Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems
Publication Year: 1999
This book offers a powerful new approach to policy studies. Drawing on recent perspectives from social constructionism, discourse analysis, the sociology of social problems and feminism, Carol Bacchi develops a step-by-step analytical tool for deconstructing policy problems. Her `What's the Problem?' approach encourages students to reflect critically upon the ways in which policy problems get constructed within policy debates and policy proposals.
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Policy Studies: Traditional Approaches
- Chapter 2: Rethinking Policy Studies
- Chapter 3: Rethinking ‘Social Problems’
- Chapter 4: Pay Equity: On Whose Terms?
- Chapter 5: Discrimination: Who is Responsible?
- Chapter 6: Education Policy: Access or Transformation?
- Chapter 7: Child Care Policy: Who Gains?
- Chapter 8: Abortion: Whose Right?
- Chapter 9: Domestic Violence: Battered Women or Violent Men?
- Chapter 10: Sexual Harassment: What is Sexual about it?
© Carol Lee Bacchi 1999
First published 1999
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the Publishers.
SAGE Publications Ltd
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
SAGE Publications Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
32, M-Block Market
Greater Kailash – I
New Delhi 110 048
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 0 7619 5674 3
ISBN 0 7619 5675 1 (pbk)
Library of Congress catalog record available
Typeset by Mayhew Typesetting, Rhayader, Powys
Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd, Trowbridge, Wiltshire
to Stephen[Page vi]
The approach to policy developed in this book – a What's the Problem? approach – was fine-honed over several years of teaching undergraduate Policy courses in the Politics Department, University of Adelaide. The students' enthusiasm for the approach and the critical insights it generated convinced me to put it into print. My colleagues in the Department, in particular Doug McEachern, Chris Beasley, Carol Johnson, Greg McCarthy, Clem Macintyre, Marion Maddox and Peter Mayer, offered valuable insights and enthusiastic encouragement. The Office of the Status of Women, South Australia, headed by Carmel O'Loughlin, and the South Australian Health Commission, through Cara Ellickson, provided the opportunity to test the usefulness of the approach amongst those involved in policy making.
I was based at the McGill Centre for Research and Teaching on Women, in Montreal, between March and June 1997. The congenial atmosphere generated by Shree Mulay, Blossom Shaffer and Monica Hotter enabled me to conduct important research. A Faculty Research Award from the Canadian High Commission made this stay feasible. While in Canada I had the opportunity to test out my ideas on a number of people. I received important critical feedback from Susan Phillips, Pat Armstrong, Rianne Mahon and Marion Palley from the University of Delaware. Back in Australia, Trish Harris from Murdoch University read and commented upon Part One of the book. Her very positive evaluation gave me a much needed boost at a difficult time in the writing. As I mention in Chapter 5, Wendy Bastalich deserves acknowledgement for her insights into the regulatory effects of skills discourse. Two University of Adelaide Research Grants provided some much-needed time for research and writing up.
I would also like to thank Kate Leeson for her always prompt and efficient research assistance, Jayne Taylor for her unsolicited role as purveyor of key documents, my nieces Kristina and Michelle for help with research and child minding, and Chris McElhinney and Tina Esca for assistance with the final preparation of the manuscript.
The editorial staff at Sage, especially Karen Phillips, have been most helpful during the production of this volume. The readers provided by Sage, notably Jeanne Gregory, offered encouragement and useful critical insights. Any remaining lapses are, of course, my own.
[Page x]And to my dear son, Stephen, eternal gratitude for enriching my life and sharpening my conviction that who we are is not solely a matter of what we get paid to do.
By clarifying that which we oppose, we set the groundwork for creating a vision of that for which we long.Marcia Westkott (1983) ‘Women's Studies as a Strategy for Change: Between Criticism and Vision’ in G. Bowles and R. D. Klein (eds) Theories of Women's Studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. p. 212[Page xii]
With the loss of simple answers the questions too have become infinitely more difficult.André Brink (1991) An Act of Terror. London: Martin Secker & Warburg. p. 612
Conclusion: The Politics of Policy Studies[Page 199]
This book develops a new way to think about and to approach policy analysis. The approach, called What's the Problem (represented to be)?, is contrasted with conventional approaches to policy in Part One of the book. In Part Two, the emphasis is upon how to apply the approach. To this end I consider a range of topics commonly considered central to resolving the problem of women's inequality. This larger ‘problem’ is also subjected to critical scrutiny.
The primary challenge I offer to conventional policy approaches is the suggestion that ‘problems’ do not exist out there, in the social world, waiting to be addressed and ‘solved’, but that ‘problems’ are created by the policy community. By this I mean that any policy proposal necessarily contains a diagnosis of the problem to be addressed. The policy proposal by its very nature identifies what is of concern and what needs to change. I call this a problem representation and suggest, as a first step in policy analysis, teasing out the problem representations which necessarily lodge in policy proposals. The argument, put briefly, is that it is impossible to assess policy proposals without doing this since, if in your view the ‘problem’ is misdiagnosed, you are unlikely to find the proposal helpful.
The book uses a social constructionist approach to policy problems. That is, it suggests that, although there are a range of objectionable conditions which need addressing, any attempt to deal with these conditions necessarily imposes a shape upon them. There is no way to access directly those objectionable conditions; hence we need to direct our attention to competing representations of those conditions. A focus upon representations requires a focus upon discourse. Stuart Hall's (1992: 291) definition of discourse makes this connection explicit: ‘a group of statements which provide a language for talking about – i.e. a way of representing – a particular type of knowledge about a topic’. A What's the Problem? approach calls for attention to the discursive construction of problems within policy proposals and policy debate generally. Through this means, it assists in identifying the frames used to construe social ‘problems’. A simple way to characterize a What's the Problem? approach is to say that it directs attention to problematizations rather than to problems, which are held to be inaccessible outside of the ways they are problematized.
In contrast to many social constructionist analyses, I insist that it is both possible and necessary to compare and assess competing [Page 200]representations of social problems. The criteria I elaborate for assessment focus on the implications of competing representations. By implications I mean the effects which appear to accompany or follow from particular representations. Three general categories of effects are identified: the ways in which subjects and subjectivities are constituted in discourse; the effects which follow from the limits imposed on what can be said; and the ‘lived effects’ of discourse (see Chapter 2). I highlight in particular how policies addressing domestic violence, sexual harassment and women's inequality recreate existent power relations by constituting their targets as either disadvantaged, sick or lacking in desired attitudes, while ignoring the power of those in positions of influence to designate the nature of ‘disadvantage’ and of ‘desirable’ attributes.
Chapters 1 and 2 focus directly on conventional policy literature, and some more recent developments in the field. In these chapters I elaborate the claim that we need to see approaches to understanding policy as themselves political. I show that technical rationalists like Herbert Simon (1961) and Eugene Bardach (1981) put their faith in central administration and technocracy, while political rationalists like Charles Lindblom (1980) and Aaron Wildavsky (1979) are pluralists and incrementalists. In different ways both groups imply that policy analysts can stand back from the policy process and offer species of advice to those in government. The kinds of advice offered include either insights into ‘hard’ empirical information and measurement (technical rationalists), or ‘softer’ information about political realities (political rationalism). By way of contrast, authors like Frank Fischer (1980, 1990), John Drysek (1990) and Giandomenico Majone (1989) recognize the analysts' necessarily normative involvement in advice-giving, but try to find ways to ‘manage’ the value dimension of policy analysis. In these accounts, the technical expert of the comprehensive rationalists and the conflict manager of the political rationalists is replaced by the analyst (or in the case of Drysek by the academic) as public critic.
A What's the Problem? approach sees policy analysis as necessarily involved in the discursive construction of policy problems. In this view, there is no outside to the process. Moreover, it contests any suggestion that governments and their advisers do their best to respond to ‘problems’ which they ‘discover’ or which are brought to their attention. This description of government activity, it is argued, misleads the public by suggesting that neutral arbiters are at work dealing with difficult situations and deciding, among other things, when to ‘intervene’ or when not to ‘intervene’. Recognizing the role of the policy community in discursively contructing ‘problems’ (through policy proposals and political debate) produces a very different vision of the political process. For one, it confirms the incoherence of the [Page 201]intervention/non-intervention dichotomy (see Olsen, 1985). That is, we need to recognize the active role (and hence intervention) of governments in discursively constructing social problems as not requiring intervention. This indeed forms an important part of neoliberal rhetoric (see Watts, 1993/4: 116). Showing that governments, often through relationships with non-state actors, actively shape ‘the background rules that affect people's domestic behaviour’ and the legal rules which allow the ‘free market’ to function (Olsen, 1985: 836–7) subverts this rhetoric. Along related lines, governmentality scholars emphasize framings of problems which create political subjects as self-regulating, obviating the need for more intrusive ‘interventions’. These challenges to the discovery/response model of policy making alter quite dramatically feminist debates about whether feminists should turn to the state or avoid ‘inevitable’ co-option. Recognizing the state's pervasive role in framing problems, and by implication nonproblems, highlights the impossibility of evacuating this discursive space. More will be said about this topic shortly.
Chapter 3 elaborates the social constructionist approach to social problems, clarifying where and how a What's the Problem? approach offers something new. In particular, I am critical of conventional social problems literature which seems to imply that there exists a number of discrete social problems which require separate analysis and assessment. I also recognize, with Roger Sibeon (1996), that this approach is dominant among American sociologists, illustrating that approaches to studying social problems are context-bound. Although the shape of Part Two, with separate chapters addressed to particular topics, appears to offer an analysis of discrete topics, the focus throughout is upon identifying common themes, illustrating a wider picture or pattern among more specific policy developments. One of the key features of this broader pattern is indeed the pervasiveness of the discovery/response model of interpretation which suggests that we are ‘facing’ discrete ‘problems’ which require discrete and simple ‘solutions’, for example, pay equity legislation or affirmative action legislation.
I describe Part Two of the book as a guide to method. By this I mean that I use the analyses in Part Two to illustrate the kinds of questions which need to be asked in a What's the Problem? approach. At the same time I impose an analysis. I would suggest that doing anything less would leave the impression that this is just another of those poststructuralist texts which leaves everything floating in the realm of representation. To counter this impression I offer my reading of ‘women's inequality’ and issues commonly tied to this ‘problem’. I also borrow freely from other feminist writings on select topics to illustrate that a number of feminists have already been using the approach I recommend and to bolster my interpretation of particular [Page 202]policy developments. The material from other feminists is never offered in a purely summary fashion; rather it is introduced as part of my analysis.
