a message that women do not belong inpolicing. Such tactics continue to exist (perhaps not with the same frequency orhostility) well into the 1990s and 2000s. Dodge and Pogrebin (2001) reported thatfemale officers are still subjected to a great deal of hostility and resentment fromtheir male peers and that sexual harassment is still a prominent issue. Indeed, duringan interview with Haarr (1997), one woman commented on negative treatment from
Criminal Justice Studies 355
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
male officers after one had hung a Playboy centerfold up in the department andbragged that it looked like her. As demonstrated by these studies, many of the samenegative behaviors observed in the 1970s are still exhibited by some malecolleagues well into the 2000s.
Female police officers have also experienced exclusion by individual officers inaspects of police work where mutual support and inclusion is essential. Police workis a dangerous occupation and police officers must rely on one another to respondto events that involve conflict and violence. This reliance on mutual support is animportant source of occupational solidarity for police officers (Kappeler, Sluder, &Alpert, 1995); however, some research indicates that some female police officershave been segregated from this important source of occupational solidarity (Martin,1978). More recently, one female police officer recounted in a blog, ‘Respondingback-up is slow or non-existent during numerous bad calls. I found complainingonly made this worse’ (Brown, 1999, p. 7).
It has also been suggested that women pose a threat to this male-oriented occu-pational solidarity, which is based on common interests, attitudes, values, back-grounds, and a shared definition of what it means to be masculine (Balkin, 1988).Balkin (1988) characterizes the presence of women in policing as threatening dueto ‘cultural values about sex roles and work’ (p. 35). Thus, women working in aprofession that reveres strength, courage, and authority (characteristics traditionallyassociated as masculine) were viewed as incapable of possessing those characteris-tics and unable to do the job (Balkin, 1988). Balkin, Katz, Levin, and Brandt(1977) also categorized policemen as ‘change-threatened’ and that perceived threatsfrom female officers resulted in the exclusion of women from important informalsocial networks that were useful in learning about department politics, promotionalopportunities, and general opinions about others in the department (see also Shusta,Levine, Harris, & Wong, 1995). For example, a female officer described the socialexclusion of female officers from occupational networks:
It’s a boys club. Absolutely. You’re excluded from the grapevine. And you’reexcluded from a lot of the socialization. The Good Old Boys’ Network. A big part ofit is socializing. That’s where a lot of the information is shared and relationshipsformed. But it’s difficult for a woman to join in-they might brand you either as a drin-ker or a loose woman. You run those risks. It’s really . . . it’s difficult. Because youwant to go out and have a good time and share these experiences. The guys do it-toshare experiences and to kind of get over some of the stuff that’s happened to themand also they gain knowledge that way. That’s how they exchange information is theygo out and have a few drinks. (Fletcher, 1995, pp. 195–196)
Similarly, Fletcher (1995, p. xix) describes the control and segregation of femaleofficers:
Policing is a club for men; this club has a strict hierarchy (white males first, thenblack and other minority males, then white females, black females, and finally, gaymales); the club still operates in a culture of socializing and informal contacts imper-vious to legislation; people who are not wanted in the club may be harassed, ostra-cized, denied desired assignments, days off, shifts, or promotion; speaking or‘grieving’ (filing a grievance) about what happens within the club breaks the codeand, thereafter, breaks the officer. This is a club where harassers can get away withvirtually anything because no one, male or female, can afford the punishments that
356 T. O’Connor Shelley et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
follow rating on a fellow cop. And this is a club where you can get killed if peopledon’t like you.
In this example one can see the practice of control and segregation and the resultingimpact on female officers. The work environment is a ‘boys club’ that excludes andisolates members who are not part of the in-group. Sexual harassment (and othertactics like social exclusion) are the tools utilized to enforce the boundaries of thein-group/‘boys club’. Such exclusion or segregation creates stress, decreases reten-tion, and limits opportunities for advancement.
Control and segregation propagated by police organizations
Organizational structures, values, and policies, can also isolate, segregate, and con-trol female officers. It is possible that the existence of modern organizational prac-tices of control and segregation may be in direct reaction to the passage of theCivil Rights Act, the establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-sion, and Affirmative Action policies that in effect legally imposed the entry ofwomen into policing. Therefore, as police organizations strove to hire women incompliance with the law in principle, some police leaders and police officers feltthe changes were forced upon them and in practice chose not to fully integrate the‘undesirable’ population into the organization. Another reason control and segrega-tion practices exist at the organizational level is due to the belief that female offi-cers are inadequate and incapable of performing this constructed ‘male’ role(Balkin, 1988).5 For instance, one male wrote in a police forum:
I resent the fact that women recruits have to satisfy less stringent physical standardswhen training in a police academy. It’s not even a question of fairness. It’s a questionof public safety and the safety of fellow officers. When the use of physical force isrequired, a criminal wouldn’t be ‘nicer’ to a female cop. (Police Forums & LawEnforcement, 2001)
This perception of ‘limited capacity’ contributes to a discriminatory organiza-tional environment even though current research suggests that most police agenciesdo not set lower standards or provide preferential hiring advantages for female offi-cers (see Jordan et al., 2009). Even so, starting at the academy, gender differences arereified and actions are taken to demean the abilities of female students during the cer-tification process (Prokos & Padavic, 2002). For example, during a defense tacticstraining where class members have to stand with their eyes closed while another classmember attacks them, a female recruit (and researcher) realized the male instructorwas stepping in and performing the attack on all of the female students while themales only had to defend themselves against other class members, which resulted inthe women looking less competent (Prokos & Padavic, 2002). Through these andother activities included as part of an informal, hidden curriculum, male recruits aretaught (by representatives of the organization) to exclude, denigrate, and exaggeratefemale differences to create a boundary that necessitates who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’.This places women at an immediate disadvantage as compared to their male peerswhen it comes to advancement within the organization.
The negative perception of ‘limited capacity’ has also resulted in unfair or dis-criminatory assignment of duties (also known as deployment blocking) and nega-tive performance evaluations of female officers (Brown & Fielding, 1993; Dick &
Criminal Justice Studies 357
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
Jankowicz, 2001). Female officers are more often relegated to paperwork,responding to victims of violence or sexual offense, foot patrol, community rela-tions, training divisions, and non-emergency calls, while male officers are morelikely to be assigned to public disorder and violent crime, traffic, emergencyresponses, and other danger-prone situations (Brown & Fielding, 1993; Dick &Jankowicz, 2001). Indeed, Westmarland (2001) noted that women have becomethe unofficial experts on matters such as child abuse and domestic violence inmany departments. As a result, they have fewer opportunities to work in otherdivisions within the organization.
If female officers are assigned (by the organization) to stereotypical duties tra-ditionally associated with their gender it makes it more difficult for their abilitiesto be properly evaluated by their superiors and hinders opportunities for advance-ment because they are prevented from gaining experience in the divisions of thepolice department that are deemed necessary for promotion (Brown & Fielding,1993; Dick & Jankowicz, 2001; Haarr, 2005; Westmarland, 2001). Despite datathat continuously shows that female officers perform on par with their male col-leagues (Balkin, 1988; Bartol et al., 1992; Bloch & Anderson, 1974; DeJong,2004; Garcia, 2003; Grennan, 1987), the view of limited capacity and discrimina-tory assignment practices remain in many agencies relegating female officers to asubordinate status that is difficult to overcome (Brown & Fielding, 1993; Dick &Jankowicz, 2001).
Indeed, one study found that women in managerial positions did not receivethe same mentoring as their male peers, which ultimately hindered their advance-ment in police organizations (Inwald & Shusman, 1984). The reluctance or out-right failure to provide mentorship/coaching to female employees allows maleemployees to reap the benefits of selective priming and systematically createsorganizational barriers that hinder the retention and promotion of female employ-ees. Indeed, one female officer reported, ‘I have been refused training that wouldenable me to advance if not in my department, in another one. But have seen thesame chosen few be given special training as well as advancements’. (Brown,1999, p. 7). The lack of opportunities for advancement may also be related to thebelief held among some police managers that female officers are not committedto the job and will not stay in their positions for any meaningful amount of time(Hunt, 1990).
In order to maintain positions in male-dominated and male-organized profes-sions, women may also deny themselves the possibility of a family in order toadapt to the requirements of the job (Bailyn, 2003). This point is particularlysalient as Acker (1992) argued that gendered institutions are organized andoperate around the assumption that the responsibility for reproduction occurselsewhere. As a result, police agencies may have short-term disability andmaternity/parental leave policies that do not fully meet the needs of femaleemployees. Thus, it is very common in male-centered professions such as min-ing, academia, law, and the sciences for men to be parents while their femalepeers are not (Eveline & Booth, 2002; Husu, 2005; Mason & Goulden, 2004).One reason for this trend is that many gendered institutions, including policing,are structured in a way that requires the longest, most inflexible hours duringchildbearing (and raising) years (Bailyn, 2003; Mason & Goulden, 2004). Inorder to adhere to these requirements and/or to compete with men for advance-ment, women often forgo or delay having children (Bailyn, 2003; Mason &
358 T. O’Connor Shelley et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
Goulden, 2004). Alternatively, some female officers forgo promotional opportu-nities to avoid conflicts with family life (Whetstone, 2001). This form of hid-den discrimination and control greatly reduces the opportunity for women tohave occupational and family success.
