Advanced searchCitation search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Open access
Technical Papers
Jan 29, 2024

Framework to Enhance Gender Inclusion of Workers in Construction Sites

Authors: Syed Husam https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5016-3279 [email protected], Boeing Laishram [email protected], and Sparsh Johari https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1396-0188 [email protected]Author Affiliations
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 150, Issue 4
https://doi.org/10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-14124
PDF

Abstract

Worker shortages and poor performance are perennial problems in the construction industry. The literature suggests that increasing workforce diversity and inclusion is one of the solutions to counter such problems. Because the construction industry is a labor-intensive industry dominated by one particular gender, enhancing workforce diversity and inclusion is imperative. Therefore, this study explores various strategies for fostering gender inclusion in the construction industry. Initially, 29 gender-inclusion attributes were identified for construction workers through a literature review. The opinions on the impact of these attributes on the gender inclusion of female and transgender workers were collected from 76 and 30 respondents, respectively, through a questionnaire survey. Using inferential statistics, the essential, desirable, and context-dependent attributes were established from the identified attributes for female and transgender workers. The essential attributes included workplace safety and career progression for female workers; diversity training and antidiscrimination policies for transgender workers; and inclusion at the top management level and commitment from top management for both groups of workers. The findings will provide practitioners and human resource professionals with a framework to formulate strategies to enhance the inclusion of workers in construction sites. Although the study presented a framework of gender inclusion of workers, it does not differentiate between various levels of workers (unskilled, semiskilled, and skilled), nor does it present the relative weight of the attributes contributing to inclusion.

Practical Applications

Diversity and inclusion practices are gaining traction in the current scenario. This is substantiated globally by socially driven sustainable development goals formulated by the United Nations. Practitioners understand diversity and inclusion benefits in the form of higher performance output of the organization. However, the various strategies and actions required for enhancing workforce inclusion are dispersed across the literature. In other words, there is an absence of a framework that labor-intensive industries like the construction industry can follow and enhance diversity and inclusion. This study provides a framework in the form of a list of essential, desirable, and context-dependent attributes for enhancing diversity and inclusion of women and transgender workers in the industry. Such a classification will provide an aid to practitioners in adopting the most suitable strategies depending on their status quo, goals, and resources. Moreover, the findings of this study will have future implications for the development of an index to quantitatively measure the level of inclusion in the industry.

Introduction

Construction is an industry dominated mostly by males, with very insignificant participation of other genders (Malone and Issa 2014; Maurer et al. 2021). As per a report by Primus Partners (2023), the proportion of female workers in the Indian construction industry is 12% of the 50-million workforce deployed therein. Furthermore, most of these female workers have been compulsively engaged in construction work because their male counterparts are in the industry (Afolabi et al. 2019). Regarding the participation of women in the different hierarchy levels of construction organizations, it has been observed that less than 1.4% of technical staff/engineers and 1%–2% of top-level management positions in the Indian construction industry are held by women (Choudhari 2019). The composition of gender diversity gets further skewed if the participation of transgender individuals in the construction industry is considered in the Indian context when compared with countries like the UK and US. In developed countries like the UK and US, the involvement of transgender workers in construction is less than 3% (Powell and Sang 2013), and no such figures are available for most developing countries.
Construction is facing an acute shortage within the skilled workforce, and to address this, many initiatives are being undertaken toward the skilling, reskilling, and multiskilling of workers. Despite these efforts, the shortage of workers is still a significant issue for the construction industry; hence, the industry is now trying to attract a diverse workforce. This initiative will not only help to curb the problem of workforce shortage but also help to enhance the industry’s overall output (El-Gohary and Aziz 2014). A highly diverse workforce performs tasks with higher productivity, efficiency, and creativity than a less diverse group. An appropriate proportion of different genders in construction teams enables harnessing the full range of skills, experience, and perspectives, resulting in improved productivity (Menches and Abraham 2007). The company, in turn, earns more profits by reducing productivity losses, material wastage, and workforce turnover. Similarly, a study by Francis and Michielsens (2021) found that inclusion decreased turnover and increased the job satisfaction of female employees in the Australian construction industry.
Women and the transgender population have significantly increased in the last two decades. The female population is approximately about 50% of the global population, and the transgender population is also growing to more than 7%. Similar trends have also been observed in developing countries where construction demand is enormous. For example, in India, more than 50% of the population belongs to the women category (IIPS 2021), and more than 8% of the population belongs to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender categories (Mohan 2019). The strategy of diversifying the workforce could also be adopted in construction sites to meet the increasing demand for infrastructure creation and harness talent among the diverse groups of the population. However, this strategy of workforce diversification is rarely practiced in construction sites. To address this, it is pretty relevant to answer two vital questions to enhance workforce inclusion in construction sites: (1) what are the reasons for the lack of diversification and inclusion in the construction industry; and (2) what practical strategies are required to overcome those reasons?
This study, therefore, aims to develop a framework to include women and transgender workers in the workplace by considering the case of the Indian construction industry. Firstly, a list of gender-inclusion attributes was compiled through an extensive literature review focusing on construction. Next, a questionnaire survey was designed and circulated among experts to elicit opinions regarding the impact of identified attributes on inclusion. Subsequently, the responses were collected and analyzed through inferential statistics, and the significant attributes of female and transgender workers were obtained. A schematic framework of inclusion was developed using the results. This study’s findings will aid policy-making in cultivating an inclusive work environment across various gender groups. This will ultimately assist in addressing the problem of poor diversity and inclusion of workers in construction sites.