It is possible but dangerous to pull together the major themes which emerge from Part Two, dangerous because of the need to simplify and hence to lose some of the nuance which accompanies more detailed study. None the less, it is a worthwhile exercise if only to illustrate that what this book is about is providing insights into the dilemmas of making change. I begin, in the Preamble to Part Two, by discussing the limitations of the dominant framing of ‘women's inequality’ as a labour market problem. That is, I think it important to recognize the extent to which the desire (on the part of governments and feminists) to get more women into paid labour has put its stamp upon the kinds of changes which have been encouraged and allowed. Specifically, measures addressing ‘women's inequality’, when cast in this light, have been incorporationist and insufficiently critical of existing standards and institutions. In the period under investigation, the 1970s and 1980s, a number of Western democracies (the United States, Canada and Australia provide most of my examples) introduced equal pay and pay equity legislation, equal opportunity and affirmative action legislation, equity in education legislation, and some targeted support for child care. A What's the Problem? approach directs attention to the limitations of these legislative innovations. It asks what is problematized and what is left unproblematized in these initiatives. It asks how different groups of women and men are constituted within the discourses shaping these reforms and the debates around them. Put simply, it uncovers the assumption in policy approaches to date that all that women, and men for that matter, require to be free is some form of paid labour. In the process, it highlights the ways in which this normative vision ignores the exploitation of many working people, and the importance of people's nonworking lives.
Incorporationist policies are readily identifiable by their targets. In each case an incorporationist analysis focuses upon the outgroup and what they require to become ingroups. So, for equal pay, women are to be paid what men are paid. For equal opportunity to exist, women are to be allowed into men's occupations and boys' study areas. Like men, they will be ‘freed’ of child-care obligations to the extent that this is necessary for them to approximate men's lifestyles. If they have difficulty ‘making the grade’, it is because they lack something men have, either initiative or dedication, or because they hold the ‘wrong’ priorities, placing family ahead of work obligations. A What's the Problem? approach opens up an opportunity to question these priorities. It suggests that more attention needs to be focused upon the work and living conditions which women are encouraged to emulate. In the [Page 203]process it allows questions to be asked about who decides which job or study area is worth more, by what criteria, who decides that paid labour is definitive of personhood, who decides that what is desirable is ‘freedom’ from child care. The purpose thoughout is to put unasked questions onto the political agenda.
A What's the Problem? approach accepts nothing as given. Rather its purpose is to put the given into question. It accepts no delineation of existent social concerns. Rather, it probes the shape of those concerns and the implications of the shapes which are discovered. So, it asks why abortion is called a moral problem, why it is given this character and with what effects. Why is domestic violence called ‘domestic’? What follows from this labelling? What needs to be altered in the implied characterization of the ‘problem’? What is sexual harassment? What kind of a problem is it represented to be? What follows from this particular representation? In abortion policy we see how jurisdictional disputes between the state and the medical profession get played out over women's bodies. In responses to domestic violence we see how feminists' demands to have violence against women recognized as public crime have been co-opted by a law and order lobby. In sexual harassment grievance procedures the problem is created as the bad behaviour of a few deviant men and individual women are held responsible for identifying this behaviour.
Across the social problems surveyed, we observe the sheeting home of the responsibility for change to individuals. Equal opportunity is paradigmatic here where women are encouraged to develop the ‘skills’ to fit into existing workplace structures. While pay equity demands recognition of women's abilities, again individual women will be assessed by the degree to which they demonstrate characteristics deemed useful to the market. Child care will be offered as a ‘choice’, creating the possibility for some women to have access to ‘men's’ jobs. Education will prepare them for this role. In abortion, individual women will plead their case for sympathy. Battered women and sexually harassed women will be offered the same ‘opportunity’. Meanwhile, the social processes which shape women's lives, which make abortion necessary, which leave them in homes to be battered, which create them as outcasts in particular work environments, go unaddressed.
I want to confront directly the charge that the kind of analysis offered here is impractical and utopian. It could be said that, while directing attention to the need for broad cultural and organizational change sounds good in principle, realistically we need to take what we can get and be thankful. Moreover, it may seem particularly inappropriate to highlight the limitations of initiatives, like affirmative action, at the very time when these are under attack (see Chapter 5). [Page 204]Does a What's the Problem? approach produce a counsel of despair, highlighting the inevitable limitations of working through the state's categories and hence through legal discourse? What are the practical implications of identifying dominant discursive frames which reduce social to individual problems, and which reveal the power of the market in dictating the conditions of our lives?
I suggested above that I do not consider it particularly useful to discuss feminist strategies in terms of an either/or approach to the state and to law: either work through it or do without it. This is because, as explained above, our lives are shaped inevitably by the ways in which policy problems are discursively constructed. My argument therefore is that feminists have little option but to engage with the state, and with extra-state institutions such as the law and the medical profession, in contesting constructions of problems which work to disempower women. What's the Problem? offers a tool to assist in identifying what needs to be contested, a task Eileen Fegan (1996: 84) describes as a necessary first step in engaging with the law.
The insights into the ways in which the problem of women's inequality is discursively constructed, moreover, allow us to see that, in the current attack on reforms such as affirmative action – and here we could add the attack on the welfare state generally – women are not facing some dramatic about-face in policy approach. Rather, the grounds for the swing to the right can be found in the very terms of analysis shaping many of the issues where feminists won concessions. I am thinking here of the disadvantage discourse which continues to shape discussions around equity, except now we are being told that women have indeed achieved equality and are no longer ‘disadvantaged’. The new education discourse which describes the problem as ‘girls beating boys’ provides a poignant example of this (see Chapter 6). So too a construction of the problem of women's inequality as ‘lack of access to paid labour’, by leaving unaddressed the responsibilities of caring which women in the main shoulder, allows welfare cuts to be rationalized as simply the privatizing of care. In this usage, privatizing means getting women to do more caring. In another usage, the increasing tendency to privatize child care (Chapter 7) also fits the market-led model which framed child care services as primarily a means to facilitate women's workforce participation.
It is at this level that the book hopes to say something useful about feminists' strategies. It highlights the pervasiveness of discursive constructions which can work against the desire for structural change. Moreover, it shows how feminist interventions sometimes get absorbed because of the failure to challenge these discursive constructions. As a tool, What's the Problem? operates to uncover problematizations and their effects. It does not suggest that particular [Page 205]framings can be dispensed with but rather that a sharp eye to their effects can provide a basis for interacting with them. Carol Smart (1997:115) comes to a similar conclusion. She recommends that feminists approach the state the way the women's health movement has approached medicine – challenging its framing paradigms all the while claiming better access to its services. A key point here is the need to recognize that feminist interventions will be shaped by context. Both political climate and specific cultural and institutional factors will affect the opportunity or lack of opportunity for discursive reframing. This means, as Jeanne Gregory says (personal correspondence, October 1998), that ‘the work of identifying the best strategies to suit particular sets of circumstances can only be done by activists on the spot at the time’.
Elizabeth Kingdom's (1995: 7) insights into the difficulties involved in engaging with rights discourses are useful here. She makes the important point that ‘there may be political contexts in which it is necessary to “play the game”, to present campaigns in terms of right over body, to deploy the terms which the law recognizes’. At the same time she is well aware of the limitations of a rights discourse. Her practical advice (1995: 16) is that feminists ‘consider in detail how various rights discourses are already operating, and what the chances are of supplementing or replacing anti-feminist rights discourse either with feminist rights discourse or with alternatives to rights discourse’. This tactic, which she describes as a ‘conversion strategy’, demands ‘familiarity with exploitable shifts in rights discourse’. Because a What's the Problem? approach operates to unpack problem representations and, in the process, to identify discursive frames, it provides an ideal tool for the strategy Kingdom describes. It assists in providing the background knowledge needed to attempt discursive intervention/s.
Going further, I emphasize the need to apply a What's the Problem? approach to feminists' analyses of what needs to change. I recommend this because of the difficulties involved in recognizing the ways in which feminists' problematizations reflect deeply held cultural assumptions, given specific historical, economic and cultural locations. A greater sensitivity to the role professional affiliations play in shaping problematizations is also crucial, as we observed in the chapter on domestic violence for example (see Chapter 9). There we saw also the importance of broadening the feminist constituency, either directly or through affiliation, to guarantee that the voices of Black and poor women get heard. The goal here is to prevent the unthinking imposition of frames which enshrine the exploitation of these groups. The example of gender persecution as a grounds for asylum (see Chapter 9) illustrates the danger in allowing any feminist problem representation to stand unscrutinized while the feminist community is dominated by white, middle-class, Anglo-Saxon [Page 206]women. If one accepts my diagnosis that the kind of problem women's inequality has been represented to be is inadequate and shortsighted, feminists need to identify more precisely in what ways it needs to be expanded and how to design policies to capture the sorts of change which are desired. The implication of the analysis here is that this exercise is fraught with danger if feminists are unwilling to scrutinize the problem representations lodged within their analyses. The story of the way in which the Butler decision (1992) on pornography in Canada, which enshrined a ‘harm against women’ standard, has been used to harass gay and lesbian communities provides an object lesson here (see Cossman et al., 1997).
A What's the Problem? approach is a tool of analysis which can be applied to any policy area. It is designed to encourage a particular kind of thinking which is useful in any policy domain. I hope that this is clear in Part One, which generalizes the approach. Any policy proposal needs to be subjected to the kind of critical scrutiny encouraged by the approach. First, proposals need to be screened for problem representations and these then need to be analysed in terms of their effects, practical and discursive. As part of the first step it is useful to examine when and how a particular topic achieved social problem status. This is the point in time when problem representations are likely to be clearest and easiest to identify, because it is at this stage that policy approaches will be outlined and defended. As some social problems have a tendency to reappear in different historical periods, it is useful to identify contrasts and similarities in the shapes given to them at these times. The same is true for cultural variation in the shape and timing of social problem creation. Context is useful not only to identify the distinctive characteristics assigned social problems but also to uncover commonalities in social problem diagnosis.