For female officers who do choose to have a family, some find difficulty navi-gating organizational policies that discourage and/or penalize them for their choice.For instance, some pregnant police officers have been denied opportunities to worklimited or light duty positions (i.e. non patrol related work at a desk, taking phonereports, commonly offered to injured or disabled officers) after their pregnanciesprogressed to the point where wearing a department issued bulletproof vest andreaching for their guns became difficult or impossible. Without the proper protectivegear, pregnant officers are exposed to heightened risks in the field causing some tochoose to prematurely tap into sick and vacation leave or to take leave without payprior to giving birth even when they are still capable of working during the durationof their pregnancies. Police agencies regularly make accommodations for officerswho are injured, temporarily disabled or become ill by assigning desk duty or otherassignments for as long as necessary regardless of where the injury occurred. Theseassignments serve a necessary purpose and facilitate the operations of the organiza-tion. In some police agencies, pregnant women have not been afforded these sameaccommodations. Given these problems, some female officers are left with the diffi-cult decision of foregoing childbearing for advancement or giving up their careersto have a family.
Control and segregation propagated by the community
The treatment of female officers by the community is also important to consider inthe context of control and segregation. Without community support, female officerscould be further segregated into a perceived group of ineffective and illegitimateofficers. Generally, the research in this area indicates that the community treatmentof female officers and the perception of their abilities are positive (Balkin, 1988;DeJong, 2004; Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; Rabe-Hemp & Schuck, 2007). Indeed, thepublic finds policewomen to be just as effective as policemen in dangerous circum-stances and possibly more effective at calming tense situations (Balkin, 1988; Bloch& Anderson, 1974; Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; Rabe-Hemp & Schuck, 2007). Manyfemale officers rely upon a wider range of skills (i.e. de-escalation techniques ratherthan solely force) than their male counterparts and as a result, the community mayview them more positively and as more approachable (DeJong, 2004). Given thesefindings, it appears that the community segregates female officers in a ‘positive’way standing in stark contrast to the negative forms of segregation and controlpropagated by individual officers and the police organization. Firm conclusions can-not yet be made given that this issue has received less focus in the literature relativeto other forms of control and segregation (i.e. individual officer and organizational)experienced by female officers.
In sum, the various levels of control and segregation identified from individualand organizational sources continue to exclude female officers. This exclusion limitstheir entry into the field, advancement through the ranks, sense of belonging, andan overall acceptance that they are capable of doing the job. Indeed, despiteattempts to ‘level the playing field’ through affirmative action policies, integrationof women into the force has not been successful (Haarr, 1997, p. 80).
Criminal Justice Studies 359
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
Doing gender and gendered personas
Acker’s third and fourth mechanism of maintaining or creating a gendered institutioninvolves the processes of interaction or ‘doing gender’ and the construction of ‘gen-dered personas’ based on the creation of gender differences within the institutionalsetting (Acker, 1992, p. 568). Doing gender is a process relevant in every social inter-action whereby individuals are held ‘gender accountable’ and clearly associate witheither male or female behaviors (Garcia, 2003, p. 332). Gender is most notablyaccomplished through work-based activities and is seen as the fundamental socialinteraction (Garcia, 2003). Gherardi (1994) suggests that the everyday actions ofdoing gender are exaggerated and this is certainly the case in policing. Through thecreation of hyper-gendered roles like those found in policing, male-dominated institu-tions tend to devalue everything that is female, which, by default, makes them subor-dinate to everything male (Eveline & Booth, 2002; Hunt, 1990).