Literature Review

Diversity and Inclusion

Several studies have been undertaken to study the factors influencing the performance of construction workers. These factors may be intrinsic to a worker or organization (Fang et al. 2015). From the organizational perspective, Johari and Jha (2021) have highlighted that every organization has different core values, which influence the work culture, and as a result, influence worker performance. Some ideologies become irrelevant to workers as human nature evolves, and specific concepts can be introduced as part of the modern belief system. Among the current concepts, diversity and inclusion is an idea that has recently become an integral component of organizational core values. Diversity is a concept applicable not to an individual but to a group of individuals, implying that those within it have different and varying identities. A gender-diverse group consists of people of various gender identities reflective of the population outside the workplace. A workforce can very well be diverse without being either inclusive or equitable. Inclusion is all about people having access to opportunities and feeling welcomed and valued within a group, irrespective of their differences and varying identities (Bolger 2017). Sabharwal (2014) mentioned that feeling included combines various components, such as worker well-being and retention.
In the modern world, diversity is a concept of central focus in work environments and is commonly misused among individuals. Diversity started as a mere representation of minorities within an organization and has evolved into finding ways to actually include them at work (Barak 2015). This led to the concept of inclusion, which now goes hand in hand with diversity. It is apparent that people have differences among themselves, and the role of diversity management is to transform these differences into assets rather than allowing them to become sources of weakness (Hays-Thomas 2022). There has been a higher concentration of diversity and inclusion-related research in Western countries compared with the non-Western part of the world (Garg and Sangwan 2021). Although understanding diversity across various fields of knowledge has gained significant ground (Roberson 2019), there is still scope for progress, especially when implementing diversity and inclusion practices.