This kind of analysis has been called genealogy (see Chapter 2). In their genealogy of dependency, Fraser and Gordon (1994: 332) insist that
[A] genealogy cannot tell us how to respond politically to today's discourse about welfare dependency. It does suggest, however, the limits of any response that presupposes rather than challenges the definition of the problem that is implicit in that expression.
Specifically, here, Fraser and Gordon mention as a goal recognizing the problem implicit in key policy terms and discourses such as ‘welfare dependency’. This is precisely the task facilitated through the application of a What's the Problem? approach. In contrast to Fraser and Gordon, however, I believe that we have here a powerful tool of political analysis. Not only does the approach encourage the [Page 207]uncovering of barely disguised political agendas, it compels an analysis of the problem representations which lodge in all, including our own, proposals. This kind of critical analysis of presuppositions sharpens awareness of the extent to which our proposals have inbuilt limitations and biases, while suggesting a method for identifying framings of issues which move us closer to the goal of more egalitarian social relations. Marcia Westkott (1983: 212, cited in Bingham, 1994: 1) makes this point nicely: ‘By clarifying that which we oppose, we set the groundwork for creating a vision of that for which we long.’
As this book is intended as a guide to the application of the method I call What's the Problem?, it is appropriate to summarize once again the stages in the process. What's the Problem? is intended to provide a tool for uncovering the frames that construct policy problems. Sometimes these are apparent in general public or political debate. Where more precision is required, students are directed to the specifics of policy proposals. The logic here is that these proposals will reveal what is represented to be the problem because what we propose to do will suggest what we believe needs to change. The task then is to open up the problem representations contained in policy proposals to critical analysis, teasing out the presuppositions which lodge there and speculating upon the implications of particular discursive constructions of the problem. Most importantly, there is a need to consider what goes unproblematized in particular discursive constructions. I also recommend applying this approach to feminist proposals for change. This could best be accomplished, I suggest, by encouraging critical exchange among feminists, and between groups of feminists and representatives of other outgroups. I invite and welcome contributions which assist in assessing the adequacy or inadequacy of the problem representations I offer in Part Two of the book. My goal, through focusing on what is represented to be the problem both in policy proposals and in feminist theorizing, is to produce more reflexive feminist analyses and to assist in the difficult task of designing context-sensitive proposals which minimize losses and maximize gains.
Bibliography[Page 208]1984) Report of the Commission on Equality in Employment. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.(ACOSS (Australian Council of Social Services) (1988) Child Care: A Background Paper. Paper No. 16. Sydney: ACOSS.1992) ‘Feminist Analyses of Public Policy’, Comparative Politics, 24: 477–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/422156(1989) Doing Comparable Worth: Gender, Class and Pay Equity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1991) ‘Pay Equity in Sweden and Other Nordic Countries’ in JudyFudge and PatriciaMcDermott (eds) Just Wages: A Feminist Assessment of Pay Equity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 247–53.(1993) ‘Gender Issues in Education for Science and Technology: Current Situation and Prospects for Change’ in Suzannede Castell (ed.) Special Issue of Canadian Journal of Education: Against the Grain, 18 (3): 254–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1495386and (1993) ‘Chapter 14: The Problem with Social Problems’ in James A.Holstein and GaleMiller (eds) Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 281–300.(1993) ‘Speech and Silence in Abortion Debates in Australian Parliaments’, paper presented at the first National Conference of the Abortion Rights Network of Australia, South Brisbane, 20 November.(1993) Rape: The Misunderstood Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.and (American Association of University Women (1987) Pay Equity Action Guide. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.1988) Government Spending on Work-Related Child Care: Some Economic Issues. Centre for Economic Policy Research. Canberra: Department of Community Services and Health., , and (1996) ‘The Feminization of the Labour Force: Harmonizing Down in a Global Economy’ in IsabellaBakker (ed.) Rethinking Restructuring: Gender and Change in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 29–54.(1988) ‘Taking Women into Account: Redefining and Intensifying Employment in Canada’ in JaneJenson, [Page 209]ElisabethHagen and CeallaighReddy (eds) Feminization of the Labour Force: Paradoxes and Promises. Cambridge: Polity. pp. 65–84.and (1990) Theorizing Women's Work. Network Basics Series. Toronto: Garamond Press.and (1991) ‘Limited Possibilities and Possible Limits for Pay Equity: Within and Beyond the Ontario Legislation’ in JudyFudge and PatriciaMcDermott (eds) Just Wages: A Feminist Assessment of Pay Equity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 110–21.and (1992) ‘Lessons from Pay Equity’ in M. PatriciaConnelly and PatArmstrong (eds) Feminism in Action. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. pp. 295–316.and (1997) ‘Restructuring Pay Equity for a Restructured Work Force: Canadian Perspectives’, Gender, Work and Organization, 4 (2): 67–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00025and (Arnot, M. (ed.) (1985) Race and Gender: Equal Opportunities Policies in Education. Oxford: Pergamon in association with the Open University.Australia (1975) Girls, Schools and Society: Report by a Study Group to the Schools Commission. Committee on Social Change and the Education of Women Study Group. Woden, ACT: Schools Commission.1980) ‘The Nature-Nurture Debate in Australia, 1900–1914’, Historical Studies, 19 (75): 199–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10314618008595634(1986) ‘The “Woman Question”’ in EricRichards (ed.) The Flinders History of South Australia: Social History. Adelaide: Wakefield Press. pp. 403–32.(1988) ‘Feminism and the “Eroticization” of the Middle-class Woman: the Intersection of Class and Gender Attitudes’, Women's Studies International Forum, 11 (1): 43–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395%2888%2990006-4(1990) Same Difference: Feminism and Sexual Difference. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.(1992a) ‘Affirmative Action – Is It un-American?’International Journal of Moral and Social Studies, 7 (1): 19–31.(1992b) ‘Sex on Campus – Where Does “Consent” End and Harassment Begin?’, The Australian Universities' Review, 35 (1): 31–6.(1993) ‘The Brick Wall: Why So Few Women Become Senior Academics’, The Australian Universities' Review, 36 (1): 36–41.(1994) ‘“Consent” or “Coercion”? Removing Conflict of Interest from Staff-Student Relations’, The Australian Universities' Review, 37 (2): 55–61.(1996) The Politics of Affirmative Action: ‘Women’, Equality and Category Politics. London: Sage.(1998) ‘Changing the Sexual Harassment Agenda’ in MioraGatens[Page 210]and AlisonMackinnon (eds) Gender and Institutions: Welfare, Work and Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 75–89.(1994a) ‘Dealing with Sexual Harassment: Persuade, Discipline or Punish?’, Australian Journal of Law and Society, 10: 1–14.and (1994b) ‘Historicising Sexual Harassment’, Women's History Review, 3 (2): 263–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09612029400200098and (1992) Shifting Ground: The Dialectics of Work/Care. Report of an International Colloquium held at the Australian National University. Canberra: Australian National University., , and (1972) The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique,(third edition. London: University of London Press.1963) ‘Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework’, American Political Science Review, 57 (3): 632–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1952568and (1996) ‘Social Constructionism and its Relevance to Health Policy’, Annual Review of Health Social Sciences, 6: 173–202.(1996) ‘The Managing Diversity Movement: Origins, Status and Challenges’ in BenjaminBowser and RaymondHunt (eds) Impacts of Racism on White Americans. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 139–56.(1968) Rabelais and His World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1991) ‘Pay Equity and Economic Restructuring: The Polarization of Policy?’ in JudyFudge and PatriciaMcDermott (eds) Just Wages: A Feminist Assessment of Pay Equity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 254–80.(1990) Politics and Policy Making in Education: Explorations in Policy Sociology. New York: Routledge.(1992) ‘Repetition Strain Injury in Australia: Medical Knowledge, Social Movement, and De Facto Partisanship’, Social Problems, 39 (3): 219–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.1992.39.3.03x0032fand (1977) Inquiring Man: The Theory of Personal Constructs. Harmondsworth: Penguin.and (1981) ‘Problems of Problem Definition in Policy Analysis’ in JohnCrecine (ed.) Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management, Volume I. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp. 161–71.(1991) The Politics of Truth: From Marx to Foucault. Cambridge: Polity.(Barry, Andrew, Osborne, Thomas and Rose, Nikolas (eds) (1993) Economy and Society, 22 (3): 265–407. Special Issue: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Governmentality. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/030851493000000171967) Elements of Semiology. London: Jonathan Cape.(1985) Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927–1939. Translated by A.Stoekl. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.([Page 211]1992) Intimations of Postmodernism. New York: Routledge.(1987) ‘Reading Politics: Social Theory and Social Policy’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 23 (3): 388–406.(1986) Women, Work and Wages. New York: Franklin Watts.(1967) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books.and (1993) The Politics of Parenthood: Child Care, Women's Rights and the Myth of the Good Mother. New York: Viking.(1989) Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.(Bingham, Shereen G. (ed.) (1994) Conceptualizing Sexual Harassment as Discursive Practice. Westport, CT: Praeger.1989) Sociological justice. New York: Oxford University Press.(1990) ‘Linguistic, Social and Sexual Relations: a Review of Dale Spender's Man Made Language’ in DeborahCameron (ed.) The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader. New York: Routledge. pp. 111–33.and (1982) ‘Becoming Equally Human: Girls and the Secondary Curriculum’, Vise News, 31: 16–22.(1984) ‘Schooling and Injustice for girls’ in D.Broom (ed.) Unfinished Business: Social Justice for Women in Australia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. pp. 3–18.(1991) Between Feminism and Labor: The Significance of the Comparable Worth Movement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1993) Unbearable Weight Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1994) ‘The Contextual Bases of Problem Definition’ in David A.Rochefort and Roger W.Cobb (eds) The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. pp. 182–203.(1984) The Changing Economic Status of Women. A Study prepared for the Economic Council of Canada. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada.and (1990) ‘Discourse’ in FrankLentricchia and ThomasMcLaughlin (eds) Critical Terms for Literary Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 50–65.(Brant, Clare and Too, Yun Lee (eds) (1994) Rethinking Sexual Harassment. London: Pluto Press.1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.(1963) A Strategy of Decision: [Page 212]Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. London: Collier-Macmillan.and (1983) ‘The New Scholarship on Family Violence’, Signs, 8 (3): 490–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/493987and (1992) ‘The Dynamics of Child Care Provision in Australia, Britain and Sweden’ in European Institute of Social Security, Social Security: An International Conference at University of York, England, 27–30 September, Volume 5: Adapting to Change: Gender Roles, Family Structures, Demography and Labour Markets. York: Social Policy Research Unit, University of York. pp. 69–78.(1994) The Politics of Australian Child Care: From Philanthropy to Feminism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1987) ‘Feminist Political Discourses: Radical versus Liberal Approaches to the Feminization of Poverty and Comparable Worth’, Gender and Society, 1 (4): 447–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124387001004007(1992) The Politics of Abortion. Toronto: Oxford University Press., and (1992) Nothing Mat(t)ers: A Feminist Critique of Postmodernism. North Melbourne: Spinifex.(1976) The Harassed Worker. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.(1988) Abortion in England, 1900–1967. London: Croom Helm.(1985) The Heart of the Race: Black Women's Lives in Britain. London: Virago., and (1994) Dealing With a Changing Work Environment The Issue of Sexual Harassment in the ADF. A Report Prepared for the Assistant Chief of Defence Force Personnel, Headquarters, Australian Defence Force. Canberra: ADF.(1988) The Civil Rights Society: The Social Construction of Victims. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.(Burchell, Graham, Gordon, Colin and Miller, Peter (eds) (1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1988) ‘Legislators, Women and Public Policy’ in SandraBurt, LorraineCode and LindsayDorney (eds) Changing Patterns: Women in Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. pp. 129–56.(1995) ‘Chapter Thirteen: The Several Worlds of Policy Analysis: Traditional Approaches and Feminist Critiques’ in SandraBurt and LorraineCode (eds) Changing Methods: Feminists Transforming Practice. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press. pp. 357–78.(1996) ‘Global and National Imperatives and Women: Learning to Live Without the State’, paper presented to the 6th International Interdisciplinary Congress of Women, Adelaide, 21–26 April.([Page 213]1987) ‘Merit and Gender: Organisations and the Mobilisation of Masculine Bias’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 22 (2): 424–35.(1988) Redefining Merit. Monograph No. 2, Affirmative Action Agency. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.(1992) ‘Comments on “Managing Diversity”’. Paper presented at National EEO Directions Conference, Perth. Unpublished paper.(1987) Women's Worth: Pay Equity and Job Evaluation in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service., with and (1998) ‘Persuasive Discourses: Learning and the Production of Working Subjects in a Post Industrial Era’ in JohnHolford, PeterJarvis and ColinGriffin (eds) International Perspectives on Lifelong Learning. London: Kogan Page. pp. 69–80.(1992) ‘Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of “Postmodernism”’ in JudithButler and Joan W.Scott (eds) Feminists Theorize the Political. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–21.(1996) ‘An Affirmative View’, Representations, 55: 74–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rep.1918.104.22.168p0442h(1992) Women in Science and Technology: The Institutional Ecology Approach. Volume I: Final Research Report. University of Queensland: Wista Policy Review Project.(1985) ‘Postmodernism, Post-Structuralism, Post-Marxism?’, Theory, Culture & Society, 2 (3): 85–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276485002003008(Cameron, Deborah (ed.) (1990) The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader. New York: Routledge.Canadian Law Reform Commission, Fetal Status Working Group (1986) Options for Abortion Policy Reform: a Consultation Document. Unpublished research paper, Protection of Life Unit, Law Reform Commission of Canada.1997) ‘(In)corporating the Other? Managing the Politics of Workplace Difference’ in PushkalaPrasad, Albert J.Mills, MichaelElmes, AnshumanPrasad (eds) Managing the Organizational Melting Pot: Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 31–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452225807(Change (1977) ‘La folie encerclée’, October, pp. 32–3.1983) ‘Hard Truths for Strategic Change: Dilemmas of Implementing Affirmative Action’, Women's Studies International Forum, 6 (2): 231–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395%2883%2990014-6(1978) The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1992) ‘Diversity: The Key to Quality’, keynote address, ‘Managing Diversity: The Quality Imperative’ symposium, organized by the Alberta Multicultural Commission, 19–20 November.(1983) Participation in American Politics,and ([Page 214]second edition. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.1988) ‘The Construction and Deconstruction of Educational Policy Documents’, Journal of Education Policy, 3 (3): 235–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268093880030303(1984) ‘Strategies of Difference: Litigating for Women's Rights in a Man's World’, Law and Inequality, 33 (2): 33–96.(1982) ‘The Politics of Abortion: Trends in Canadian Fertility Policy’, Atlantis, 7 (2): 1–20.(1989) ‘The Social Construction of Invisibility’ in James A.Holstein and GaleMiller (eds) Perspectives on Social Problems: A Research Annual, Volume I. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp. 77–94.(Commonwealth Schools Commission (1987) The National Policy for the Education of Girls in Australian Schools. Woden, ACT: Commonwealth Schools Commission.1990) Decoding Abortion Rhetoric: Communicating Social Change. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.(1987) Gender & Power. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.(1995) The Imaginary Domain: Abortion, Pornography and Sexual Harassment. New York: Routledge.(1997) Bad Attitude/s on Trial: Pornography, Feminism, and the Butler Decision. Toronto: University of Toronto Press., , and (1988) ‘Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law’, Harvard Law Review, 101 (7): 1331–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1341398(1991) ‘The State of Pay Equity: Mediating Gender and Class through Political Parties in Ontario’ in JudyFudge and PatriciaMcDermott (eds) Just Wages: A Feminist Assessment of Pay Equity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 32–59.(1988) ‘Re-thinking What We Do and How We Do It: a Study of Reproductive Decisions’, The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 25 (2): 231–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.1988.tb00104.x(1990) ‘Battered Women and the State: From the Failure of Theory to a Theory of Failure’, The Journal of Human Justice, 1 (2): 77–96.(1992) ‘Abortion Law Reform in Canada: the Pendulum That Swings One Way’ in DawnCurrie and BrianMacLean (eds) Rethinking the Administration of Justice. Toronto: Garamond. pp. 74–102.(1996) ‘Description des approaches d'égalité entre les sexes education dans les provinces canadiennes’, Revue Canadienne de I'Education, 21 (3): 241–56.(1984) Summary of the Research Report on the Equality Ombudsman. Stockholm: Swedish Centre for Working Life.(1996) Making Social Policy in Australia: An Introduction. Sydney: Allen & Unwin., , and ([Page 215]1995) ‘Policy Analysis Postmodernized: Some Political and Pedagogical Ramifications’, Policy Studies Journal, 23 (3): 435–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1995.tb00522.x(1989) Frogs and Snails and Feminist Tales: Pre-school Children and Gender. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.(1994) Poststructuralist Theory and Classroom Practice. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University.(1986) ‘Gendered Jobs in the Health Service: a Problem for Labour Process Analysis’ in DavidKnights and HughWillmott (eds) Gender and the Labour Process. Aldershot, UK: Gower. pp. 94–116.and (1992) ‘A Genealogy of the Government of Poverty’, Economy and Society, 21 (3): 215–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085149200000012(1997) ‘Comparable Worth and Equal Pay Policies in the European Union’ in A. GeskeDijkstra and JannekePlantega (eds) Gender and Economics: A European Perspective. New York: Routledge. pp. 153–62.(1988) Philosophical Critiques of Policy Analysis: Lindblom, Habermas, and the Great Society. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.(1984) ‘The Imperial Scholar’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 132 (3): 561–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3311882(1983) ‘The Time of a Thesis: Punctuations’ in AlanMontefiore (ed.) Philosophy in France Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1984) Problem Definition in Policy Analysis. Foreword by AaronWildavsky. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.(1996) ‘Abortion in the Time of Perestroika’, Women: A Cultural Review, 7 (3): 279–90.(1958) A Philosophy of Administration. New York: Harper.(1987) ‘The European Community and the Promotion of Equality’ in ChristopherMcCrudden (ed.) Women, Employment and European Equality Law. London: Eclipse Publications. pp. 1–22.(1990) Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1995) The Politics of Education: Commonwealth Schools Policy 1973–95. Australian Education Review No. 36. Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research.and (1997) ‘Organizing Identity: Making Up People At Work’ in Pauldu Gay (ed.) Production of Culture/Cultures of Production. London: Sage. pp. 285–344.(1996) ‘Obstacles to a Successful Equal Opportunities Policy in the European Union’, The European Journal of Women's Studies, 3 (4): 399–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050689600300405([Page 216]1991) Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice: Economic Explanations in Political Science. New York: Prentice-Hall.(1993) ‘Understanding Women's Responses to Domestic Violence: A Redefinition of Battered Woman Syndrome’, Hofstra Law Review, 21 (4): 1191–1242.(1984) The Lecherous Professor: Sexual Harassment on Campus. Boston, MA: Beacon.and (Economic Planning Advisory Commission (1996) Future Child Care Provision in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.1977) Political Language. New York: Academic Press.(1988) Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.(1991) ‘Categories Are for Talking: On the Cognitive and Discursive Bases of Categorization’, Theory & Psychology, 1 (4): 515–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354391014007(1987) Positive Discrimination, Social Justice and Social Policy: Moral Scrutiny of a Policy Practice. London: Tavistock.(1989) Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class. New York: Pantheon Books.(1988) The Female Body and the Law. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(Equal Opportunity Commission (1982) Towards Equality: A Casebook of Decisions on Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay 1976–1981. Manchester: EOC.European Commission (1994) European Social Policy: A Way Forward for the Union. Luxembourg: European Commission.1996) ‘Perils of Ignoring Our Lost Boys’, Times Educational Supplement, 28 June, p. 20.