|
Wendy Gidman and Karen
Hassell are from the Centre
for Pharmacy Workforce
Studies at University of Manchester
|
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain was founded in 1841.
Following a protracted application procedure the first women, Isabella
Skinner Clarke and Rose Coombes, were admitted in 1879. Although the
President of the Council at that time was opposed to the inclusion of
women, the Council considered that most members would not object to qualified
women joining and, anyway, believed that few women were likely to apply.
Indeed, by 1941, some 60 years after Clarke and Coombes became pharmacists,
only 10 per cent of the membership were women. However, pharmacy, alongside
teaching, medicine, dentistry and law, is among the growing number of
professions that have attracted increasingly high proportions of women
into its ranks. Today, 54 per cent of pharmacists and over 60 per cent
of pharmacy undergraduates are female.
What is happening in pharmacy is, no doubt, simply a reflection of changes
taking place in society as a whole, since women’s employment in
general has increased steadily in the past six decades such that there
are now approximately equal numbers of men and women in work. Although
it seems positive that the numbers of women in the professional sectors
of the workforce have risen so dramatically, it is nevertheless the case
that, historically, women have been concentrated in jobs which tend to
be lower paid than those of their male counterparts and, if not lower
paid, certainly in jobs somehow considered lower status.
Is this the case in pharmacy? Is there, for example, gender equality
in pharmacy, with women occupying a proportional number of senior management
roles? Research evidence suggests that, among pharmacists, women tend
to be better qualified than men. Yet, despite this, women pharmacists
are disproportionately represented in the lower grade hospital jobs and
in operational level primary care trust jobs. In the community sector
they are under-represented as owners and senior managers.
Evidence is now beginning to emerge from our most recent study that women
in pharmacy are paid less than men. Why is this the case? Are women pharmacists
actively choosing to work in these particular jobs through preference
or are they in some way being marginalised and forced into accepting
lower status positions?
Whatever explanation lies behind the patterns that exist in pharmacy,
there is another question worth posing: what are the consequences in
relation to the status of the profession as a whole, if these patterns
continue? Typically, two forms of gender segmentation have been identified
within the employment market: horizontal segmentation and vertical segmentation.
Horizontal segmentation occurs when certain professions are “gender-typed” and
usually involves one gender being selectively recruited for specific
roles. Traditionally, gender-typing has resulted in a general lowering
of the occupational status of women’s work. Vertical segmentation
describes the situation where women occupy lower level positions within
a profession. This, generally, is as a result of recruitment or promotion
practices favouring one gender over another, the so called “glass
ceiling” effect. In some cases segmentation simply reflects the
differential skill level of the labour force. One way in which women
can improve their employment potential is by increasing their intellectual
capital, that is, by using the “qualifications lever”. Professional
qualifications are particularly appealing to women because theoretically
all qualified professionals are considered to be equal. An added advantage
of specialised occupational skills is that they may confer a level of
autonomy, allowing part-time working, career breaks, frequent job changing
and geographical mobility.
So, if vertical segmentation is resulting in women occupying a lower
position in the pharmacy occupational hierarchy than men, are women happy
about their position in pharmacy? Preference theory suggests that a high
proportion of women feel torn between their families and their careers
and consequently prefer to adapt their work patterns to fit in with domestic
commitments. Women who fall into this category often decrease their working
hours when they have a family. It is by now well established that part-time
working is common among women pharmacists after the age of 30, and pharmacy
is perceived as a career which attracts women because it offers flexible
as well as part-time working.
It could be argued that women pharmacists fail to match the career successes
of their male colleagues because they work fewer hours and have broken
employment patterns. It is important to remember, however, that women
pharmacists are a heterogeneous group. Although it is not yet clear exactly
how prevalent the glass ceiling is in pharmacy, it is possible that some
women may face barriers to career progression and women’s concentration
in lower status and lower paid jobs is a consequence of discriminatory
employment practices rather than women’s preferences for family-friendly
employment conditions.
Another consideration is how the “feminisation” of pharmacy
has affected the profession as a whole. Historically, when a traditionally
male job became “feminised” working conditions tended to
deteriorate and status level lowered. A classic example of this is the
feminisation and declining status of clerical work. In the early 20th
century clerical work was male-dominated, complex and moderately high
status. Feminisation resulted in a decline in status and the scope of
the clerical role narrowed. However, the relationship between status
and feminisation in pharmacy is not clear cut.
It could be considered that the influx of women has coincided with pharmacy “de-skilling”,
at least in the community sector. The pharmacist’s job has altered
in recent years such that it principally comprises dispensing and record-keeping.
In addition to this, opportunities for independent ownership have declined
with the growth of large chainstore pharmacies. It is worth remembering
that during this time the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has attempted
to “reprofessionalise” pharmacy by dispelling the “trade” aspect
of the work and by increasing the training element. Furthermore, it has
been suggested that “professionalism” within pharmacy has
increased as a result of women joining the profession, because of the
different values and approaches they bring to practice.
In spite of this, anecdotal evidence indicates that levels of remuneration
are perceived to have deteriorated in recent years. Is this as a direct
result of more women joining the workforce? Are women reducing the status
of pharmacy or are they simply changing it? Are employers discriminating
against women who want to maintain a career and remain committed to their
profession, but want some work/life balance at the same time? Is pharmacy
a less attractive employment option to men as a consequence of feminisation? |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal