Galea, N; Powell, A; Loosemore, M and Chappell, L (2015) Designing robust and revisable policies for gender equality: Lessons from the Australian construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 33(5-6), pp. 375-389. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The construction industry remains the most male dominated sector in Australia. Several decades of formal gender equality initiatives by government and business have failed to bring about any meaningful change to the hierarchical and numerical representation of women in the sector. Drawing on new institutionalism, particularly the concepts of 'robustness' and 'revisability', the nature and intent of formal policies and programs that impact on gender equality are analysed in two large Australian multinational construction firms. Through in-depth interviews with senior management and a document analysis of formal policies, it is concluded that gender equality initiatives and broader policies are primarily focused on increasing the numbers of women in construction rather than addressing gender practices and outcomes. These policies lack many of the qualities of robustness and revisability, which impacts on their capacity to genuinely challenge the gendered norms, practices and narratives of the sector.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | equality; gender; new institutionalism; policy; rules |
| Index terms: | norms, narrative, program, construction firm, gender equality, drawing, interview, construction industry, women, Australia, document analysis |
| Subjects: | data science, technical documentation, data collection methods, organization, industry analysis, sociology, social justice, qualitative and interpretive research, Geography, software systems |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Ethics, Design Practice, Digital Applications |
| 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