(1991) ‘Translating Wage Gains into Social Change: International Lessons for Implementing Pay Equity in Minnesota’ in JudyFudge and PatriciaMcDermott (eds) Just Wages: A Feminist Assessment of Pay Equity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 227–53.and (1994a) ‘The Politics of Advantage: Managing “Work” and “Care” in Australia and Sweden’. PhD dissertation, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia.(1994b) ‘The Politics of Advantage’, Australian Feminist Studies, Special Issue: Women and Citizenship, 19 (Autumn): 129–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08164649.1994.9994729(1996) ‘“Fathers”, Foetuses and Abortion Decision-Making: The Reproduction of Maternal Ideology in Canadian Judicial Discourse’, Social and Legal Studies, 5 (1): 75–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/096466399600500105(Feinberg, Joel (ed.) (1984) The Problem of Abortion. First published 1973. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.1996) ‘The Gendering of [Page 217]Abortion Discourse: Assessing Global Feminist Influence in the United States and Germany’, paper presented at the International Interdisciplinary Congress on Women, Adelaide, April. Prepared for the book, Social Movements in a Globalizing World, edited by DieterRucht, Donatelladella Porta and HanspeterKriesi (1999). New York: St Martin's Press.and (1991) ‘Making Sense of Pay Equity: Issues for a Feminist Political Practice’ in JudyFudge and PatriciaMcDermott (eds) Just Wages: A Feminist Assessment of Pay Equity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 81–101.(1980) Politics, Values and Public Policy: The Problem of Methodology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.(1990) Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(Fischer, Frank and Forester, John (eds) (1987) Confronting Values in Policy Analysis: The Politics of Criteria. Volume 14. Sage Yearbooks in Politics and Public Policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.1990) Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism and Postmodernism in the Contemporary West. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1995) “What About the Boys?” Presumptive Equality as the Basis for Policy Change in the Education of Girls and Boys', paper presented to the 1995 National Social Policy Conference, ‘Social Policy and the Challenges of Social Change’, 5–7 July, 1995, University of New South Wales. Published in Conference Proceedings, Volume One.(1996) ‘Space Invaders: Desire and Threat in the Schooling of girls’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 17 (1): 43–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0159630960170104(1970) The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences. Translated by AlanSheridan. New York: Vintage Books.(1975) The Birth of the Clinic: an Archaeology of Medical Perception. Translated by A. M.Sheridan. New York: Vintage.(1977a) Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon.(1977b) The Archaelogy of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.(1978) ‘Governmentality’ in GrahamBurchell, ColinGordon, and PeterMiller (eds) (1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. pp. 87–104.(1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1979. New York: Pantheon.(1981) ‘The Order of Discourse’ in RobertYoung (ed.) Untying the Text: A Poststructuralist Reader. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. pp. 48–78.(1981) The History of Sexuality. Volume I. London: Penguin.(1984) ‘The Concern for Truth’ in L. D.Kritzman (ed.) [Page 218]Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings 1977–1984. New York: Routledge. pp. 255–67.(1991) ‘Governmentality’ in GrahamBurchell, ColinGordon and PeterMiller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. pp. 87–194.(1993) ‘In Defense of Affirmative Action’ in S. M.Cahn (ed.) Affirmative Action and the University: A Philosophical Inquiry. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. pp. 9–40.(1992) ‘On Foucault's Concept of Discourse’ in Timothy J.Armstrong (trans.) Michel Foucault Philosopher. New York: Routledge. pp. 99–116.(1989) Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.(1994) ‘After the Family Wage: Gender Equity and the Welfare State’, Political Theory, 22 (4): 591–618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591794022004003(1995) ‘Politics, Culture, and the Public Sphere: Toward a Postmodern Conception’ in LindaNicholson and StevenSeidman (eds) Social Postmodernism: Beyond Identity Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1994) ‘A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State’, Signs, 19 (2): 309–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/494886and (1965) The Feminine Mystique. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1994) Child Care Policy in Canada: Putting the Pieces Together. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley.(1992) ‘Getting it Right’, Signs, 17 (4): 781–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/494765(Fudge, Judy and McDermott, Patricia (eds) (1991) Just Wages: A Feminist Assessment of Pay Equity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.1989) Disabling Policies? A Comparative Approach to Education Policy and Disability. East Sussex: The Falmer Press.(1971) ‘The Conflict of Values’ in EarlRubington and Martin S.Weinberg (eds) The Study of Social Problems: Five Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 87–91.and (1971) ‘The Stages of a Social Problem’ in EarlRubington and Martin S.Weinberg (eds) The Study of Social Problems: Five Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 92–4.and (1997) Feminist Accused of Sexual Harassment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1984) ‘Affirmative Action: Liberal Rationality or Challenge to Patriarchy?’, Legal Service Bulletin (Australia), 9 (6): 253–7.(1995) The First Stone: Some Questions about Sex and Power. Sydney: Picador.([Page 219]1992) Issues for Women in Canadian Education. Working Paper No. 32. Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada.(Gaskell, Jane, McLaren, Arlene and Novogrodsky, Myra (eds) (1989) Claiming an Education: Feminism and Canadian Schools. Toronto: Our Schools/Our Selves.1987) Women and Public Policies,and (second edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.1996) Talking About Gender: Terminology Used in the Education of Girls Policy Area and Implications for Policy Priorities and Programs. A Women's Employment, Education and Training Advisory Group Project. Canberra: AGPS.(1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1993) Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics of Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.(Gollancz, Victor (ed.) (1917) The Making of Women: Oxford Essays in Feminism. London: George Allen & Unwin.1996) ‘Governmentality in the Queensland Department of Education: Policies and the Management of Schools’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 17 (1): 65–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0159630960170105(1993) ‘Twenty-Two Theses on Social Constructionism: A Feminist Response to Ibarra and Kitsuse's “Proposal for the Study of Social Problems”’ in James A.Holstein and GaleMiller (eds) Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 301–26.(1991) ‘Governmental Rationality: an Introduction’ in GrahamBurchell, ColinGordon and PeterMiller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. With Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 1–52.(1977) Woman's Body, Woman's Right: a Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Penguin.(1988) Heroes of Their Own Lives: The Politics and History of Family Violence – Boston, 1880–1960. New York: Viking.(1994) ‘Gender Socialization and Communication: The Inscription of Sexual Harassment in Social Life’ in ShereenBingham (ed.) Conceptualizing Sexual Harassment as Discursive Practice. Westport, CT: Praeger. pp. 31–44.(1993) Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus: a Practical Guide for Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in Your Relationships. London: Thorsons.(1995) ‘The Gender of Judgments: An Introduction’ in MargaretThornton (ed.) Public and Private: Feminist Legal Debates. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. pp. 262–82.([Page 220]1987) Sex, Race and the Law: Legislating for Equality. London: Sage.(1981) ‘Segmented Labor Market Theories and the Australian Experience of Equal Pay for Women’, Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, 3: 399–415.and (1985) Equal Pay and Comparable Worth: What Can the United States Learn from the Australian Experience?Discussion Paper No. 123. Canberra: Centre for Economic Policy Research.and (Grewal, Inderpal and Kaplan, Caren (eds) (1994) Scattered Hegemonies: Postmodernity and Transnational Feminist Practices. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.1993) ‘For a Cautious Naturalism’ in James A.Holstein and GaleMiller (eds) Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 89–96.(1989) ‘Constructing the Ownership of Social Problems: Fun and Profit in the Welfare State’, Social Problems, 36 (5): 431–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.1989.36.5.03x0003c(1972) Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics. Translated by Jeremy J.Shapiro. London: Heinemann Educational.(1992) ‘The Question of Cultural Identity’ in S.Hall, D.Held and A.McGrew (eds) Modernity and Its Futures. Cambridge: Polity. pp. 277–326.(1993) ‘Unions and the Gender Wage Gap’ in Dorothy SueCobble (ed.) Women and Unions – Forging a Partnership. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. pp. 27–42.(1996) Gendering the Vertical Mosaic: Feminist Perspectives on Canadian Society. Toronto: Copp Clark Ltd.(1990) ‘Feminism, Science, and the Anti-Enlightenment Critique’ in LindaNicholson (ed.) Feminism/Postmodernism. New York: Routledge. pp. 83–106.(1985) ‘An Agenda for Basic Research for Comparable Worth’ in HeideHartmann (ed.) Comparable Worth: New Directions for Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. pp. 3–33., and (Harvard Law Review (1989) ‘ReThinking Weber. The Business Response to Affirmative Action’, 102 (3): 658–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/13413741996) Information Systems for Managing Workplace Diversity. North York, Ontario: CCH Canadian Ltd.and (1988) Theoretical Issues in Policy Analysis. New York: State University of New York Press.(1994) ‘Policy Studies within a Feminist Frame’, Policy Sciences, 27 (2–3): 97–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00999883(1994) ‘Men's Needs and Women's Desires: [Page 221]Feminist Dilemmas About Rape Law “Reform”’, The Australian Feminist Law Journal, 3: 30–52.and (1984) ‘A Review of Federal Court Decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’ in HelenRemick (ed.) Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination: Technical Possibilities and Political Realities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. pp. 197–219.(1994) Cultural Diversity in the Workplace: Issues and Strategies. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.(1993) Material Feminism and the Politics of Discourse. New York: Routledge.(Henriques, J., Hollway, W., Unwin, C., Venn, C. and Walkerdine, V. (eds) (1984) Changing the Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity. London: Methuen.1983) ‘Judging Equal Rights’, Current Legal Problems, 36: 71–90.(1994) Rights of Passage: Struggles for Lesbian and Gay Legal Equality. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.(1995) ‘Governmentality: the Specific Intellectual and the Postmodern State’, Arena Journal, 5: 153–84.(1983) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(Holstein, James A. and Miller, Gale (eds) (1989) Perspectives on Social Problems: A Research Annual, Volume 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Holstein, James A. and Miller, Gale (eds) (1993) Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.1996) Integrating Gender: Women, Law and Politics in the European Union. London: Verso.