Gender Diversity and Inclusion

The concept of gender diversity and inclusion has gained prominence by providing a rich vocabulary on gender due to the advent of the queer movement (HRC 2019). A person’s gender identity is how they perceive and address themselves in terms of gender: male, female, both, or neither. Most people identify with only two such gender identities—male and female—known as the gender binary (HRC 2019). Gender identity is often confused with sexual orientation, that is, lesbian, gay, and bisexual. However, a person’s sexual orientation is independent of their gender identity. There are certain cultural expectations of a person based on their sex assigned at birth; individuals who deviate from these expectations through their gender identity and expression are called transgender. The final terminology relevant to the present study is nonbinary, which describes people who do not consider themselves exclusively male or female. Male and female workers mentioned in this paper refer to cisgender men and women, respectively.
Workplace diversity can be viewed from different perspectives, such as gender, race, age, ethnicity, disability, and sexual orientation (Barak 2014). Promoting diversity and fostering inclusion can be adopted by organizations as a strategy to boost organizational performance (Huneke et al. 2018). However, negative attitudes such as stereotyping and discrimination can act as a challenge when diversifying the workforce, resulting in a loss of productivity (Green et al. 2002). Women are the most researched among the various cohorts, whereas transgender individuals are the least explored in gender diversity studies.
Workers may feel left out based on multiple characteristics such as age, religion, experience, language, and skill. This study focuses on the inclusion of workers based only on gender. Although inclusion can be measured based on characteristics other than gender, such as sexual orientation, age, disability and social background, these are not a part of the scope. Even with the male-dominated construction workforce, men have an equal chance of feeling excluded compared with other gender groups. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this feeling of exclusion is because they are male. Noninclusion of men in construction, if prevalent, is because of other individual characteristics such as race, religion, and language. This does not constitute gender-based inclusion. Therefore, male workers are excluded from the scope of this study.

Diversity and Inclusion in Construction

Garg and Sangwan (2021) suggested that a substantial amount of literature has been published in the diversity field since 2010. Earlier studies on diversity have focused on various sectors, including some male-dominated fields; however, inclusion is a recent and relatively unexplored area. Studies on inclusion relating to female employees and construction workers have not been conducted in detail. The few studies that have been undertaken in this aspect lack comprehensiveness. For instance, the study by Jatrana and Sangwan (2004) highlighted the health experiences of female construction workers but not the elements of including female workers in construction sites. Menches and Abraham (2007) highlighted the status of women and obstacles to success in various facets of the construction industry, such as trades, management, education, and research. They further stressed the potential career paths for women in this sector and the role of various organizations in creating awareness of these opportunities. Similarly, Ibáñez (2017) interviewed women workers in the construction trades in Spain, and different barriers were assessed based on the career type. Powell and Sang (2013) contributed another article highlighting the harsh nature of the construction industry and the difficulties faced by minority groups working within it. Most of the studies were limited to identification of the barriers to women’s careers in construction without focusing on strategies on how to enhance their participation in this sector.
Diversity’s role in enhancing the workforce’s performance in any industry has been well-established by various studies (Huneke et al. 2018; Karakhan et al. 2021; Maurer et al. 2021). Those organizations with a gender-diverse workforce can derive more benefits in the form of higher productivity, profitability, employee retention rate, and creativity than those organizations that do not have a diverse workforce (Huneke et al. 2018). The importance of diversity in any organization, however, has been well-established, but extending this concept in labor-intensive industries such as construction still needs further studies. In addition, most studies on gender diversity have considered only women for inclusion without giving much attention to transgender people.
A significant cultural change will be required to promote inclusion at all workforce levels in the construction industry. Bringing such a cultural change will require dealing on two critical fronts: “supporting contexts for workforce diversity and inclusion” and “career development of underrepresented groups in the industry” (Choi et al. 2022). In the construction industry context, creating “supporting contexts for workforce diversity and inclusion” deals with how an inclusive work environment can be created and the significance level of the various attributes that can potentially foster an inclusive environment in construction sites. Meanwhile “career development of underrepresented groups in the industry” relates to the development of practices to support the development and progression of minority gender groups in the construction industry. Therefore, the present study supplements existing studies on inclusion by quantitatively examining inclusion in the backdrop of the construction industry and through the lens of gender.

Research Aim and Objectives

This study aims to find ways to promote gender diversity and foster gender inclusion of workers in the construction industry to exploit the advantage of demographic dividend and diversity in the population. This primary goal can be defined more specifically in terms of the following objectives:
•
identify the attributes that contribute to improving the gender inclusion of workers in construction sites, and
•
establish the essential, desirable, and context-dependent gender-inclusion attributes for female and transgender construction workers.