As explained earlier, the traditional gendered image of policing is that of themasculine crime-fighter enforcing the law and arresting offenders. This image ofcourse contradicts the reality of police work that primarily involves order mainte-nance activities (Walker & Katz, 2005) and is dependent upon strong verbal skillsthat enhance interpersonal communication and resolve conflict (Miller, 1999). Histor-ically, these skills were devalued because they were more commonly associated withsocial work – the traditional role of female officers – than with policing (Miller,1999). This can often have ramifications for female officers that include: barriers toprofessional advancement, family/work conflict, selective priming of male employ-ees, the devaluation of work capabilities, and the adherence to gendered schemasand sex stereotypes that give more worth to male characteristics and work tasksregardless of their prevalence or applicability for effective employment (Bailyn,2003; Brown & Fielding, 1993; Husu, 2005; Ruble, Cohen, & Ruble, 1984).
It is important to understand how individuals engage in the internal process ofconstructing gendered personas (Acker, 1992). These personas involve the reproduc-tion of social structure through gender-appropriate behaviors of masculinity or femi-ninity, which are acted out through occupational interaction (Forseth, 2005). Acker(1992) posited that institutional settings require different attitudes and behaviors ofmen and women. In many male-dominated institutions, women are forced to adoptbehavioral strategies to navigate and buffer the discrimination they receive based ontheir gender. One way to understand gendered personas is to consider how officersadapt to the emotional labor involved in police work because the ‘appropriate’response to emotional labor will differ by gender. Drawing from Hochschild’s workon emotion labor, Forseth (2005, p. 444) indicated that women are expected bysociety to be ‘nicer than natural’ while men are expected to be ‘nastier thannatural’. The social expectation for managing emotional labor places female officersin a unique position (Garcia, 2003). For example, on the street, officers are sup-posed to conceal their emotion and maintain professionalism; however, for women,conforming to this requirement of ‘inexpressive’ emotion is seen as unfeminine(Martin, 1999) and the public may view the female officer as rude while viewingidentical behavior from male officers as ‘professional’. In their on and off dutyinteractions, some women are transformed into nurturers and are expected to besupportive of the publics’ and their male colleagues’ emotional needs (Martin,1999). This represents a second shift of labor – tending to others – while still tryingto manage their own emotional needs.
360 T. O’Connor Shelley et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
In general then, women may create coping strategies that counteract or acceptthe gendered personas that they are expected to perform in daily social andoccupational interactions. Feminist literature suggests that in order to avoid nega-tive attention, some women may try and make themselves as inconspicuous aspossible, denying relationships with men and other women (Eveline & Booth,2002), which creates a double rejection in the form of social ostracism fromboth gendered groups. Hochschild (1973) described this process as becoming‘defeminized’ and ‘deprofessionalized’. In order to be ‘defeminized’, womenhave to sever relationships with other women (Hochschild, 1973). This helpsthem to avoid the negative stereotypes associated with their sex and makes thememblematically, the exceptional woman (Martin, 1979). Alternatively, somewomen become ‘deprofessionalized’ severing ties with their male colleagues inorder to maintain their difference as a woman and avoid direct comparison tomen (Hochschild, 1973). Unfortunately, the process of defeminization/deprofes-sionalization denies women the ability to embody their power as professionalsand as women.
Evidence suggests that female police officers use a variety of coping mecha-nisms that function as gendered personas to navigate the gendered institution ofpolicing (Jacobs, 1987; Martin, 1979). These coping mechanisms directly affecttheir job performance and relationships with co-workers. Martin’s (1979) charac-terization of occupational behaviors of Policewoman or Policewoman is salient tothis discussion since they link directly to Hochschild’s (1973) discussion ofdefeminization/deprofessionalization. Martin (1979) described how Policewomen‘de-feminize’ by adhering to the masculine characteristics associated with the job:use of physical strength, brutality, courage, professionalism, assertiveness, occupa-tional achievement, and department loyalty (Martin, 1979). Alternatively, police-women maintained their femininity by shying away from the ‘masculine’ duties ofthe job, adopting a service-oriented perspective, exhibiting less motivation, seek-ing non-patrol assignments, and displaying low work commitment (Martin, 1979).Choosing either of these gendered roles may leave women at a disadvantage.Indeed, the literature suggested that adopting the identity of policewoman wasthreatening to male officers and attracted negative attention while acting as apolicewoman was viewed as more acceptable and less stressful, but hinderedopportunities for mobility and select assignments (Berg & Budnick, 1986; Garcia,2003; Martin, 1979). Adhering to either of these roles clearly has consequences.Choosing to de-feminize supports the male model of policing while choosing tode-professionalize accepts the subordinate role of female officers and limits thepotential for advancement and the possibility of deconstructing gendered roles(Berg & Budnick, 1986; Garcia, 2003).
