Name

Professor

Course

Date

Introduction

Throughout decades, researchers have criticized organization evaluation individuals by ignoring large forms of social structures. Some researchers have provided details of organization communication theories. Large forms of social structure include organization aspects such as regulations, traditions, policies and customs. Macro-phenomena are outside features that appear to control the organization, but they have their own life by controlling and manipulating members.

There is increased attention in different levels where researchers are interested in connecting individual actions to structures of an organization (May, & Dennis, 2005). This is the core task of researchers analyzing organization communication concepts. Research shows that institutions can link macro-phenomena into organization communication structures. It is therefore, the responsibility of communication researchers to analyze the sociological roots of an organization and changing sociological concepts to enhance communication within an organization. Researchers argue that organization communication has been ignored in the past , but there is enormous potential that can solve facing organization communication.

Even with all this attention there is no clear definition of organization communication up to date. The institution character can assist in organizing the developing body of communication organization (May, & Dennis, 2005). It is proposed that institutional theory of communication organization can help connect institution theory of sociology. A formal theory is developed to describe the role of institutions in communication theory through the established practices and beliefs in an organization.

The word institution has different meanings that are used synonymously with an organization in reference to church, school, hospital or cooperation. Institution is also used to refer to large organization such as the state and the economy. Therefore, institutions help individuals to understand organization community. The plans in an institution use fundamental concepts such as behaviors and beliefs together with established practices. Moreover, the propositions connect these elements to concepts of membership such as rational myths and hierarchy. The concepts are grouped logically from general to specific terms that are conceptual but not operation.

There is a proposition where communication helps to sustain institutions. Researchers argue that institutions are constituted by communications. Individuals identify beliefs and practices routinized to sustain an organized institution. This proposition argues that institutions are sustained by following rules and practices (May & Dennis, 2005). Most researchers anticipate seeing the reproduction of institution through communication. However, it takes time for an institution to change since these changes emerge from practices and rules within an institution. These institutions can be adapted into new ways where rules are connected to the organization structure. This plan is consistent with communication processes that connect to institutions. People who accept individual rules in an organization tend to produce these rules through communication. There are internal and external aspects in this proposition making reproduction be biased.

Some researchers have provided details of organization communication theories. There is increased attention in different levels where researchers are interested in connecting individual action and structures of an organization. It is therefore, the responsibility of communication researchers to analyze the sociological roots of an organization and changing sociological concepts to enhance communication within an organization. Therefore, institutions help individuals to understand organization community.

Economic activities in some cultures extensively ignored women. Even though some of their work was recognized, individual women were not allowed to make decisions in connection to production, investment, distribution and consumption. Women were viewed as controllers of household chores. It is unfortunate that women contribute a lot in development but they are rarely recognized.

Most of the societies practice division of labor by sex and age. Traditional western models assumed men to be economic providers since their role was dynamic while women were domestic consumers and their role was static (Bosen, 2005). Anthropologist and other social scientist have discovered that men are only partial economic providers. The contribution of men towards women and children vary in different cultures and depends in variations of women work. Women make significant economic decisions not only for children but also for men and the society. Therefore, the important issue in analyzing economic system of any society is by considering the division of labor, and ways the fruits and labor are shared.

The early model of hunting society presented man as the chief provider and decision maker in the society. The early model of foragers as the blue print of sexual division of labor has been widely criticized (Merlan, 2007). It was assumed that foragers depended on meat as their only food and men did all the hunting as women stayed in camps with children waiting for men to bring them food. Anthropologist challenged this model when they started analyzing the contribution of women in foragers’ society. After extensive research, there are four changes in the model. Meat was not the staple food in forages society compared to the total food intake (Reskin, 2010). When meat was less important in the meal than plant food men still went out to hunt while women provided food for their groups through their contributions. Even in the male hunting and women, gathering model contributes sexual separation in food contribution especially between animal and vegetable food. Division of labor between sexes is flexible and changing in individuals and cooperative efforts.

There are some difficulties in separating horticultural and agricultural societies. The major difference is the intensity of farming that has major implication in division of labor. Horticulturalist utilize land extensively with little investing in cultivation than agriculturalist. They clear new fields but they do not invest in terracing and putting fertilizers (Reskin, 1984). Horticulture use hand tools while agriculturalist use plows and draft animals. Females mainly contribute horticultural cultivation such as shift cultivation.

Conclusion

Anthropologists have researched extensively various cultural societies in connection to economic roles by women. They have found that world markets and economic institutions have difficult effects that are different for both men and women. Women access to employment, education and technology is hindered by childcare interference and the expectation of the society that childcare will affect women duties. This is challenging to women since they opt to have few children for succeeding in gaining greater economic independence. Even though some economists continue to ignore gender differences in economic development of a society, exclusion of women from economic analysis is increasing and hard to justify.

References Bosen, L, (2005), women and economic institutions, New York: Oxford Brooker.

Merlan, F, (2007), Women, Productive Roles, and Monetisation of the ‘Service Mode’ in Aboriginal Australia: Perspectives from Katherine, Northern Territory.

Reskin, B, (2010), Sex Segregation in the Workplace: Trends, Explanations, Remedies, New York: National Academies Press.

May, S, and Dennis, M. (2005) Engaging Organizational Communication Theory & Research: Multiple Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. Print.