Isingizwe, Josiane (2025) Retention and employment discrimination in construction: Exploring causal factors for the African American workforce. PhD thesis, Arizona State University, USA.
Abstract
The U.S. construction industry is confronting a severe workforce shortage while continuing to struggle with racial and sexual disparities in professional representation and retention. Despite legal protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, African American professionals frequently encounter employment discrimination, limited advancement opportunities, and persistent stereotyping – barriers that undermine both workforce retention and sustainability. This dissertation investigates how structural discrimination, and perceptual biases influence the retention of African American professionals in construction, employing a three-phase, mixed-methods research design. Phase I presents a systematic literature review identifying historical patterns and institutional factors contributing to workforce disparities. Phase II draws from qualitative interviews with 34 African American construction professionals, using thematic analysis to uncover core retention barriers, including lack of mentorship, undermining expertise, and exposure to workplace discrimination. Phase III, a between-subjects experimental study, examines how 219 construction students evaluate perceived professional expertise across four race-sex conditions – African American Female (AAF), African American Male (AAM), White American Female (WAF), and White American Male (WAM) – using immersive 360-degree storytelling videos. While chi-square analyses revealed no statistically significant differences in overall perceived expertise across identity conditions, correlational analyses suggested that higher endorsement of symbolic racism was moderately associated with lower expertise ratings (r = –0.54), whereas modern sexism showed a modest positive relationship (r = 0.54). Furthermore, symbolic racism scores were significantly higher among White students than non-White peers (p = 0.04), suggesting perceptual biases persist despite equal performance cues. These findings illustrate how modern prejudice may subtly influence professional assessments, even in controlled conditions. By integrating literature, lived experiences, and experimental data, this research provides a multidimensional understanding of the mechanisms sustaining racial inequity in the construction workforce. The study offers actionable recommendations to inform workforce development practices and support the retention of African American professionals in construction-related fields.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Eiris, Ricardo |
| Index terms: | bias, construction professional, research design, controlled conditions, identity, employment, dissertation, thematic analysis, retention, discrimination, workforce development, racism, experiment, interview, construction industry, systematic literature review, disparity, exposure |
| Subjects: | probability and distributions, research dissemination and communication, research evaluation and metrics, industry analysis, social justice, management, sociology, data collection methods, public and environmental health, methods and analysis, testing methods, professional development, professional ethics, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Ethics, Education, Health and Safety, Legal Issues, Information Management, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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