Jacobs’ alternative characterization of occupational behaviors also links to theidea of gendered personas in policing. He found that some female officers either‘act like a lady’ or become ‘one of the boys’ (Jacobs, 1987, p. 5). While ‘actinglike a lady’ does not appear to be an advantageous strategy in a profession that val-ues hegemonic masculinity some female officers choose to be themselves ratherthan disassociate their femininity. Moreover, some choose to ‘act like a lady’because they believe trying to be ‘one of the boys’ is ineffective. Jacobs’ (1987,p. 4) study quoted a female officer, who offered a salient example:
Criminal Justice Studies 361
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
I don’t find that acting like one of the boys is a very positive and effective way todeal with men on the job, nor do I find it very helpful in terms of dealing with people.I like the men that I’m working with to treat me like a lady. I’m not very aggressivewith them because I find you win them over by being more feminine than if you actmore aggressive.
Other female officers disagree and do find it easier to act like ‘one of the boys’ sothat they can participate in the socializing that occurs among officers. In these inci-dents the language and behavior of female officers is often indistinguishable fromtheir male peers. One woman’s blog revealed a slightly different insight:
You want to know what it’s like being a female officer. I wish I knew where to begin.I’ve been a cop for eight years. I’m accepted as ‘one of the guys’, this meaning theycan be crude and say what they want in front of me. But when it comes down tobeing invited out for a beer, or to watch a game at another cop’s house, or beingcalled on the radio with a question, I’m not one of the guys. I’m invisible. I’ve earnedtheir respect over the years, to a certain degree, yet, I get the feeling that a rookie isviewed as more competent than myself. (Brown, 1999, p. 4)
As denoted by the veteran female officer above, the ‘become one of the boys’ strat-egy may result in ‘bounded entrée’ into the boys club but it does not insure respector result in full integration. Indeed, this strategy can penalize female officers thatseek advancement since they are in effect challenging the legitimization of mascu-linity in the police subculture by trying to ‘fit in’ rather than accepting an encapsu-lated role of outsider within the organization. For example, a female lieutenantrecalled finding out from an assistant chief why she had been denied a covetedassignment in the Vice Division:
He said, ‘The reason that you’re not going is because . . . you drink too much with theboys’. I said, ‘What?’ He said, ‘You know, when you go to the Police AssociationClub a couple nights a week? That gets back to the chief’. ‘But, you know what,You’re over there every day’. He said, ‘I know’. He said, ‘You drink too much withthe boys. You’re too close with the boys’. (Fletcher, 1995, p. 197)
In this example, the female officer was penalized for successfully fitting in with hermale colleagues and traversing the masculine identity associated with the policesubculture. The various examples and quotes selected for this section of the articledemonstrate that policewomen experience an array of gender conflicts as theyattempt to counteract or accept the gendered persona expected of them by the gen-dered institution of policing.
Discussion
This article considered the usefulness of feminist theory to understand the histor-ical and modern experiences of women in policing. As shown, Acker’s four pro-cesses of gendered institutions (i.e. legitimization of hegemonic masculinity,control and segregation, doing gender, and gendered personas) are useful inunderstanding women’s experiences in law enforcement. Indeed, many of theproblems faced by female officers that were uncovered by researchers in the1970s were still in existence in the 1990s and beyond and clearly fit withinAcker’s theory. It is clear from this review, however, that the existing research
362 T. O’Connor Shelley et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
has not fully explored the applicability of this theory (and all dimensions) to theexperiences of women in policing. Indeed, most of the existing studies are bestcategorized in only one mechanism of Acker’s theory – the mechanism of con-trol and segregation. This does not mean that control and segregation is themost salient mechanism but rather it indicates that Acker’s theory (and all asso-ciated mechanisms) should be utilized in future research to better explain allaspects of the hindered recruitment, retention, and advancement of women inpolicing.
A research agenda utilizing Acker’s theory could consider a wide range ofissues salient to women in policing. For example, future research mightconsider:
� The heterogeneity of the female experience and note how Acker’s theoryapplies to female officers working in various types of police agencies (Botte-ro, 2000).
� If aspects of the theory explain the full range of the female experience in lawenforcement or if it is more salient at a specific stage of the career path.
� The role of female convergence within a law enforcement agency (see Ott,1989). For women working in agencies with a high percentage of female offi-cers, the experience of traversing the gendered institution will differ fromthose navigating an agency in which they are the sole female.