(1991) ‘The Evolution of Human Rights Policy in Ontario’, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 24 (4): 783–802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900005667(1986) Equal Pay for Comparable Worth: The Working Woman's Issue of the Eighties. New York: Praeger.(1993) ‘Vernacular Constituents of Moral Discourse: An Interactionist Proposal for the Study of Social Problems’ in James A.Holstein and GaleMiller (eds) Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 25–58.and (Immigration and Refugee Board (1993) Guidelines Issued By the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65 (3) of the Immigration Act. Ottawa: Immigration and Refugee Board.1993) ‘Categorical Denials: Equality Rights and the Shaping of Social Identity’, Queen's Law Journal, 19: 179–207.([Page 222]1972) The Prison-House of Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1986) ‘Gender and Reproduction: Or, Babies and the State’, Studies in Political Economy, 20: 9–46.(1987) ‘Changing Discourse, Changing Agendas: Political Rights and Reproductive Policies in France’ in MaryKatzenstein and Carol McClungMueller (eds) The Women's Movements of the United States and Western Europe. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. pp. 64–88.(1988) ‘The Limits of “and the” discourse: French Women as Marginal Workers’ in JaneJenson, ElizabethHagen and CeallaighReddy (eds) Feminization of the Labour Force: Paradoxes and Promises. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 155–69.(1995) Doctors of Conscience: The Struggle to Provide Abortion before and after Roe v. Wade. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.(1996) ‘Different Discursive Constructions of the Relationship between Theory and Practice, and Approaches to Practice, in Psychology’. Available on request from Ian John, Psychology Department, University of Adelaide.(1984) ‘Abused Wives: Their Perceptions of the Help Offered by Mental Health Professionals’. Unpublished Independent Enquiry Project, School of Social Work, Carleton University, Ottawa.(1993) ‘girls' School Achievement’, keynote address to Education Review Office National Conference, Auckland, 14 December. Unpublished paper. Education Faculty, University of Auckland.(1987) Women's Issues in Education in Canada: A Survey of Policies and Practices at the Elementary and Secondary Levels. Prepared by the Secretariat of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education.(1996) Aborting Law: An Exploration of the Politics of Motherhood and Medicine. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.(1988) Surviving Sexual Violence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.(1982) ‘The Stages of the Decline of the Public/Private Distinction’, University of Pennsylvania Review, 130: 1349–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3311974(1989) ‘Feminist pedagogy and emancipatory possibilities’, Critical Pedagogy Networker, 2 (2&3): 1–17.and (1990) ‘Non-traditional Pathways for Girls – Are There Alternatives?’Search, 21 (6): 181–4.(1993) ‘Learning from Girls: What Can Girls Teach Feminist Teachers?’ in LynYates (ed.) Feminism and Education. Special Issue of Melbourne Studies in Education. pp. 63–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508489309556259(1991) What's Wrong with Rights? Problems for Feminist Politics of Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.([Page 223]1995) ‘Body Politics and Rights’ in JoBridgeman and SusanMillns (eds) Law and Body Politics: Regulating the Female Body. Aldershot: Dartmouth. pp. 1–21.(1995) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies,(second edition. New York: HarperCollins.1993) Leaving Abusive Partners: From the Scars of Survival to the Wisdom for Change. London: Sage.(1973) ‘Toward a Sociology of Social Problems’, Social Problems, 20: 407–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.1973.20.4.03a00020and (1985) Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. Geelong: Deakin University Press.(1996) ‘The Concept of Social Exclusion and the New Durkheimian Hegemony’, Critical Social Policy, 16 (1), Issue 46: 5–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026101839601604601(1988) Just Give Us the Money: a Discussion of Wage Discrimination and Pay Equity. Vancouver: Women's Research Centre.(1984) Women in England 1870–1950: Sexual Divisions and Social Change. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.(Lewis, Jane (ed.) (1993) Women and Social Policies in Europe: Work, Family and the State. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.1980) The Policy-making Process,(second edition. In Prentice-Hall Foundations of Modern Political Science Series. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.1981) ‘Toward a Redefinition of Sexual Equality’, Harvard Law Review, 95: 487–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1340713(1993) ‘Constructing Conditions, People, Morality, and Emotion: Expanding the Agenda of Constructionism’ in GaleMiller and James A.Holstein (eds) Constructionist Controversies: Issues in Social Problems Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 207–16.(1991) ‘Sexual Harassment, Current Models of Occupational Health and Safety and Women’, Australian Feminist Studies, 12: 59–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08164649.1991.9961722(Luke, Carmen and Gore, Jennifer (eds) (1992) Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy. New York: Routledge.1997) ‘Sexual harassment and OHS: liability potential’, Complete Safety Australia, September: 34–5.(1995) ‘The “Abortion Clause” in U. S. Foreign Population Policy: The Debate Viewed Through a Postcolonial Feminist Lens’ in Angharad N.Valdivia (ed.) Feminism, Multiculturalism, and the Media: Global Diversities. London: Sage. pp. 197–216.(1989) Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action. New York: Greenwood Press.(1995) ‘Working Together – An Analysis of Collaborative Inter-Agency Responses to “The Problem of Domestic Violence”’ in JoBridgeman[Page 224]and SusanMillns (eds) Law and Body Politics: Regulating the Female Body. Dartmouth: Aldershot. pp. 201–12.(1979) Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(1983) ‘The Male Ideology of Privacy: A Feminist Perspective on the right to Abortion’, Radical America, 17 (4): 23–35.(1987) Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1992) ‘Symes v. MNR: Where Sex Meets Class’, Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 5 (2): 498–517.(1980) Wife Battering in Canada: The Vicious Circle. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, Canada.(1987) Battered But Not Beaten: Preventing Wife Battering in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.(1994) ‘Review Essay: Language and Discourse: the embrace of uncertainty’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15 (2): 283–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142569940150209(1997) ‘A Critique of the National Action Plan for the Education of girls’, unpublished paper. University of Adelaide, Politics Department.(1997) ‘Does Comparable Worth Have Radical Potential?’ in PatriceDiQuinzio and Iris MarionYoung (eds) Feminist Ethics and Social Policy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. pp. 125–42.(1991) ‘From Solidaristic Wages to Solidaristic Work: A Post-Fordist Historic Compromise for Sweden?’Economic and Industrial Democracy: An International Journal, 12 (3): 295–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143831X91123002(1997) ‘Child Care in Canada and Sweden: Policy and Politics’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 4 (3): 382–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sp/4.3.382(1991) ‘Legal Images of Battered Women: Redefining the Issue of Separation’, Michigan Law Review, 90 (1): 1–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1289533(1992) ‘Exit: Power and the Idea of Leaving in Love, Work, and the Confirmation Hearings’, Southern California Law Review, 65 (3): 1283–1319.(1989) Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(1992) ‘Review Essay: Feminist Pedagogy: Transformations. Standpoints and Politics’, Canadian Journal of Education, 17 (3): 365–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1495301(1992) ‘Fighting Bodies. Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention’ in JudithButler and Joan W.Scott (eds) Feminists Theorize the Political. New York: Routledge. pp. 385–403.(1992) ‘“Who has the Baby?” Nationalism, Pronatalism and the Construction of a “Demographic Crisis” in Quebec, 1960–1988’[Page 225]in M. PatriciaConnelly and PatArmstrong (eds) Feminism in Action. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. pp. 237–65.(1985) Reclaiming a Conversation: the Ideal of the Educated Woman. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(1991) ‘The Contradiction and Challenge of the Educated Woman’, Women's Studies Quarterly, 19 (1&2): 6–27.(1994) Confronting Rape: The Feminist Anti-Rape Movement and the State. London: Routledge.(1975) Social Problems as Social Movements. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.(1993) ‘Social Constructionism in Critical Feminist Theory and Research’ in GaleMiller and James A.Holstein (eds) Constructionist Controversies: Issues in Social Problems Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 181–92.(1989) ‘Men, Women, and the Liberal Ideal: An Historian's Reflections on the Morgentaler Case’, Queen's Quarterly, 96 (2): 298–313.(1994) Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press.(1986) ‘Comparable Worth: A Common Dilemma’, The Yale Journal of International Law, 11 (2): 396–436.(1991) ‘Groups versus Individuals: the Ambiguity behind the Race Relations Act’, Policy Studies, 12 (2): 26–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01442879108423584, and (1991) ‘Pay Equity Challenge to Collective Bargaining in Ontario’ in JudyFudge and PatriciaMcDermott (eds) Just Wages: A Feminist Assessment of Pay Equity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 122–35.(1992) ‘Employment Equity and Pay Equity: And Never the Twain Shall Meet?’Canadian Woman Studies/Les Cahiers de la Femme, 12: 24–7.(1993) A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.and (1978) ‘Birth Control and Abortion in Canada, 1870–1920’, Canadian Historical Review, 59 (3): 319–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/CHR-059-03-02(1993) ‘Review Essay: Impossible Fictions? Utopian Visions and Feminist Educational Research’ in LynYates (ed.) Feminism and Education. A Special Edition of Melbourne Studies in Education. pp. 107–19.(1995) ‘Sexual Harassment and Feminism’, RePublica, 2: 165–80.(1961) ‘Social Problems and Sociological Theory’ in Robert K.Merton and Robert A.Nisbet (eds) Contemporary Social Problems. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. pp. 775–823.(1966) ‘Epilogue: Social Problems and Sociological [Page 226]Theory’ in Robert K.Merton and RobertNisbet (eds) Contemporary Social Problems. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch. pp. 778–823.(1993) ‘(De)Construction, Postmodernism, and Social Problems: Facts, Fiction, and Fantasies at the “End of History”’ in James A.Holstein and GaleMiller (eds) Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 377–402.(1994) ‘Why We Choose to Address Oppression’ in E.Cross, J.Katz, F.Miller and E.Seashore (eds) The Promise of Diversity. Irwin, NY: NTL Institute. pp. xxv–xxix.(1993) ‘New Challenges to Social Constructionism: Alternative Perspectives on Social Problems Theory’ in James A.Holstein and GaleMiller (eds) Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 254–80.(1993) ‘Claims-Making from the Underside: Marginalization and Social Problems Analysis’ in James A.Holstein and GaleMiller (eds) Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 349–68.(1995) ‘The Culture of Complaint’, The Weekend Australian, 15–16 April.(1990) ‘On Race and Voice: Challenges for Liberal Education in the 1990s’, Cultural Critique, 14: 179–208.