Advertisement

Home Heating, Technology and Gender: A Qualitative Analysis

  • Ursula Offenberger
  • Julia Nentwich
Chapter
Part of the ZEW Economic Studies book series (ZEW, volume 44)

Abstract

Few empirical studies take gender into account when analysing sustainable consumption. Even those studies that consider gender are not without shortcomings in their theorizing on gender. Drawing on insights from gender theory, we use a multilevel approach to investigate the relevance of gender to domestic energy consumption in Germany.

Keywords

Trade Fair Gender Identity Facility Management Central Heating Sustainable Consumption 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akrich, M. (1992) The De-Scription of Technical Objects, in: Bijker, W.E. and J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society, Cambridge/MA, 205-224.Google Scholar
  2. Behnke, C. and M. Meuser (2004) “Immer nur alles am Laufen haben.” Arrangements von Doppelkarrierepaaren zwischen Beruf und Familie. Arbeitsbericht des Projekts “Doppelkarrierepaare”, University of Dortmund, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  3. Brown K, Taylor L. Do as You Say. Say as You Do: Evidence on Gender Differences in Actual and Stated Contributions to Public Goods, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization Studies. 2000;43:127-139.Google Scholar
  4. Bruni, A., S. Gherardi and B. Poggio (2005), Gender and Entrepreneurship: An Ethnographic Approach, London.Google Scholar
  5. Butler J. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”. New York; 1993.Google Scholar
  6. Cadsby CB, Maynes E. Gender and Free Riding in a Threshold Public Goods Game: Experimental Evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 1998;34:603-620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cockburn, C. (1999), Caught in the Wheels: The High Cost of Being a Female Cog in the Male Machinery of Engineering, in: MacKenzie, D. and J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Social Shaping of Technology (2nd ed.), Buckingham, 126-133.Google Scholar
  8. Collinson D, Hearn J. Naming Men as Men: Implications for Work, Organization and Management, in: MacKenzie, D. and J. Wajcman, Gender. Work and Organization. 1994;1:2-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Degele, N. and G. Winker (2009), Intersektionalität. Zur Analyse sozialer Ungleichheiten, transcript, Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  10. Devries J. imug-Emnid: Verbraucher und Verantwortung: Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung. Hannover; 1997.Google Scholar
  11. Empacher, C., K. Götz, I. Schultz and B. Birzle-Harder, Eds. (2000), Demonstrationsvorhaben zur Fundierung und Evaluierung nachhaltiger Konsummuster und Verhaltensstile. Endbericht des Teilprojektes 2: Haushaltsexploration der Bedingungen, Möglichkeiten und Grenzen nachhaltigen Konsumverhaltens. Im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  12. Eriksson-Zetterquist U. Editorial: Gender and New Technologies, Gender. Work and Organization. 2007;14(4):305-311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faulkner W. Dualisms, Hierarchies and Gender in Engineering. Social Studies of Science. 2000a;30(5):759-792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faulkner W. The Power and the Pleasure? A Research Agenda for “Making Gender Stick” to Engineers. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2000b;25(1):87-119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faulkner W. The Technology Question in Feminism: A View From Feminist Technology Studies, Women’s Studies Int. Forum. 2001;24(1):79-95.Google Scholar
  16. Fournier, V. and W. Smith (2006), Scripting Masculinity, Ephemera www.ephemeraweb.org 6(2), 141-162.
  17. Fox Keller E. Reflections on Gender and Science. CT: New Haven; 1985.Google Scholar
  18. Gherardi, S. and B. Poggio (2007), Gendertelling in Organizations: Narratives from Male-Dominated Environments, Fredriksberg.Google Scholar
  19. Gildemeister, R. (2004), Geschlechterdifferenzen - Geschlechterdifferenzierung: Beispiele und Folgen eines Blickwechsels in der empirischen Geschlechterforschung, in: Buchen S., M. Maier and C. Helfferich, Gender methodologisch. Empirische Forschung in der Informationsgesellschaft vor neuen Herausforderungen, Wiesbaden, 27-45.Google Scholar
  20. Glaser, B. G. and A. Strauss (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago.Google Scholar
  21. Goffman E. The Arrangement Between the Sexes. Theory and Society. 1977;4(3):301-331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grint, K. and R. Gill, Eds. (1995), The Gender-Technology Relation: Contemporary Theory and Research, London.Google Scholar
  23. Guy S, Shove E. A Sociology of Energy, Buildings, and the Environment: Constructing Knowledge. London: Designing Practice; 2000.Google Scholar
  24. Harding S. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca; 1986.Google Scholar
  25. Hausen, K. (1976), Die Polarisierung der „Geschlechtscharaktere”: Eine Spiegelung der Dissoziation von Erwerbs- und Familienleben, in: Conze, W. (Ed.), Sozialgeschichte der Familie in der Neuzeit Europas: Neue Forschungen, Stuttgart, 363-393.Google Scholar
  26. Henwood KL, Parkhill KA, Pidgeon NF. Science, Technology and Risk Perception: From Gender Differences to the Effects Made by Gender. Equal Opportunities International. 2008;28(8):662-676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holstein JA, Gubrium JF. The Active Interview. CA: Thousand Oaks; 1995.Google Scholar
