Rumens, N (2013) Queering men and masculinities in construction: Towards a research agenda. Construction Management and Economics, 31(8), pp. 802-815. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The topic of gender in the construction industry now commands a substantial literature given complaints about gender segregation and the dominance of men, culturally and numerically, within the sector. However, there is not enough research that problematizes men and masculinities as diverse and multiple, or investigates how gender binaries are implicated in sustaining heteronormativity within the construction scholarship, thereby marginalizing research on sexualities. The possibilities for 'queering' current research agendas are examined in regard to 'men' and 'masculinities', by introducing queer theory as a conceptual resource for disrupting and destabilizing facile notions of gender and sexuality as fixed, stable and universal. It is argued that analyses about men and masculinities in construction must take into account how men are situated in relation to formations of difference such as gender and sexuality. In so doing, concerns are expressed and new concepts and research questions are suggested with the primary aim of promoting but not prescribing further empirical research and theorizing.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | gender; heteronormativity; queer theory; research practice; sexuality |
| Index terms: | research practice, complaint, theorizing, masculinity, research agenda, construction industry, sexuality |
| Subjects: | conflict resolution, research management, sociology, industry analysis, research design and methodology, data science |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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