(1978) Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800–1900. New York: Oxford University Press.(1995) ‘Sexual Harassment and the Public/Private Dichotomy: Equality, Morality and Manners’ in MargaretThornton (ed.) Public and Private: Feminist Legal Debates. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. pp. 89–111.(1980) ‘The State as Mediator: Alcohol Problem Management in the Postwar World’, Contemporary Drug Problems, 9: 107–36.(1995) ‘The Law's Engagement with Pregnancy’ in JoBridgeman and SusanMillns (eds) Law and Body Politics: Regulating the Female Body. Dartmouth: Aldershot. pp. 53–78.and (1980) ‘Determination and Thoroughness: The Movement for a Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada’, Atlantis, 5 (2): 1–21.(1991) ‘Day Care for Young Children in the United Kingdom’ in EdwardMelhuish and PeterMoss (eds) Day Care for Young Children: International Perspectives. London: Routledge. pp. 121–41.(1997) ‘Early Childhood Services in Europe’, Policy Options, January, February, pp. 27–30.(1996) Transforming Nursery Education. London: Paul Chapman Ltd.and ([Page 227]1990) Law and the Sexes: Explorations in Feminist Jurisprudence. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.(1992) ‘Windows on the Legal Mind: The Evocation of Rape in Legal Writings’, Melbourne University Law Review, 18: 741–67.(National Commission on Education (1993) Learning to Succeed. Report of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. London: Heinemann.1975) ‘Women Begin to Speak Out Against Sexual Harassment at Work’, New York Times, 19 August, p. 38.(1993) ‘“A Woman out of Control”: Deconstructing Sexism and Racism in the University’, Canadian Journal of Education, 18 (3): 188–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1495382(Nicholson, Linda and Seidman, Steven (eds) (1995) Social Postmodernism: Beyond Identity Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO97805115207921992) ‘Sex Discrimination Between the Nordic Model and European Community Law’ in NiklasBruun, BoelFlodgren, MaritHalvorsen, HåkanHydén and RuthNielsen, The Nordic Labour Relations Model: Labour Law and Trade Unions in the Nordic Countries – Today and Tomorrow. Aldershot, Hants: Dartmouth Publishing Company. pp. 180–220.and (1990) Equal Employment Opportunity Programs for Immigrants: The Experience of Thirteen Organisations. Commonwealth of Australia: Bureau of Immigration Research.and (1996) ‘Where Violence, Relationship, and Equality Meet: The Violence Against Women Act's Civil Rights Remedy’, Wisconsin Women's Law Journal, 11 (1): 1–36.(OECD (1993) Why Child Care Matters. New York: OECD.1991) ‘Gender, the Public and the Private’ in DavidHeld (ed.) Political Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 67–90.(1983) ‘The Family and the Market: A Study of Ideology and Legal Reform’, Harvard Law Review, 96 (7): 1497–1578. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1340916(1985) ‘The Myth of State Intervention in the Family’, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 18 (4): 835–64.(1992) ‘Risk, Power and Crime Prevention’, Economy and Society, 21 (3): 252–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085149200000013(Ontario (1978) Sex-role Stereotyping and Women's Studies. Toronto: Ministry of Education.Ontario Status of Women Council (1974) About Face: Towards a Positive Image of Women in Textbooks. Toronto: Ontario Status of Women Council.1993) ‘Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States’, American Sociological Review, 58 (June): 303–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095903(‘PA’ News (1997) ‘Nursery vouchers scheme goes nationwide’, 1 April. <http://www.ge97.co.uk/news_archive/mar_31/story73550s.html>[Page 228]1992) Public Policy Analysis, An Introduction,(second edition. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson.1996) ‘Missed Opportunities or Comparative Advantage? Canadian Contributions to the Study of Public Policy’ in LaurentDobuzinskis, MichaelHowlett and DavidLaycock (eds) Policy Studies in Canada: The State of the Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 359–74.(1981) ‘The Concept of Equity’ in P. N.Troy (ed.) A Just Society? Essays on Equity in Australia. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin. pp. 21–36.(1983) ‘Feminist Critiques of the Public/Private Dichotomy’ in S. I.Genn and G. F.Gaus (eds) Public and Private in Social Life. London: Croom Helm. pp 281–303.(1989) Equity and Gender: The Comparable Worth Debate. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.(Pfeiffer & Company (1993) Training Catalogue. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Co.1986) ‘Sex and Skill’ in Feminist Review (ed.) Waged Work: A Reader. London: Virago. pp. 54–66.and (1996) ‘Discourse, Identity, and Voice: Feminist Contributions to Policy Studies’ in LaurentDobuzinskis, MichaelHowlett and DavidLaycock (eds) Policy Studies in Canada: The State of the Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 242–65.(1995) ‘Education and Training’ in Ruth RoachPierson and MarjorieGriffin (eds) Canadian Women's Issues: Vol. II. Bold Visions. Toronto: James Lorimer and Co. pp. 162–202.(1980) ‘Our Costs and Their Benefits’, m/f: a feminist journal, 4: 28–39.(1995) ‘Feminism, Privacy and Radical Democracy’, Anarchist Studies, 3: 97–120.(1990) ‘Sexual Harassment: Women's Experience vs. Legal Definitions’, Harvard Women's Law Journal, 13: 35–85.(1994) ‘(Un)Becoming “Voices”: Representing Sexual Harassment in Performance’ in Shereen G.Bingham (ed.) Conceptualizing Sexual Harassment as Discursive Practice. Westport, CT: Praeger. pp. 117–26.(1996) ‘Introduction: afterBakke’, Representations, 55: 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rep.1922.214.171.124p0437j(1992) Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books.(1988) ‘The “Mainstreaming” of Daycare’, Resources for Feminist Research, 17: 59–63.(1980) ‘Abusing Sex at the Office’, Newsweek, 10 March, p. 81.(1988) Secretaries Talk: Sexuality, Power & Work. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.([Page 229]1994) ‘The Lecherous Professor Revisited: Plato, Pedagogy and the Scene of Harassment’ in ClareBrant and Yun LeeToo (eds) Rethinking Sexual Harassment. London: Pluto Press. pp. 189–219.(1991) ‘Affirmative Action Rhetoric’, Social Philosophy & Policy, 8 (2): 130–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500001163(Rainwater, Lee (ed.) (1974a) Social Problems and Public Policy: Inequality and Justice. Chicago: Aldine.Rainwater, Lee (ed.) (1974b) Social Problems and Public Policy: Deviance and Liberty. Chicago: Aldine.1995) ‘Domestic Violence as Gender Persecution: Policing the Borders of Nation, Race, and Gender’, Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 8: 45–88.(1994) ‘Reading the Problem Family: Post-Structuralism and the Analysis of Social Problems’, Drug and Alcohol Review, 13: 457–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09595239400185601(1977) ‘Problem Setting in Policy Research’ in CarolWeiss (ed.) Using Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. pp. 235–51.and (Remick, Helen (ed.) (1984) Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination: Technical Possibilities and Political Realities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.1993) Incomparable Worth: Pay Equity Meets the Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571671(1993) ‘Gender Equality and Employment Policy’ in SherriMatteo (ed.) American Women in the Nineties: Today's Critical Issues. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. pp. 253–73.(1976) Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. New York: W. W. Norton.(1993) ‘Gender Dilemmas in Sexual Harassment: Policies and Procedures’ in SherriMatteo (ed.) American Women in the Nineties: Today's Critical Issues. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. pp. 213–34.(Rochefort, David A. and Cobb, Roger W. (eds) (1994) The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.1987) Affirmative Action and Sex Discrimination: A Handbook on Legal Rights for Women. Sydney: Pluto Press.(1993) ‘Government, Authority and Expertise in Advanced Liberalism’, Economy and Society, 22 (3): 283–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085149300000019(1992) ‘Political power beyond the State: problematics of government’, British Journal of Sociology, 43 (2): 173–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/591464and (1992) Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.([Page 230]Royal Commission on the Status of Women (1970) Report. Ottawa: Information Canada.1988) The Dignity of Women at Work: A Report on the Problem of Sexual Harassment in the Member States of the European Community. Brussels-Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Community.(1971) The Study of Social Problems: Five Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.and (1987) ‘Foreword’ in Burton, Clare. with Hag, Raven and Thompson, Gay (1987) Women's Worth: Pay Equity and Job Evaluation in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. pp. vii–viii.(1989) Gentle Invaders: Australian Women at Work. Ringwood, Victoria: Penguin.and (1994) We Women Decide: Women's Experience of Seeking Abortion in Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, 1985–1992. Adelaide: Women's Studies Unit, Faculty of Social Sciences, Flinders University., and (Sainsbury.Diane (ed.) (1994) Gendering Welfare States. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/97814462505181996) Gender, Equality and Welfare States. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511520921(1994) ‘Contextualizing Inequality’, Social Policy Research Centre Newsletter, No. 53. Kensington: University of New South Wales.(Sawer, Marian (ed.) (1985) Program for Change: Affirmative Action in Australia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.1992) Roe v. Wade: United States Supreme Court. Annotated version. Philadelphia: Running Press.(1982) Women and Male Violence: The Visions and Struggles of the Battered Women's Movement. Boston, MA: South End Press.(1993) ‘Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy’. American Political Science Review, 87 (3): 334–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2939044and (1979) ‘Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem-Setting in Social Policy’ in AndrewOrtony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 254–83.(1972) Setting National Priorities: The 1973 Budget. Washington: The Brookings Institute., , and (1994) ‘Only Words’. The Nation, 31 January. pp. 135–7.(Sex Discrimination Commissioner (1996) Sexual Harassment and Educational Institutions: A Guide to the Federal Sex Discrimination Act. Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.1988) The Politics of Representation: Writing Practices in Biography, Photography, and Policy Analysis. [Page 231]Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.(1992) Reading the Postmodern Polity: Political Theory as Textual Practice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.(1993) Women and the Australian Social Security System: From Difference Towards Equality, Social Policy Research Centre, Discussion Paper No. 41. NSW: University of New South Wales.(1996) ‘Legalising Justice For All Women: Canadian Women's Struggles For Democratic Rape Law Reforms’, The Australian Feminist Law Journal, 6: 87–114.(1995) ‘The Law of Abortion and the Politics of Medicalisation’ in JoBridgeman and SusanMillns (eds) Law and Body Politics: Regulating the Female Body. Dartmouth: Aldershot.(1996) Contemporary Sociology and Policy Analysis: The New Sociology of Public Policy. Wirral, Merseyside: Tudor.(1961) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization,(second edition. New York: Macmillan.1997) ‘Feminist Interventions and State Policy’ in CarolineAndrew and SandraRodgers (eds) Women and the Canadian State: Les Femmes et l'État Canadien. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. pp. 110–15.(1994) Comparable Worth: Is it a Worthy Policy?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1987) Constructing Social Problems. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.and (Spender, Dale and Sarah, Elisabeth (eds) (1980) Learning to Lose: Sexism and Education. London: Women's Press.Standing Committee on Health. Welfare and Social Affairs (1982) Report on Violence in the Family: Wife Battering. Chair: MarcelRoy. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Government Publishers.1992) ‘Civil Reconstruction: What to Do Without Affirmative Action’, The American Prospect, pp. 7–14.(1988) Policy Paradox and Political Reason. New York: HarperCollins.(1980) ‘Managing the Political Agenda: Problem Definition and Policy Making in Britain’, Parliamentary Affairs, 33 (1): 23–39.and (1994) Introduction to Social Problems,and (third edition. New York: Macmillan.1994) ‘Whose Language?’ in KathleenLennon and MargaretWhitford (eds) Knowing the Difference: Feminist Perspectives in Epistemology. New York: Routledge. pp. 203–16.([Page 232]1996) The Abortion Controversy in Canada and the United States. Canadian-American Public Policy Association Occasional Paper Series. no. 25. Orono, ME: University of Maine.(1985) ‘Dealing With Employment Discrimination and Damaging Stereotypes: A Legal Perspective’, Journal of Social Issues, 41 (4): 99–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01144.x(1991) Affirmative Action at Work: Law, Politics, and Ethics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.(1993) ‘Neo-Conservative Ideology and Opposition to Federal Regulation of Child Care Services in the United States and Canada’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 26 (1): 97–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000842390000247X(1995) ‘Work and/or Motherhood: The Ideological Construction of Women's Options in Canadian Child Care Policy Debates’, Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 8 (2): 411–39.(1996) ‘Promises, Promises: “Choices of Women” in Canadian and American Child Care Policy Debates’, Feminist Studies, 22 (1): 119–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3178249(1995) Public Policy – The Essential Readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.and (1996) ‘Making Difference Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity’, Harvard Business Review, 74 (5): 79–90.and (1990) ‘From Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity’, Harvard Business Review, pp. 107–17.(1991) Beyond Race and Gender: Unleashing the Power of Your Total Work Force by Managing Diversity. New York: American Management Association.(1993) Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. Buckingham: Open University Press.(1990) ‘In the Eyes of the Law’ in EdDavis and ValeriePratt (eds) Making the Link: Affirmative Action and Industrial Relations. Sydney: Affirmative Action Agency & Labour-Management Studies Foundation, Macquarie University. pp. 47–54.(1991a) ‘Feminism and the Contradictions of Law Reform’, International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 19: 453–74.(1991b) ‘The Public/Private Dichotomy: Gendered and Discriminatory’, Journal of Law and Society, 18 (4): 448–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1410319(1995a) ‘The Seductive Allure of EEO’ in NormaGrieve and AilsaBurns (eds) Australian Women: Contemporary Feminist Thought. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. pp. 215–24.(Thornton, Margaret (ed.) (1995b) Public and Private: Feminist Legal Debates. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.1988) ‘Language and Gender’, Australian Feminist Studies, 6: 41–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08164649.1988.9961586([Page 233]1956) Economic Policy: Principles and Design. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.(1992/3) ‘The Messy Work of Child Care: Addressing Feminists' Neglect of Child Care Workers’, Atlantis, 18 (1&2): 70–81.(1986) ‘Sexual Harassment’ in M.Pearsall (ed.) Women and Values. California: Wadsworth. pp. 148–65.(1996) ‘Power and Insight in Policy Discourse: Post-Positivism and Problem Definition’ in LaurentDobuzinskis, MichaelHowlett and DavidLaycock (eds) Policy Studies in Canada: The State of the Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 266–98.(1993) ‘Revised Social Constructionism: Traditional Social Science More Than a Postmodernist Analysis’ in James A.Holstein and GaleMiller (eds) Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 117–28.(1993) ‘Difference and Identity – A Feminist Debate Indicating Directions for the Development of Transformative Curriculum’ in LynYates (ed.) Feminism and Education. Special Edition of Melbourne Studies in Education. pp. 51–62.(1989) ‘Sex, Gender, and Epistemology’ in MaryCrawford and MargaretGentry (eds) Gender and Thought Psychological Perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 15–33.(Ungerson, Clare (ed.) (1990) Gender and Caring: Work and Welfare in Britain and Scandinavia. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.US Commission on Civil Rights (1982) Under the Rule of Thumb: Battered Women and the Administration of Justice. Washington: Government Printers.US Committee on Ways and Means, and Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, Subcommittee of Human Resources and the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families (1995) Hearings: Child Care and Child Welfare, 104th Congress, First Session, 3 February. Washington: US Government Printing Office.US House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Education and Labor (1988) Child Care: Hearing, 21 April. Washington: US Government Printing Office.US Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee on Children, Family, Drugs, and Alcoholism (1988) Hearings: Act for Better Child Care Services of 1987, 100th Congress, 2nd session, 15 March and 28 June. Washington: US Government Printing Office.1997) Constructing the Child: A History of Canadian Day Care. An Our Schools/Our Selves Title. Toronto: James Lorimer.(1990) An Economic Framework for the Evaluation of Child Care Policy. Labor Market – Social Policy Occasional Papers No. 1. Paris: OECD.([Page 234]1995) Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. London: The Falmer Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203454220(1992) ‘Post-Post-Modernism?’ in M.Barrett and A.Phillips (eds) Destabilizing Theory: Contemporary Feminist Debates. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 31–52.(1990) Family Violence and the Women's Movement: The Conceptual Politics of Struggle. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.(Walker, John (ed.) (1998) Halliwell's Film and Video Guide. London: HarperCollins.1990) Schoolgirl Fictions. London: Verso.(1992) ‘Progressive Pedagogy and Political Struggle’ in CarmenLuke and JenniferGore (eds) Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy. New York: Routledge. pp. 15–24.(1995) ‘Subject to Change Without Notice: Psychology, Postmodernity and the Popular’ in StevePile and NigelThrift (eds) Mapping the Subject. London: Routledge. pp. 309–31.(1985) ‘The Legal Approach to Sex Discrimination’ in M.Sawer (ed.) Program for Change. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. pp. 16–32.(1993) ‘The 1960s State as Social Problem: An Analysis of Radical Right and New Left Claims-Making Rhetorics’ in James A.Holstein and GaleMiller (eds) Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. pp. 59–85.(1990) ‘Wage Solidarity and Equal Value: Or Gender and Class in the Structuring of Work Place Hierarchies’, Studies in Political Economy, 32: 55–83.(1993) ‘Can a Disappearing Pie be Shared Equally? Unions, Women and Wage “Fairness’” in LindaBriskin and PatriciaMcDermott (eds) Women Challenging Unions: Feminism, Democracy, and Militancy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 249–62.(1993/4) ‘Government and Modernity: An Essay in Thinking Governmentality’, Arena Journal, 2: 103–57.(1987) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.(1996) ‘Women Citizens' Struggle for Citizenship’ in JohnWilson, JaneThomson, and AnthonyMcMahon (eds) The Australian Welfare State: Key Documents and Themes. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia. pp. 70–85.(1996) ‘How Violence Against Women Became an Issue on the National Policy Agenda’ in TonyDalton. MaryDraper, WendyWeeks and JohnWiseman, Making Social Policy in Australia: An Introduction. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. pp. 141–53.and (1988) Women Teaching for Change: Gender, Class and Power. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvery.([Page 235]1994) Feminisms and Education: an Introduction. Buckingham: Open University Press.(1987) Teachers and gender politics' in M.Arnot & G.Weiner (eds) Gender and the Politics of Schooling. London: Hutchinson and Open University. pp. 354–373.and (1998) ‘Who Benefits from Schooling? Equality Issues in Britain’ in AlisonMackinnon, IngaElgqvist-Saltzman and AlisonPrentice (eds) Education into the 21st Century: Dangerous Terrain for Women?London: Falmer Press. pp. 94–106.with and (1983) ‘Women's Studies as a Strategy for Change: Between Criticism and Vision’ in G.Bowles and R. D.Klein (eds) Theories of Women's Studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1993) ‘A Systems Perspective on Sexual Exploitation of Clients by Professional Helpers’, Dulwich Centre Newsletter, Nos. 3&4: 77–87.(1988) ‘The Netherlands’ in Alfred J.Kahn and Sheila B.Kamerman (eds) Child Support: From Debt Collection to Social Policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1979) The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. London: Macmillan.(1977) Directions for Change: Review of New South Wales Government Administration. Sydney: P. West.(1991) The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1990) ‘Re-forming “Women's” Truth: A Critique of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada’, Ottawa Law Review, 22 (3): 725–59.(1981) ‘Firing the Woman to Protect the Fetus: The Reconciliation of Fetal Protection with Employment Opportunity Goals under Title VII’, Georgetown Law Review, 69 (1): 641–704.(1987) The Truly Disadvantaged: the Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.(1987) Georgie Porgie: Sexual Harassment in Everyday Life. London: Pandora.and (1994) ‘Saying It Makes It So: The Discursive Construction of Sexual Harassment’ in Shereen G.Bingham (ed.) Conceptualizing Sexual Harassment as Discursive Practice. Westport, CT: Praeger. pp. 17–30.(1985) ‘Ontological Gerrymandering’, Social Problems, 32 (3): 214–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.1985.32.3.03a00020and (1992) ‘A tale of sound and fury – Signifying What? Feminism and Curriculum Policy in Australia’ in MarjorieO'Loughlin and VictoriaFoster (eds) Through Girls' Eyes: Australian Research, Policy and Curriculum in the [Page 236]1990s. Forum of Education Monograph. Sydney: Sydney Faculty of Education, University of Sydney. pp. 93–117.(1993a) The Education of Girls: Policy, Research and the Question of Gender. Australian Education Review No. 35. Victoria: The Australian Council of Educational Research.(1993b) ‘Feminism and Education: Writing in the 90s’ in LynYates, Feminism and Education. A Special Issue of Melbourne Studies in Education, pp. 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508489309556254(1993c) ‘The Theory-Practice Relationship in Schooling, Academia and Feminist Theory’ in JillBlackmore and JaneKenway (eds) Gender Matters in Educational Administration and Policy: A Feminist Introduction. London: The Falmer Press. pp. 181–94.(1994) ‘Review Essay: Feminist Pedagogy Meets Critical Pedagogy Meets Poststructuralism’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15 (3): 429–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142569940150309(1990) Bureaucrats, Technocrats, Femocrats. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.(