� The impact that female leadership (and type/degree of it) has on subordinatewomen’s experiences. It is possible that once women have achieved com-mand positions, it is easier for others to succeed.
� Specific organizational policies and practices (official and unofficial) that haveeither stymied or contributed successfully to equitable change and retentionof female officers.
If academia and the policing industry continue forward without a theoreticallyinformed examination of practices that stymie female progress in law enforcementthere are a number of social costs. The failure of police departments to hire,retain, and promote female employees has wide-ranging effects on the agency, thecommunity, and society. At the agency level, it is unlikely that there will bechange in the status quo. What is more likely is agencies will continue to fail toattract and retain qualified female candidates. There are high financial costs asso-ciated with turnover (Orrick, 2005) as new officers must be recruited and trainedto replace officers who have left. More important than financial considerationshowever, is police organizations and communities will not realize the benefits ofa diversified police force (i.e. equality, alternative viewpoints, connection to com-munity). The existence of gender inequities in the dominant social institutioncharged with the enforcement of society’s laws symbolizes that such inequitiesare permissible and that police work is an occupation inappropriate for women. Inaddition, it is important to investigate inequalities in the workplace because ‘. . .much societal inequality originates in such organizations’ (Acker, 2006, p. 441).Social inequalities are an injustice and their presence clearly undermines demo-cratic values and the critical role of the police in democratic societies. As such,police agencies should uphold the law, avoid the propagation of inequalityregimes (Acker, 2006), and model the importance of gender equality for the com-munity and other social institutions.
Criminal Justice Studies 363
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to acknowledge Sarah Cavalier, Samantha Hogness and Nick Pfeiferfor their invaluable research assistance.
Notes1. The exception to this is a handful of studies that rely on tenets of Kanter’s (1977) theory
of tokenism.2. During this process, it became apparent that the majority of studies conducted to date
best fit in Acker’s Control and Segregation category. Thus, the Control and Segregationsection consists of a longer review. This disparity is not meant to diminish the impor-tance of the other three categories but rather, indicates significant gaps of existing knowl-edge about the experiences of women in policing.
3. Masculinity is a social construction of characteristics that are often applied to men butthey are not inherently male traits (Dick & Jankowicz, 2001).
4. Duties that are socially constructed as ‘feminine’ are not inherently female but have beencharacterized as such to devalue those work tasks simply because they have not beensocially constructed as masculine.
5. As discussed earlier, these beliefs exist among individual officers but they also exist atthe organizational level and have organizational implications in the form of selectivepriming and deployment blocking both of which stymie promotional opportunities.
Notes on contributorsTara O’Connor Shelley is an Assistant Professor with the Center for the Study of Crime andJustice (CSCJ), Department of Sociology at Colorado State University. She received herPhD in Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University and her MS in Justice,Law and Society from the American University. She has worked for the Florida Departmentof Law Enforcement, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the Justice Research andStatistics Association. Her research interests include police and society, environmental crimeand justice, punitive attitudes, and comparative justice. She has recently published inOrganization and Environment, Journal of Criminal Justice, and Policing: An InternationalJournal of Police Strategies and Management.
Melissa Schaefer Morabito is an Assistant Professor at University of Massachusetts Bostonin the Department of Sociology. She received her PhD in Justice, Law and Society fromAmerican University. She was previously a postdoctoral fellow at the National Institute ofMental Health funded Center for Mental Health Services and Criminal Justice Research.Morabito conducts research on the adoption of police innovation concentrating on issues ofdiversity and police response to people with mental illness. She has recently published inPolice Quarterly, Crime & Delinquency and Psychiatric Services.
Jennifer Tobin-Gurley is a Research Assistant at the Center for Disaster and Risk Analysisand a second year PhD student in the Department of Sociology at Colorado State University(CSU). She earned her BA in Sociology and Women’s Studies from CSU in 2005 and MAin Sociology in 2008. Her master’s thesis research drew on qualitative interviews with localdisaster recovery workers and single mothers who were displaced to Colorado afterHurricane Katrina. Her work on the post-disaster resource needs of single mothers wasrecently published in the International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters.
ReferencesAcker, J. (1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21, 565–
569.Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender and
Society, 20, 441–464.Bailyn, L. (2003). Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from MIT. Gender,
Work, and Organization, 10, 137–153.
364 T. O’Connor Shelley et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
Balkin, J. (1988). Why policemen don’t like policewomen. Journal of Police Science andAdministration, 16, 29–38.
Balkin, J., Katz, C., Levin, J., & Brandt, D. (1977). Police in college: The value gap revis-ited. Psychological Reports, 41, 1023–1029.
Bartol, C.R., Bergen, G.T., Volckens, J.S., & Knoras, K.M. (1992). Women in small-townpolicing. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 240–259.
Berg, B.L., & Budnick, K.J. (1986). Defeminization of women in law enforcement: A newtwist in the traditional police personality. Journal of Police Science and Administration,14, 314–319.
Black, D. (1980). The manners and customs of the police. New York, NY: Academic Press.Bloch, P.B., & Anderson, D. (1974). Policewomen on patrol: Final report. Washington, DC:
The Police Foundation.Bottero, W. (2000). Gender and the labour market at the turn of the century: Complexity,
ambiguity, and change. Work, Employment, and Society, 14, 781–791.Brown, H., LICSW. (1999). The trials, tribulations, and triumphs of the ‘Lady Cop’: Surviv-
ing in, and changing, the macho cop shop, and how to cope with your police stress.Reader contributions posted Nov. 1999. Retrieved January 14, 2008, from http://www.geocities.com/stressline_com/bogshrink7.html
Brown, J., & Fielding, J. (1993). Qualitative differences in men and women police officers’experience of occupational stress. Work & Stress, 7, 327–340.
Brown, J., & Heidensohn, F. (2000). Gender and policing: Comparative perspectives. NewYork, NY: St Martin’s.
Chaiyavej, S., & Morash, M. (2009). Reasons for policewomen’s assertive and passive reac-tions to sexual harassment. Police Quarterly, 12, 63–85.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, P.L. 88–353, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).Connell, R.W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.DeJong, C. (2004). Gender differences in officer attitude and behavior: Providing comfort to
citizens. Women & Criminal Justice, 15, 1–32.Dick, P., & Jankowicz, D. (2001). A social constructionist account of police culture and its
influence on the representation and progression of female officers: A repertory grid anal-ysis in a UK police force. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &Management, 24, 181–199.
Dodge, M., & Pogrebin, M. (2001). African-American policewomen: An exploration of pro-fessional relationships. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Man-agement, 24, 550–562.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (n.d.): Prohibited practices. RetrievedMarch 18, 2010, from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm
Eveline, J., & Booth, M. (2002). Gender and sexuality in discourses of managerial control:The case of women miners. Gender, Work, and Organization, 9, 556–578.
Fletcher, C. (1995). Breaking and entering: Women cops break the code of silence to telltheir stories from the inside. New York, NY: Pocket Books.
Forseth, U. (2005). Gender matters? Exploring how gender is negotiated in service encoun-ters Gender, Work, and Organization, 12, 440–459.
Garcia, V. (2003). Difference in the police department: Women, policing, and doing gender.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19, 330–344.
Gascon, G., & Schaefer, M. (2003). Bringing diversity to hiring and recruiting practices.Bureau of Justice Assistance White Paper. Cultural Diversity and the Police (CDAP)Project, Bureau of Justice Assistance, US Department of Justice.
Gherardi, S. (1994). The gender we think, the gender we do in our everyday organizationallives. Human Relations, 47, 591–610.
Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem oriented approach. Crime and Delin-quency, 25, 236–258.
Grennan, S.A. (1987). Findings on the role of officer gender in violent encounters with citi-zens. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 78–85.
Gustafson, J. (2008). Tokenism in policing: An empirical test of Kanter’s hypothesis. Jour-nal of Criminal Justice, 36, 1–10.
Haarr, R.N. (1997). Patterns of interaction in a police patrol bureau: Race and gender barri-ers to integration. Justice Quarterly, 14, 53–85.
Criminal Justice Studies 365
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
Haarr, R.N. (2005). Factors affecting the decision of police recruits to ‘drop out’ of policework. Police Quarterly, 8, 431–453.
Herbert, S. (2001). ‘Hard charger’ or ‘station queen’? Policing and the masculinist state.Gender, Place, and Culture, 8, 55–71.
Hickman, M.J., & Reeves, B.A. (2006). Law-enforcement management and administrativestatistics: Local police departments, 2003. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics,US Department of Justice.
Hochschild, A. (1973). Making it-marginality and obstacles to minority consciousness.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 208, 179–184.
