Galea, N and Loosemore, M (2006) Men and conflict in the construction industry. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 22nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2006, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
This paper investigates whether there is a gender-centric style of communication in the construction industry (a genderlect), whether this is a source of interpersonal conflict and whether men and women negotiate differently in conflict episodes. The critical decision method, supported by concept mapping reveals the cognitive bases of judgement and communications in hypothetical conflict settings. The paper provides evidence that the construction industry's genderlect is male-centric and that this is related to the relatively high incidence of conflict. It also argues that women and men behave differently in a conflict and in jobs that require them to engage in conflict and confrontation. Furthermore, post conflict relationships remain relatively unchanged for males compared to females. Since the construction industry is predominantly a male workforce, this research suggests that levels of conflict in the construction industry could be reduced by increased female participation.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | communication; conflict; construction industry; gender |
| Index terms: | women, evidence, concept mapping, construction industry |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, sociology, industry analysis, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 CTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here