Suchergebnisse

The article addresses the questions, What do children in urban areas do on Saturdays? What types of organizational resources do they have access to? Does this vary by social class? Using diary data on children's activities on Saturdays in the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale metropolitan area, the authors describe the different types of venues (households, businesses, public space, associations, charities, congregations, and government/tribal agencies) that served different types of children. They find that the likelihood of using a charity or business rather than a government or tribal provider increased with family income. Also, the likelihood of using a congregation or a government facility rather than a business, charity, or household increased with being Hispanic. The authors discuss the implications for the urban division of labor on Saturdays and offer research questions that need further investigation.

The authors examine children's access to and caregiver's satisfaction with organizations that provide leisure time activities for children on Saturdays. The authors argue that access and satisfaction are a function of families' financial, cultural, and social capital. Using data on 1,036 households in the Phoenix metropolitan area in 2003–04, the authors found that families' financial and cultural capital affected whether or not children participated in activities organized by organizations, but family ties to the organization directly (e.g., either worked there, volunteered, donated) resulted in caregivers being more satisfied with the services. The authors also found that the benefits of network closure (caregivers knowing the parents of the other children on site) were greater the riskier the activities of the child (e.g., sports or cheerleading). Contrary to the authors' expectations, having family or friends in the area did not affect caregiver's satisfaction with the child's provider.

Previous research has shown that gendered societal expectations are adopted by students as seemingly personal and individualistic self‐assessments and preferences, which then lead to gender‐normative choices about college majors and careers. This study examines one seemingly objective mechanism, which millions use each year for guidance on college majors and careers. We examine two Career Assessment Tools (CATs) with deep institutional presence: O*NET and Traitify. Analyzing an exemplar case of engineering majors, we find that CATs are less likely to recommend engineering occupations to women, even after controlling for GPA, satisfaction with the major, and planned persistence. Even in our sample of engineering majors, CATs apparently use small differences in students' gender‐normative self‐expressive preferences to drive sharply different occupational recommendations, thereby solidifying pathways toward gender‐segregated occupations and reinforcing men's dominance of engineering. If women similar to our study participants take CATs, they are likely to be steered away from engineering occupations or majors. More broadly, CATs illustrate how taken‐for‐granted, seemingly neutral technologies can reinforce gender segregation.