Originally published here.

This article, celebrating 25 year of Gender, Work and Organization, reflects on some of the events that led to establishing the journal. It proceeds to consider the three central elements that have inspired the journal ‐ gender, work and organization ‐ and how they have become more problematic, perhaps much more problematic, over the lifetime of the journal. Indeed, paradoxically, these shift have occurred at the same time as GWO and the field of which it is part have become more established. Just as the field of gender and organizations has become more legitimate area of study, the concept of ‘gender’ has become more complex, more contested, less certain. This also applies to the notion of ‘organization’, perhaps less so to ‘work’. The latter part of the article considers what happens when one views the GWO itself in terms of gender‐work‐organization analysis, and how such questions may develop in the future.

There is so much that is excellent about GWO that it is hard to know where to start, so like a good family member I hope I am allowed to poke a little fun at, even criticize, GWO. So, let's state the obvious. First, and perhaps foremost, GWO is a journal, with linked conferences. Initially, the journal was produced first in print, with a darker shade of pink which shifted to purple, and then, in my view slightly sadly, became online only. These two changes have changed it, at least for this reader, so that, for example, I don’t immediately scour it, as I used to, when it arrived in the post. The articles that make up the journal conform more or less to the conventions of journal articles. Thus, this means certain length, certain reference to literature, the canon and so on. As Helene Ahl (2002) explains:

"Scientific journal articles make up their own literary genre with its own distinctive marks. Literary theorist John Swales (1990) has analyzed articles in international science articles [sic] and found that they make more or less use the same rhetorical moves to create interest and convey their message. The introduction section, in particular, almost always follows the same three‐step procedure. First, establish a territory by claiming the centrality or the importance of the research area. Second, establish a niche by indicating a research gap, making a counter claim or raising a question. Alternatively, indicate the continuance of a research tradition. Third, occupy the established niche. This is usually accomplished through the presentation of the work or its purpose and by announcing the principal findings. (p. 84)"

Raewyn Connell (2015, p. 20) has amplified on this in discussing the nature of journal articles:

1. It's strongly stylized: there's a pre‐arranged publication mechanism, the journal itself, with its own rules about style …In media jargon, the writer is just the ‘content provider’.

2. It's cramped: it lives and breathes in a severely limited space. Most journals have word limits, and often the limits are tight.…

3. It's a communication to a limited audience: a knowledgeable professional audience, not a wide public. Normally it's wise to follow the conventions, and use the language that audience knows. Sometimes you might challenge conventions, but have a very good case for doing so!

4. It's self‐contained: it has to explain itself and complete itself —which is quite different from a book or thesis chapter. But unlike self‐contained genres such as the short story or the literary essay, the journal article explains itself in relation to the work of other researchers. Thus it becomes part of a collective process of knowledge formation. 

You can read the complete article here.

Or you can listen to it on Spotify.