Soft skills and hard numbers: Gender discourse in human resources

26Citations
Citations of this article
96Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The cultural rise of “big data” in the recent years has pressured a number of occupations to make an epistemological shift toward data-driven science. Though expressed as a professional move, this article argues that the push incorporates gendered assumptions that disadvantage women. Using the human resource occupation as an example, I demonstrate how normative perceptions of feminine “soft skills” are seen as irreconcilable with the masculine “hard numbers” of a data-driven epistemology. The history of human resources reflects how assumptions of a biological fit with an occupation limit what women can convincingly describe as her skillsets. However, challenging this cannot stay within the confines of the occupation itself. To undo sexist thinking, it is necessary to understand the broader networks of patriarchal power that dictate how value is defined in corporate environments, especially within other high status professions in business.

References Powered by Scopus

Doing gender

8177Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Undoing gender

6256Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon

4035Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Self-assessment of soft skills of university teachers from countries with a low level of digital competence

40Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Soft skills of American university teachers: Self-concept

33Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A hard stop to the term “soft skills”

31Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hong, R. (2016). Soft skills and hard numbers: Gender discourse in human resources. Big Data and Society, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716674237

Readers over time

‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘250481216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 33

65%

Lecturer / Post doc 11

22%

Researcher 4

8%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 24

55%

Business, Management and Accounting 12

27%

Computer Science 5

11%

Engineering 3

7%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 2

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0