  28. Hyde JS. The Gender Similarities Hypothesis. American Psychologist. 2005;60(6):581-592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (2010), Berufe im Spiegel der Statistik, retrieved on 26 October 2010. http://bisds.infosys.iab.de/.
  30. Johansson U. The Transformation of Gendered Work: Dualistic Stereotypes and Paradoxical Reality, Gender. Work and Organization. 1998;5(1):43-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kelan EK. Gender Logic: Un/Doing Gender at Work, Gender. Work and Organization. 2010;17(2):174-194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lohan M. Constructive Tensions in Feminist Technology Studies. Social Studies of Science. 2000;30(6):895-916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lohan M, Faulkner W. Masculinites and Technologies. Men and Masculinities. 2004;6:319-329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lorber J, Farrell SA. The Social Construction of Gender. CA: Newbury Park; 1991.Google Scholar
  35. Lykke N. Feminist Studies: A Guide to Intersectional Theory. New York: Methodology and Writing; 2010.Google Scholar
  36. Martin P. “Said and Done” Versus “Saying and Doing”: Gendering Practices, Practicing Gender at Work. Gender & Society. 2003;17(3):342-366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin P. Gender as Social Institution. Social Forces. 2004;82(4):1249-1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin P. Practising Gender at Work: Further Thoughts on Reflexivity, Gender. Work and Organization. 2006;13(3):254-276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McKenzie, D. and J. Wajcman, Eds. (1999), The Social Shaping of Technology, Buckingham.Google Scholar
  40. Mellström U. Machines and Masculine Subjectivity: Technology as an Integral Part of Men’s Life Experiences. Men and Masculinities. 2004;6(4):368-382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mitani Y, Flores N. Does Gender Matter for Demand Revelation in Threshold Public Goods Experiments? Economics Bulletin. 2008;3(27):1-7.Google Scholar
  42. Nentwich, J.C. and E. Kelan (2007), All Said and Done? The Understanding of ‘Doing Gender’ and its Discontents. 5th international conference “Gender, Work and Organization”, Keele University, UK.Google Scholar
  43. Offenberger U, Nentwich JC. Home Heating and the Co-construction of Gender, Technology and Sustainability, Women, Gender and Research 18(3-4). Gendering Climate Change: Special Issue; 2009. p. 83-91.Google Scholar
  44. Oldenziel R. Making Technology Masculine: Men, Women and Modern Machines in America 1870-1945. Amsterdam; 1999.Google Scholar
  45. Oudshoorn N, Pinch T. Introduction: How Users and Non-Users Matter. In: Oudshoorn N, Pinch T, editors. How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technologies. Cambridge: MA/London; 2003. p. 1-25.Google Scholar
  46. Parsons T, Bales RF. Family. Glencoe, IL: Socialization and Interaction Process; 1955.Google Scholar
  47. Preisendörfer P. Umwelteinstellungen und Umweltverhalten in Deutschland. Opladen; 1999.Google Scholar
  48. Röhr, U. and D. Ruggieri (2008), Erneuerbare Energien: Ein Arbeitsmarkt für Frauen!, Berlin.Google Scholar
  49. Schwartz Cowan, R. (1987), The Consumption Junction: A Proposal for Research Strategies in the Sociology of Technology, in: Bijker, W.E., T.P. Hughes and T.J. Pinch, The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, MA/London, 261-280.Google Scholar
  50. Shove E. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality, New York; 2003.Google Scholar
  51. Statistisches Bundesamt (2009), Zuhause in Deutschlan: Ausstattung und Wohnsituation privater Haushalte, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  52. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London, New Delhi: Newbury Park; 1990.Google Scholar
  53. Strübing J. Grounded Theory: Zur sozialtheoretischen und epistemologischen Fundierung des Verfahrens der empirisch begründeten Theoriebildung. Wiesbaden; 2004.Google Scholar
  54. Torgler, B., M. A. G. Valiñas and A. Macintyre (2008), Differences in Preferences Towards the Environment: The Impact of a Gender, Age and Parental Effect. Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1105320.
  55. van Oost E. Materialized Gender: How Shavers Configure the Users’ Femininity and Masculinity. In: Oudshoorn N, Pinch T, editors. How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technologies. Cambridge: MA; 2003. p. 193-208.Google Scholar
  56. Wajcman J. Feminism Confronts Technology. Cambridge; 1991.Google Scholar
  57. Wajcman J. Desperately Seeking Difference: Is Management Style Gendered? British Journal of Industrial Relations. 1996;34(3):333-349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wajcman J. Addressing Technological Change: The Challenge to Social Theory. Current Sociology. 2002;50(3):347-363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weller, I., D. Hayn and I. Schultz (2001), Geschlechterverhältnisse, nachhaltige Konsummuster und Umweltbelastungen: Vorstudie zur Konkretisierung von Forschungsfragen und Akteurskooperationen. BMBF-Sondierungsstudie. Abschlußbericht. Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung ISOE, Universität Bremen bzw. TU Berlin, BMBF, Frankfurt, Bremen, Berlin.Google Scholar
  60. West C, Zimmerman DH. Doing Gender: Gender & Society. 1987;1(2):125-151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zelezny LC, Poh-Pheng C, Aldrich C. Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues. 2000;56(3):443-457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ursula Offenberger
    • 1
  • Julia Nentwich
    • 1
  1. 1.University of St.GallenSt.GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations