New Publication: “Does AI Reinforce Gender Stereotypes?”

Krebsbach, Jennifer M., Jane E. Lee, Steven Zeck, Arti Thakur, and Martin Hilbert. 2026. “Does AI Reinforce Gender Stereotypes? Gender Bias in Job Descriptions Generated by 40+ Large Language Models.” Gender, Work & Organization. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.70291.

Abstract: Human resource (HR) professionals and office staff are often responsible for competing tasks that quickly accumulate. To increase efficiency, some HR staff are turning to large language models (LLMs) to automate tasks, including creating job postings based on job titles alone. We sought to examine how this practice has the potential to influence applicant pools and hiring outcomes, with attention to gendered effects in organizational settings. Using a broad sample of 48 LLMs, we conducted an algorithm audit to evaluate whether the use of a gender-neutral or gender-coded job title would influence the output created by LLMs. We measured salary disparities, unmasked comparative narrative ratings, and BSRI-informed discursive patterning utilized throughout the job description. We selected 32 jobs and created a female-coded, male-coded, and gender-neutral version of each job title (e.g., firewoman, fireman, and firefighter), studying a total of 4608 job descriptions. In comparing the LLM outputs, we found that for white-collar job titles, male-coded job descriptions were assigned higher salaries, but this was not robust across all analyses. Across occupations, advertisements generated from gender-coded titles received higher unmasked comparative LLM ratings than matched advertisements generated from gender-neutral titles, with female-coded advertisements receiving the highest ratings. Minimal optimization appeared to substantially reduce these ratings and perform comparably to maximal optimization, but neither reached the lower ratings observed when generation began with a gender-neutral title. As the use of AI tools is becoming commonplace, our findings emphasize the need for feminist, organizationally accountable approaches to AI-assisted HR work. Simple prompt modifications can mitigate, but not fully eliminate, some measured gendered differences in LLM-generated job descriptions, but they do not eliminate deeper occupationally gendered patterns.

Corresponding Author: Jennifer M. Krebsbach is a PhD candidate at the University of California Davis. Her research focuses on identifying barriers and biases in organizational structures that impact occupational mobility for women and multiply marginalized populations using mixed methods designs.

New Publication: “Assigning (Un)Deservingness” by Xuemei Cao

Cao, Xuemei. 2026. “Assigning (Un)Deservingness: How Institutional Gatekeeping Stratifies Older Chinese Immigrants’ Service Access through Competing Deservingness Frames.” Journal of Social Issues 82(4):e70087. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.70087.

Abstract: Older Asian Americans are the fastest-growing segment of the US aging population, with a majority of them being foreign-born and underserved by formal services. Existing scholarship largely draws on the health behavior model and the immigrant assimilation literature to explain this underutilization, treating service access as an individual decision shaped by help-seekers’ characteristics, resources, and cultural preferences. While this demand-side approach identifies important barriers, it leaves unexamined how frontline service workers regulate access and how broader institutional forces shape their discretionary decisions. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork conducted between 2020 and 2022 in the Greater Boston Chinese immigrant community, I argue that service access is stratified through workers’ gatekeeping organized around two competing deservingness frames. Within the aging-healthcare system, workers enact a medicalized vulnerability frame that positions older immigrants as at-risk populations deserving of proactive care. In the immigration-welfare system, workers employ a citizenship performance frame that evaluates claimants based on evidence of integration and compliance. These competing frames are produced through the interaction of macro-level policies, meso-level organizational factors and professional norms, and micro-level interpersonal comparisons. Their coexistence generates contradictory expectations for claimants and stratifies access to services depending on how closely individuals align with institutionally constructed ideals of deserving recipients. By shifting analytical attention from individual help-seeking to institutional gatekeeping, this article demonstrates how moral evaluations embedded in service systems reproduce inequalities and stratify access to care among older immigrants.

Xuemei Cao is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Bentley University. Her research focuses on immigration, aging, health, family, social networks, and qualitative research methods.

New Publication: “Women’s Approachability Premium in Sales” by Solène Delecourt, Laura Doering, and Odyssia Ng

Delecourt, Solène, Laura Doering, and Odyssia Ng. 2026. “Women’s Approachability Premium in Sales: A Field Experiment Among Microentrepreneurs.” Organization Science. doi:10.1287/orsc.2024.18859.

Abstract: Female entrepreneurs consistently earn less than their male counterparts, a disparity that is particularly acute among microentrepreneurs in developing economies. Researchers often attribute this gap to structural constraints but pay less attention to how social interactions shape earnings. This oversight is especially relevant in microentrepreneurship, where sales are contingent on customers approaching and interacting with sellers in the marketplace. Using an interactionist lens, we draw on social exchange theory and research on gender stereotypes to guide expectations. We anticipate that customers will more often approach female sellers, expecting warmer interactions, and that this higher volume of customers will translate into higher earnings when business characteristics and selling behavior are held constant. Existing research hints at this dynamic, but methodological constraints have obscured it. To overcome these constraints and test our theory, we conducted a field experiment in two face-to-face markets in India. We trained confederate sellers to run identical, de novo microenterprises and follow standard protocols for customer engagement, thus isolating customer approach in response to sellers’ gender. Female sellers attracted 41% more customers, resulting in significantly higher sales than men, all else equal, in our experiment. Consistent with our theory, customers were more likely to talk with women about topics unrelated to the sale and attempt to bargain with women. This study advances research on gender dynamics in entrepreneurship, negotiation, and customer-facing work by identifying customer approach as a novel mechanism that can generate economic advantages for female microentrepreneurs and may shape gendered opportunities in other markets and organizations.

Authors:

Solène Delecourt is an Assistant Professor in the Management of Organizations Group at the Haas School of Business. Her research agenda focuses on what drives variation in profits across firms and how we could reduce inequality in business performance among entrepreneurs in different market settings, including India, Uganda, and the US.

Laura Doering is an Associate Professor of Strategic Management and is cross-appointed in the Department of Sociology. As an economic and organizational sociologist, she examines how interactions and social psychological processes shape outcomes for groups, organizations, and markets.

Odyssia Ng is an Economist in the World Bank’s Social Protection and Jobs Global Practice. Her work focuses on human development, productive inclusion, and social safety net programs.


New Publication: “Homosociality, Femmephobia and Homonationalism” by Tair Karazi-Presler and Gilly Hartal

Karazi-Presler, T., and G. Hartal. 2026. “Homosociality, Femmephobia and Homonationalism: Gender Regimes of Valuation in LGBTQ+ Organizations.” Journal of Homosexuality, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2026.2743680.

The article examines how gendered power relations persist within LGBTQ+ organizations despite their commitments to inclusion and equality. Drawing on interviews with lesbian, bisexual, and transgender women in leadership positions in Tel Aviv, we show how gay men’s homosocial networks shape access to organizational influence, visibility, and legitimacy. We pay particular attention to the role of femmephobia and embodied forms of intimacy in sustaining these hierarchies, and to how women challenge them.

New Publication: “The Gendered Returns to Power”

Mishra, S., J. Melin, L. J. Kray, and C. Anderson. 2026. “The Gendered Returns to Power: How Gender, Structural Power, and Perceived Resource Sufficiency Shape Meritocracy Perceptions in Organizations.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.70122.

Abstract: Why do women remain underrepresented in positions of power? The present work leverages four studies (N = 99,293) spanning archival, qualitative, and experimental methods to surface one novel antecedent to this gender gap. Men (vs. women) tend to perceive their organizations as more meritocratic as a function of their structural power (Studies 1–2). This gender difference is statistically accounted for by the fact that men’s power is more often accompanied by perceived resource sufficiency, or the appraisal that one has adequate instrumental and material resources to meet role demands and exercise authority effectively (Studies 1–3). A preregistered experiment finds that higher (vs. lower) perceived resource sufficiency increases meritocracy perceptions, which in turn increase career investment intentions but weaken support for equity-enhancing initiatives (Study 4). Together, these findings reveal that structural power’s psychological consequences are not uniform across gender but depend on whether authority is accompanied by the resources needed to exercise power. The gender gap in power may thus reproduce itself, as women become less convinced that the system rewards their effort, whereas men with the authority to change organizational systems become least likely to see the need for change.

New Publication: “The Moralization of Gender (In)Equality: Contested Hybrid Repertoires Among Men in High-Tech Organizations” by Dr. Tair Karazi-Presler

Karazi-Presler, Tair. 2026. “The Moralization of Gender (In)Equality: Contested Hybrid Repertoires Among Men in High-Tech Organizations.” Men and Masculinities. doi:10.1177/1097184X261465812 

Abstract: This article examines how men negotiate the moral meanings of gender (in)equality in high-tech organizations that publicly promote gender equality while reproducing persistent inequality regimes. Based on 35 in-depth interviews, the analysis conceptualizes their accounts as contested hybrid moral repertoires: morally charged and contested ways of making sense of gender (in)equality in ostensibly egalitarian organizations. Three intertwined dynamics emerged. First, men challenge gender hierarchy by supporting gender equality and recognizing women’s exclusion. Second, they reinforce hierarchy through tensions between political correctness and authenticity, framing restraint as a burden and spontaneity as sincerity. Third, they preserve privilege through discourses of unfairness, reverse discrimination, and lost power. Drawing on the cultural sociology of morality, the article extends scholarship on hybrid masculinities by foregrounding moral sense-making and contributes to the sociology of gender and organizations by showing how moral evaluations and claims to legitimacy become mechanisms through which gender inequality is reproduced.

New Publication: “Participant Observation in the 21st Century: How the Digital Dimension Matters for All Ethnographers.” 

Crooke, Catherine L. 2026. “Participant Observation in the 21st Century: How the Digital Dimension Matters for All Ethnographers.” Qualitative Research 26(2): 457–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941261420113

Abstract: Scholarship on participant observation in the digital era has produced a proliferation of labels—virtual ethnography, digital ethnography, and netnography, among others—that often position digitally attuned methods as specialized departures from ethnography’s core. This framing risks obscuring the relevance of digital practices for ethnographers whose research questions do not centrally concern technology. The present article proposes that attention to the multifaceted digital dimensions of social life enhances participant observation even for those who study social processes whose center of gravity is offline. Drawing on a multiyear ethnographic study initiated shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, I emphasize that much ostensibly ‘in-person’ work unfolds through screens and digital infrastructures. Consciously engaging these environments expands ethnographic insight in three key ways: increasing the surface area of observable interaction, foregrounding participants’ extended social networks, and illuminating collaborative interpretive work among research participants.

Catherine L. Crooke is a lawyer and PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology at UCLA. She uses qualitative methods to study law, migration, work, organizations, and professions. Her dissertation draws on over four years of participant observation and nearly 100 interviews with Los Angeles-based legal service providers to examine the U.S. immigration system as a site of both legal promise and institutional erosion. Foregrounding the everyday experiences of immigration lawyers, she shows how institutional instability reshapes professional practice and transforms the meaning of legality itself. More broadly, her project offers a framework for understanding how professionals sustain moral commitments within institutions marked by constraint.

Catherine’s scholarship appears in Law & Society Review, Law & Social Inquiry, and Qualitative Research, and has received support from numerous funding agencies including the Ford Foundation, the American Sociological Association’s Minority Fellowship Program, the Center for Engaged Scholarship, and the Center for Institutional Courage. She holds a JD from Yale Law School, an MSc from the University of Oxford, and a BA from Columbia University.

New Publication: “The Inauthenticity of Organizational Diversity Initiatives: Perspectives from the Tech Industry”

Wilcox, Annika and Neeraj Rajasekar. 2026. “The Inauthenticity of Organizational Diversity Initiatives: Perspectives from the Tech Industry.” The Sociological Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2026.2644528

Abstract: Organizations often use diversity initiatives to craft an image of moral goodness while doing little to address workplace inequalities. This disconnect is intensified in the U.S. technology industry, where companies attempt to claim identities as progressive diversity supporters despite obvious patterns of inequality and discrimination. How do tech employees make sense of this contradiction? This study combines the sociology of diversity, sociology of organizations, and organizational authenticity literatures to analyze, via 31 in-depth interviews, how employees of a large U.S. tech company evaluate diversity initiatives in the U.S. tech industry. Results show that tech workers question the authenticity of high-tech diversity programs: they frame technology companies as lacking commitment to diversity, overemphasizing conformity to diversity-related norms, and demonstrating dubious inconsistency in their approach to diversity. Nonetheless, they moderate their criticisms by noting that tech companies do “try” to take responsibility for diversity. Interviewees voiced these impressions similarly across race and gender. We therefore argue that the (in)authenticity of diversity initiatives can be a unifying concern amongst individuals with differing social identities. As diversity initiatives exist largely due to social pressures, they will need to overcome issues of inauthenticity in order to survive widespread sociopolitical critiques.

Annika Wilcox is an Assistant Professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Criminal Justice at East Stroudsburg University. Her research examines how organizational inequalities are reproduced and challenged, primarily focusing on diversity/DEI discourse and initiatives. Her work has appeared in outlets such as Social Science Research, Sociological Forum, and Research in the Sociology of Work.  

Neeraj Rajasekar is an Assistant Professor of Sociology in the Sociology/Anthropology department at University of Illinois, Springfield. He completed his PhD in Sociology from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, in 2021. He has written scholarly articles and book chapters about diversity discourse, diversity attitudes, racial attitudes, racial inequality, and the history of multiculturalism in the United States. His publications have appeared in Sociology of Race & Ethnicity, Social Currents, Sociological Forum, and other journals.

New Publication: “Jurisdictional Gerrymandering: The Authority of Problems without Solutions” by Shira Zilberstein

Zilberstein, Shira. 2026. “Jurisdictional Gerrymandering: The Authority of Problems without Solutions.” Social Problems. doi:10.1093/socpro/spag024

Abstract: This paper develops the concept of jurisdictional gerrymandering to explain how professionals selectively invoke boundaries around their expertise to frame their role and maintain authority in solving problems that extend beyond their jurisdiction. Drawing on a study of artificial intelligence (AI) model development for healthcare, I analyze how AI practitioners position their work in relation to health equity, an issue they acknowledge cannot be solved through technology. Rather than claiming full authority over equity solutions or deferring to other domains, AI practitioners engage in jurisdictional gerrymandering by critiquing, projecting, and dissolving jurisdiction for different aspects of defining and solving health equity. This process enables them to retain authority to participate in health equity problem solving through moral alignment without accountability for solutions. In contrast to jurisdictional models of professional authority or networked expertise, jurisdictional gerrymandering unbundles defining and solving problems. It reveals a key mechanism through which authority is maintained without asserting control or claiming to be able to achieve solutions. Jurisdictional gerrymandering enables problem frames to continually serve as justifications for technological projects and expert interventions regardless of solutions, shedding light on tensions between innovation, expertise, and responsibility for social problems.

Shira Zilberstein is a PhD candidate in sociology at Harvard University and a fellow in the Science and Technology Studies program at the Harvard Kennedy School. Her research focuses on cultural sociology, science and technology studies and organizations, as well as theory and methods. She is interested in the production, interpretation and evaluation of ideas and the dynamics between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic forms of knowledge in institutional and technical settings. To this end, she has conducted research on grassroots artists, international non-governmental organizations, American college students, academics and journalists. Her dissertation focuses on applied interdisciplinary research collaborations in the field of artificial intelligence. The project studies the ways in which social impact is understood and structured by organizational incentives and decision-making processes that define and seek to address social needs.

New Publication: “The (State–Private) Ties That Bind: Status, Interactions, and Economic Development in India” by Aruna Ranganathan & Laura Doering

Ranganathan, Aruna, and Laura Doering. 2026. “The (State–Private) Ties That Bind: Status, Interactions, and Economic Development in India.” Sociology of Development 1–31. doi:10.1525/sod.2026.2893447.

Abstract: Governments often collaborate with the private sector to design and implement major economic initiatives. In studying such state–society collaborations, sociologists tend to focus on how institutional contexts shape outcomes. Although this institutional approach has been highly generative, it can overlook important micro-level interaction patterns between state and private-sector actors that also affect economic outcomes. In this study, we examine how bureaucrats in the Indian government interacted with private-sector representatives to design and implement an industrial crafts park. Drawing on ethnographic observations, interviews, and supplemental survey data, we show how bureaucrats’ status biases in favor of certain private-sector actors produced interaction patterns that blinded them to fatal flaws in the project’s design and ultimately contributed to its dramatic failure. By bringing an interactionist lens to state–society economic engagements, this study reveals how interaction patterns can aggregate to shape large-scale development outcomes. More broadly, it highlights an important but undertheorized pathway through which bureaucrats may inadvertently reinforce social stratification through the very projects intended to reduce economic inequality. We suggest that an interactionist approach to state–private collaborations and policy design can contribute to efforts to address global poverty.

Aruna Ranganathan holds the Dong Koo Kim Chancellor’s Chair in Social Entrepreneurship and is an Associate Professor at the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business. Prof. Ranganathan is also affiliated with the Sociology department and the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at UC Berkeley. She was formerly an associate professor of organizational behavior at Stanford University. Ranganathan spent her childhood in the Middle East, India, and Singapore before graduating with honors from the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business with a BCom in organizational behavior and human resources. She also received an MS in international and comparative labor from Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations and an MS/PhD in management from MIT’s Sloan School of Management.

Laura Doering is an Associate Professor of Strategic Management and is cross-appointed in the Department of Sociology. As an economic sociologist, she examines how interactions and social psychological processes shape outcomes for households, organizations, and markets. Her research has been published in the American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, Sociological Science, Sociology of Development, and Journal of Business Venturing. Professor Doering’s research and writing have appeared in The New York Times, BBC News, The Globe and Mail, Salon, and other outlets.