The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sex Segregation, Labor Process Organization, and Gender Earnings Inequality
Abstract
This article revisits Tam's finding that occupational sex composition does not influence wages. This problem is approached in two quite different ways. First, a potential conceptual and methodological weakness in all research that focuses on national occupational, rather than local job and organizational, processes is pointed out. Second, the implications of organizationally relevant social closure and gendered labor process theories for our understanding of wage determination models is developed. The gendered devaluation and specialized human capital theories, which are stressed by Tam and his critics, do not represent the entire story. We find that the sex composition effect on wages exists, but it is indirect and relatively weak, operating largely through lower access of typically female jobs to extensive training. There is no strong evidence for the existence of a more generic gendered labor process in these cross‐sectional data. The evidence for social closure processes in this article is limited to the gendered nature of access to on‐the‐job training.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Becker, G. S. (1991) · doi:10.4159/9780674020665 · Cited by 10,565
Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education
Becker, G. S. (1993) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226041223.001.0001 · Cited by 4,509
Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment
Ridgeway, C. L. (1997) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657301 · Cited by 939 · cited 2×
“We agree with Ridgeway (1997) that gender and gender devaluation are interactional accomplishments and so must take place in concrete social settings (i.e., the workplaces where labor processes are negotiated, wages are set, and people allocated to jobs).”
Background
Cited by
A Welfare State Paradox: State Interventions and Women’s Employment Opportunities in 22 Countries
Mandel, H., & Semyonov, M. (2006) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/499912 · Cited by 647
Martin, P. Y. (2004) · Social Forces · doi:10.1353/sof.2004.0081 · Cited by 592
Not by Productivity Alone: How Visibility and Specialization Contribute to Academic Earnings
Leahey, E. (2007) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240707200403 · Cited by 356
Organizational Approaches to Inequality: Inertia, Relative Power, and Environments
Stainback, K., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Skaggs, S. (2010) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120014 · Cited by 293
Self-citationTomaskovic‐Devey, D., Thomas, M., & Johnson, K. (2005) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/431779 · Cited by 279
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tomaskovic‐Devey, D., & Skaggs, S.
- Venue
- American Journal of Sociology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 102-128
- ISSN
- 0002-9602 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5390
- OpenAlex
- W1923570296
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 19.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sex Segregation, Labor Process Organization, and Gender Earnings Inequality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/344214
- The paper
- Tomaskovic‐Devey, D., & Skaggs, S. (2002). Sex Segregation, Labor Process Organization, and Gender Earnings Inequality. American Journal of Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1086/344214
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.