Smith, L (2013) Trading in gender for women in trades: Embodying hegemonic masculinity, femininity and being a gender hotrod. Construction Management and Economics, 31(8), pp. 861-873. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The construction industry remains male dominated despite reforms in recruitment, training and some workplaces since the 1970s. That said some women do still enter the industry. The aim of this research was to explore the embodied experiences of women who work in a particular area of construction, that of manual skilled trades. Fifteen tradeswomen between the ages of 21 and 60 were interviewed using a life history framework. Unstructured and in-depth, the life history interviews covered a broad range of topics including family history, education, embodiment, sexuality and work. This method aimed to contextualize participants' experiences of work within broader relations, allowing a space for participants to discuss their labour processes beyond a conception of them as challenging. The central finding of the research was that gender was not experienced as stable or simple. Instead gender was contradictory. Some women also found that being 'outside' the expectations of masculine cultures allowed them to use their gender as a resource to work more smartly and more safely. From the experiences of women in trades, pleasure is theorized as a useful point of connection between women and between women and men in male dominated work cultures.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | gender; hegemonic masculinity; life history method; pleasure; women |
| Index terms: | women, construction industry, recruitment, sexuality, history, masculinity, interview |
| Subjects: | management, industry analysis, sociology, data collection methods, architectural and construction history |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 CTE |
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