Hunt, J.C. (1990). The logic of sexism among police. Women and Criminal Justice, 1, 3–27.Husu, L. (2005). Women’s work-related and family-related discrimination and support in
Academia. Advances in Gender Research, 9, 161–199.Inwald, R.E., & Shusman, E.J. (1984). Personality and performance sex-differences of law –
enforcement officer recruits. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 339–347.Ireland, C., & Berg, B. (2006). Women in parole: Gendered adaptations of female parole
agents in California. Women and Criminal Justice, 18, 131–150.Ireland, C., & Berg, B. (2008). Women in parole: Respect and rapport. International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 474–491.Jacobs, P. (1987). How female police officers cope with a traditionally male position. Sociol-
ogy and Social Research, 72, 4–6.Jordan, W.T., Fridell, L., Faggiani, D., & Kubu, B. (2009). Attracting females and racial/eth-
nic minorities to law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 333–341.Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic.Kappeler, V.E., Sluder, R.D., & Alpert, G. (1995). Breeding deviant conformity: Police ide-
ology and culture. In V. Kappeler (Ed.), The police and society (pp. 243–262). ProspectHeights, IL: Waveland Press.
Lonsway, K., Carrington, S., Aguirre, P., Wood, M., Moore, M., Harrington, P., Smeal, E.,& Spillar, K. (2002). Equality denied: The status of women in policing: 2001. NationalCenter for Women & Policing, a Division of the Feminist Majority Foundation.
Maguire, E. (1997). Structural change in large municipal police organizations during thecommunity policing era. Justice Quarterly, 14, 547–576.
Martin, S. (1978). Sexual politics in the workplace: The interactional world of policewomen.Symbolic Interaction, 1, 44–60.
Martin, S. (1979). Policewomen and policewomen: Occupational role dilemmas and thechoices of female officers. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 7, 314–323.
Martin, S. (1999). Police force or police service? Gender and emotional labor. The ANNALSof the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 111–126.
Mason, M.A., & Goulden, M. (2004). Marriage and baby blues: Redefining gender equity inthe academy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,596, 86–103.
Miller, S. (1999). Gender and community policing: Walking the talk. Boston, MA: North-eastern University.
Morash, M., & Haarr, R.N. (1995). Gender, workplace problems, and stress in policing.Justice Quarterly, 12, 113–140.
Orrick, D. (2005, September). Police turnover. Police Chief, 72.Ott, M. (1989). Effects of the male–female ratio at work: Policewomen and male nurses.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 41–57.Pogrebin, M., Dodge, M., & Chatman, H. (2000). Reflections of African-American women
on their careers in urban policing: Their experiences of racial and sexual discrimination.International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 28, 311–326.
Police Forums & Law Enforcement. (2001). Let’s discuss WOMEN cops blog. Retrieved Jan-uary 14, 2008, from http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-17016.html
Prenzler, T., & Ransley, J. (2002). Police reform: Building integrity. Sydney: Hawkins Press.Prokos, A., & Padavic, I. (2002). ‘There oughtta be a law against bitches’: Masculinity les-
sons in police academy training. Gender, Work, and Organization, 9, 439–459.Rabe-Hemp, C.E., & Schuck, A.M. (2007). Violence against police officers: Are women at
greater risk? Police Quarterly, 10, 411–428.
366 T. O’Connor Shelley et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011
Ruble, T.L., Cohen, R., & Ruble, D.N. (1984). Sex stereotypes: Occupational barriers forwomen. The American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 339–356.
Shusta, R.M., Levine, D.R., Harris, P.R., & Wong, H.Z. (1995). Multicultural assessment:Strategies for peacekeeping in a diverse society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stichman, A., Hassell, K., & Archbold, C. (2010). Strength in numbers? A test of Kanter’stheory of tokenism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 633–639.
Timmins, W.M., & Hainsworth, B.E. (1989). Attracting and retaining females in lawenforcement: Sex-based problems of women cops in 1988. International Journal ofOffender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 33, 197–205.
Walker, S., & Katz, C. (2005). The police in America: An introduction. Boston, MA:McGraw-Hill.
Westmarland, L. (2001). Gender and policing: Sex, power and police culture. Cullompton:Willan.
Whetstone, T.S. (2001). Copping out: Why police officers decline to participate in the ser-geant’s promotional process. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 147–159.
White, K. (2004). The leaking pipeline: Women postgraduate and early career researchers inAustralia. Tertiary Education and Management, 10, 227–241.
Criminal Justice Studies 367
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o St
ate
Uni
vers
ity],
[T
ara
O’C
onno
r Sh
elle
y] a
t 17:
32 0
8 N
ovem
ber
2011