Research Method

Study Procedure

The attributes that influence the gender inclusion of workers in construction sites were identified by reviewing the relevant literature and conducting a brainstorming session with experts. Subsequently, the identified attributes were classified based on their impact on the two groups, namely, female and nonbinary/transgender workers (hereafter referred to as trans workers in this study). To determine the effect of the identified attributes on gender inclusion, a questionnaire survey was developed. Hypothesis testing was conducted to observe the attribute rank correlation based on respondents’ gender. Subsequently, applying a one-sample t-test, the attributes were classified as essential, desirable, and context-dependent for each group of workers based on their significance values. The overall research method is explained in detail in the following subsections and shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Research design.

Identification of Attributes

The present study describes an attribute as any strategy, procedure, or policy that an organization may employ to promote and enhance the gender inclusion of its workers in construction project sites. This definition is closely borrowed from a study by Karakhan et al. (2021), which involved the identification of specific indicators for assessing workforce diversity, equity, and inclusion. The attributes are observable and measurable to easily evaluate their impact on workforce inclusion.
The criteria for selecting the literature was formulated so as to optimally address the research questions. Certain keywords, terms, and phrases were identified through brainstorming by discussing with a five academics having an average of more than 9 years of experience in diversity and inclusion-related studies. After analyzing the potential keywords, terms, and phrases, a three-level keyword structure (Cong et al. 2022) was adopted to result in the generation of relevant articles. The first level is the context keywords which define the search context, in this case, the construction sector; the second level is the topical keywords, which narrow the scope of the search; and the last level is the subject keywords, which further limits the search to certain target subjects. The three-level keyword structure is explained in Table 1. The search engines/databases used to sample the literature were a combination of Scopus and Google Scholar to facilitate a multidisciplinary sampling process targeting studies from multiple domains such as social sciences, construction management, and gender studies (Bridges et al. 2020).
Table 1. Three-level keyword structure
Serial No.Search levelSearch strategy
1Level 1: context keywordsTAK = (construction or “construction industr*” or “construction trade*” or “construction sector*” or “construction work*” or “construction site*” or “construction project*” or “male-dominated” or “non-traditional”)
2Level 2: topical keywordsTAK = (gender or “gender role*” or inclusi* or “gender inclusi*” or “gender diversity” or diversity W/2 inclusion)
3Level 3: subject keywordsTAK = (wom?n or worker* or “trade* worker” or “female worker*” or transgender or workforce or labour* or “site worker*”)

Note: TAK = search strategy to identify terms within the title, abstract, and keywords of articles; an asterisk represents any number of characters (including zero) and is used to capture variations in terms; W/2 = proximity operator that represents the words must not be more than two words apart from each other; and the question mark represents a wildcard character that can be replaced by any single character.

From the selected secondary data sources, such as relevant literature and reports, 33 attributes impacting the gender inclusion of construction workers on site were identified initially. To check the appropriateness of the identified attributes, the list was discussed in detail with five academics and three practitioners each having more than 7 years of experience in construction projects. In terms of panel size, eight experts are sufficient to facilitate a well-rounded discussion (Karakhan et al. 2021). The details of the experts including their present role and year of experience is as follows: two university professors with 24 and 20 years of experience, respectively, two assistant professors with 9 and 8 years of experience, respectively, one research scholar having 8 years of experience, two construction managers having 15 and 12 years of experience, respectively, and one site engineer with 8 years of experience. All the experts were involved in diversity and inclusion-related work for the construction industry, academics through research and practitioners by actively fulfilling such roles in their respective organizations.
The discussion with the experts also aimed to ensure that no significant attributes were left out or that multiple attributes did not represent similar aspects. The changes made to the initial list of 33 attributes, after discussion with the experts, is as follows:
•
Gender-neutral washrooms and gendered rest areas were combined into a single attribute named gender-neutral public spaces (A3).
•
Technology and innovation can promote the expansion of knowledge, but was removed as an attribute due to lack of clarity in how it can enable workers to act meaningfully and thereby improve inclusion.
•
Affinity groups and cowives schemes were deemed to involve gender cohorts and were hence included in gendered training programs (A16).
•
Stress-free environment was eliminated as an attribute due to its general and unobservable nature and noncompliance with the definition of an attribute.
•
Inclusion bid (A28) was suggested as an attribute and was included after finding relevant literature.
•
The definition was improved and name was changed for awareness of gender barriers to diversity training of workers (A11), and resilience enhancing diversity management to commitment from top management (A12).
•
Minor rephrasing of attribute names was done for most of the attributes.
After scrutinizing, a final list of 29 attributes was compiled, with which the discussion group members were satisfied, and no further changes were suggested. These attributes are given in Table 2, along with their sources and description.
Table 2. List of attributes and their sources
Serial No.AttributesIDReferences
1Gender-neutral leavesA1Maurer et al. (2021)
2Equal income opportunitiesA2Karakhan et al. (2021)
3Gender-neutral public spacesA3Baboolall et al. (2021), Ibáñez (2017), and Raheja (2021)
4Flexibility in working hoursA4Bridges et al. (2021), Ibáñez (2017), Malone and Issa (2014), and Menches and Abraham (2007)
5Family-inclusive benefitsA5Bridges et al. (2021)
6Workplace healthA6Bridges et al. (2021) and Turner et al. (2021)
7Workplace safetyA7Bridges et al. (2021), Menches and Abraham (2007), and Turner et al. (2021)
8Inclusive role models/supervisorsA8Bridges et al. (2021)
9Change management approachA9Kulkarni et al. (2021) and Sabharwal (2014)
10Career progressionA10Maurer et al. (2021)
11Diversity training of workersA11Baboolall et al. (2021), Bridges et al. (2021), and Duchek et al. (2020)
12Commitment from top managementA12Bridges et al. (2020, 2021) and Sabharwal (2014)
13Antidiscrimination policiesA13Baboolall et al. (2021), Bridges et al. (2021), and Maurer et al. (2021)
14Mentoring programsA14Bridges et al. (2020, 2021), Ibáñez (2017), Maurer et al. (2021), Menches and Abraham (2007), and Sabharwal (2014)
15Friends and family networkA15Bridges et al. (2021) and Ibáñez (2017)
16Gendered training programsA16Baboolall et al. (2021) and Bridges et al. (2020)
17Access to informationA17Barak (2014) and Williams et al. (2022)
18Conflict resolution proceduresA18Tekleab et al. (2009)
19Communication with managementA19Duchek et al. (2020), Kulkarni et al. (2021), Maurer et al. (2021), and Sabharwal (2014)
20Communication among workersA20Duchek et al. (2020) and Sabharwal (2014)
21Social celebrationsA21Baboolall et al. (2021)
22Inclusion at the top management levelA22Maurer et al. (2021), Sabharwal (2014), and Williams et al. (2022)
23Partnership with external agenciesA23Menches and Abraham (2007)
24Gender-inclusive vocabularyA24Baboolall et al. (2021)
25Gender-inclusive health insuranceA25Baboolall et al. (2021)
26Employee resource groupsA26Baboolall et al. (2021)
27Government incentivesA27Agapiou (2002)
28Inclusion bidA28Agapiou (2002)
29Worker recognitionA29Sabharwal (2014)

Data Collection Using a Questionnaire Survey

A self-administered questionnaire survey approach was adopted to identify the impact of the attributes on workforce inclusion in the construction industry. This approach was used because the study’s outcome was expected to be inferential as the aim is to determine the relative importance of the identified attributes by gathering the opinion of the relevant experts. A five-point unipolar Likert scale was used, where 1 = very low impact and 5 = very high impact to the degree of influence of each attribute on the inclusion of a construction worker at the site.
The questionnaire consisted of two parts. Part 1 was designed to collect the respondents’ demographic details, such as their gender, level of education, employment type and organization, designation, work location, and experience. Part 2 dealt with the list of attributes as obtained in Table 2. An extract of Part 2 of the questionnaire is shown in Fig. 2. The two gender groups of workers considered for this study are female and trans workers. For data collection, the rating scale for both gender groups was included under each questionnaire item of Part 2.
Fig. 2. Extract of Part 2 of the questionnaire.
The respondents selected for the study included human resource managers, diversity managers, site supervisors, project managers, and academics working in the construction industry. The questionnaire survey was pilot-tested by five academics and three practitioners, each with more than 7 years of experience, before being administered to a broader group of respondents. The feedback from the pilot survey helped in fine-tuning and addressing ambiguity in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered by first circulating it among a selected group of participants using the Google Forms platform. The respondents were also requested to further disseminate the questionnaire among other industry experts and peers.
The size of the sample for this study was determined based on the concept of sample size provided by Tripathi and Jha (2018), wherein the sample size that represents the population was calculated using Eqs. (1) and (2)
Sample  size,  n=n′[1+n′N]
(1)
n′=p×qV2
(2)
where n = required sample size; n′ = first estimate of the sample size; N = population size; p = proportion of the characteristic being measured in the target population; q=(1−p); and V = standard error of sampling population.
The values of p and q were set at 0.5 to get the maximum sample size. The standard error was kept at 10%, the maximum allowable standard error (Tripathi and Jha 2018). A higher standard deviation value was chosen because of a shortage of existing studies in this field and the limited experiences of respondents with diversity and inclusion practices in construction. Thus, the minimum sample size was 25 for each sampling unit (female and trans workers). The questionnaire design also adopted several measures to control the two fundamental unwanted biases: sampling and nonresponse biases. The measures included clearly defining the target respondents to control the sampling bias, and provision of a no-opinion option for each question in Part 2 of the questionnaire to prevent nonresponse bias in this study.

Data Analysis

The collected data was analyzed using inferential statistics, including hypothesis and significance testing. The data were processed using SPSS 21 software, after which the statistical analysis was done.

Data Screening

Boxplots and histograms were used in conjunction to detect outliers in the data. Outliers were present in 8 of the 29 variables. The outliers in majority of the variables (seven out of eight), for both the female and trans workers data, were observed at the lower end of the boxplots. This presence of unusually low values in some of the attribute opinions indicates a trend that can be ascribed to conservative responses due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty of respondent. Subsequently, the data were winsorized (Field 2013) by replacing the outliers with the next closest score that is not an outlier. The new score was decided as 1.5 times the interquartile range added to or subtracted from the extreme score of the interquartile range, depending on whether the outlier was above or below the median score, respectively.
In addition, the data were checked for normality using a combination of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test, normal curves, p-p plots, and z-scores of skew and kurtosis. When the data were considered as a whole, the z-scores for skew and kurtosis for all the attributes had an absolute value of less than 1.96, which is nonsignificant (at p<0.05). This means that the data does not have significant issues of skew or kurtosis and is hence not significantly different from a normal distribution. This was further confirmed by observing the straightness of the line in the attributes’ normal p-p plots and resemblance to a bell shape in the normal curves.

Hypothesis Testing

The present study focuses on the gender-inclusion attributes of two sampling units, female and trans workers. Male workers are not the target for inclusion in this study. However, because the construction industry is male-dominated, males were included as a part of the respondents’ group. This may result in biased opinions regarding the inclusion of nonmale workers. Hence, the respondents are divided into two gender groups: nonmale and male. Such a division was done to identify the inclusion attributes for the sampling unit of female workers. This was not done for the sampling unit of trans workers because of the smaller number of registered responses and due to the majority of the respondents being male.
For the sampling unit of female workers, to check the level of agreement among the two respondents’ gender groups—nonmale and male—on their ranking of the attributes, the following hypotheses was developed:
1.
Null hypothesis (H0): There is no significant correlation in the ranking of the attributes given by nonmale and male respondents.
2.
Alternative hypothesis (H1): There is a significant correlation in the ranking of attributes given by nonmale and male respondents.
The attributes were ranked according to their mean values derived from the five-point Likert scale responses. If multiple attributes were found to have the same mean values, the attribute with the least standard deviation was given a higher rank (Johari and Jha 2021). Furthermore, Kendall’s correlation coefficient (τ) test was conducted to test the hypotheses. This nonparametric test was preferred over Spearman’s rho because of the small data set of male respondents group and multiple occurrences of tied ranks (Field 2013). Considering a significance level of 5%, if the values of the coefficient τ were statistically significant, then H0 was rejected.

Significance Testing

The significance testing was undertaken by classifying all the inclusion attributes for the two sampling units, female and trans workers, into essential, desirable, and context-dependent attributes. The impact of each attribute on the gender inclusion of a worker was considered to lie somewhere between two adjacent scales because the mean values of the attributes obtained from the inferential statistical analysis were not whole numbers (Tripathi and Jha 2018). The interval points were chosen as one-quarter points between two adjacent scales because the attributes’ mean scores for the female workers’ group skewed lower. An attribute with a mean value (μ) greater than or equal to 4.25 was considered very important to its impact on the gender inclusion of female workers. Similarly, the range of mean values 4.25>μ≥3.25 was treated as high importance, 3.25>μ≥2.25 as moderate importance, 2.25>μ≥1.25 as low importance, and μ<1.25 was treated as very low importance on the gender inclusion of female workers at the site.
On the other hand, the attributes’ mean scores for the trans workers’ group skewed higher. Hence, the three-quarter point was chosen as the interval between the two scales. This implies that an attribute with μ greater than or equal to 4.75 was considered very important to its impact on the gender inclusion of trans workers. Those attributes that fall in very high and high importance were considered critical attributes that carry forward for further analysis. Subsequently, the statistical significance of the critical attributes was tested using a one-sample t-test with robust confidence intervals of 95% and 90%. The test was carried out at mean values of 3.25 and 3.75 for female and trans workers, respectively.
Based on the explanation by Johari and Jha (2021), the critical attributes found to be significant at p=0.05 in the one-sample t-test were considered essential attributes for the workers. On the other hand, the critical attributes that were nonsignificant at p=0.05 but significant at p=0.10 were termed desirable attributes for the workers. Lastly, those critical but nonsignificant (p>0.10) attributes were termed context-dependent attributes. Desirable and context-dependent attributes are important for fostering inclusion but are not essential. In other words, to promote inclusion in the construction industry, the organizations first consider the essential attributes, then the desirable and context-dependent attributes. However, the organizations must address all three types of attributes to obtain better results regarding gender inclusion in construction sites.

Results

Respondent Profile

For the female workers’ group, 76 responses were received. Of all the respondents, 65% (n=49) were female, 33% (n=25) were male, and the remaining two did not fall under either of these gender groups. Around 48% (n=36) of the respondents worked in the government sector, and 40% (n=30) had private-sector jobs. Most participants (59%) were from academic organizations, and the rest were from either client, contractor, or consultant firms in construction. Only 12% (n=9) of respondents were from outside India, and the other 88% (n=67) were from India. The working experience of 49% (n=37) of respondents was below 5 years, 10% (n=8) of respondents was between 5 and 10 years, 17% (n=13) of respondents was between 10 and 15 years, and 24% (n=18) of respondents was over 15 years.
For the trans workers’ group, 30 responses were received, of which 83% (n=25) were male. Over half (60%) of the respondents were employed in the private sector, and around 30% (n=8) worked in the government sector. Most participants (70%) were from academic organizations, and the rest were from either client, contractor, or consultant firms in construction. Around 17% (n=5) of respondents were from outside India, and the rest were from India. The experience of 23% (n=7) of respondents was below 5 years, 40% (n=12) of respondents was between 5 and 15 years, and 37% (n=11) of respondents was over 15 years.

Hypothesis Testing

The means and rankings of the attributes for both groups of workers are given in Table 3. Subsequently, by applying Kendall’s correlation test, the correlation of attribute ranks between the two gender groups (respondents)—nonmale and male—for the sampling unit of females was determined. The results revealed the value of τ=0.56, which signifies a large effect. This is because the correlation coefficient (τ) itself is an indication of the effect size, and a value of 0.5 usually indicates a large-sized effect (Field 2013). The result can be interpreted as being highly significant at 95% confidence limits of p=0.000 (p<0.05).
Table 3. Ranking of attributes for female and trans workers
Serial No.AttributesIDAttributes for female workersAttributes for trans workers
Gender of respondent
NonmaleMaleOverallMeanRank
MeanRankMeanRankMeanRank
1Gender-neutral leavesA12.941243.606203.160232.82029
2Equal income opportunitiesA23.098163.880113.355143.52422
3Gender-neutral public spacesA33.100153.124273.108243.45224
4Flexibility in working hoursA42.945233.720183.200212.95528
5Family-inclusive benefitsA53.030193.760163.270163.25426
6Workplace healthA63.19594.14043.50563.90011
7Workplace safetyA73.33324.04063.56533.9369
8Inclusive role models/supervisorsA83.103144.01483.402113.74413
9Change management approachA92.985203.760163.240183.59817
10Career progressionA103.36413.920103.54643.93110
11Diversity training of workersA113.194103.94093.439104.1236
12Commitment from top managementA123.30644.24013.61324.3002
13Antidiscrimination policiesA133.25674.08053.52754.3741
14Mentoring programsA142.964223.600213.173223.71914
15Friends and family networkA152.840272.974282.884273.17327
16Gendered training programsA162.664293.240262.853293.34925
17Access to informationA173.118133.771153.332153.47423
18Conflict resolution proceduresA182.968214.17533.364124.2113
19Communication with managementA193.146124.04063.44094.0507
20Communication among workersA203.29353.860133.47973.9458
21Social celebrationsA213.039183.536223.202203.61116
22Inclusion at the top management levelA223.33324.24013.63114.1634
23Partnership with external agenciesA233.044173.640193.240183.87412
24Gender-inclusive vocabularyA242.922263.282253.040263.57919
25Gender-inclusive health insuranceA253.153113.793143.363133.59018
26Employee resource groupsA262.923253.406233.082253.56320
27Government incentivesA273.20083.399243.265173.71515
28Inclusion bidA282.838282.950292.875283.55121
29Worker recognitionA293.26463.880113.46784.1265
Along with the significance values, it is also important to consider the bootstrapped confidence interval (BCa 95% confidence interval), given the lack of normality in some of the attribute data. The BCa 95% confidence interval for τ does not cross zero (0.32 to 0.76); a genuinely positive effect exists between the two data sets. Therefore, it can be inferred that there is significant agreement among nonmale and male respondents on the ranking of attributes for female workers. Hence, the null hypothesis can be rejected.

Significance Testing

Table 4 depicts the categorization of the attributes based on their mean value. Those attributes categorized as very high and high importance for female and trans workers were considered critical and carried forward for significance testing. Out of 29 attributes, only 18 attributes were deemed critical. Subsequently, the significance testing on the 18 critical attributes was carried out. The t-values and p-values obtained from the one-sample t-test for both the sampling units of workers are given in Table 5.
Table 4. Categories of attributes based on the mean value
Serial No.Attributes for female workersAttributes for trans workers
Mean value (μ)Degree of importanceAttributesMean value (μ)Degree of importanceAttributes
1μ≥4.25Very highNoneμ≥4.75Very highNone
24.25>μ≥3.25HighA2, A5-A8, A10-A13, A17-A20, A22, A25, A27, A294.75>μ≥3.75HighA6, A7, A10-A13, A18-A20, A22, A23, A29
33.25>μ≥2.25ModerateA1, A3, A4, A9, A14-A16, A21, A23, A24, A26, A283.75>μ≥2.75ModerateA1-A5, A8, A9, A14-A17, A21, A24-A28
42.25>μ≥1.25LowNone2.75>μ≥1.75LowNone
5μ<1.25Very lowNoneμ<1.75Very lowNone
Table 5. Results of one-sample t-test on critical attributes
Serial No.AttributesIDMean, standard deviation, t-value, p-value, and CI of mean difference
Female workers (DOF=75; μ=3.25)Trans workers (DOF=29; μ=3.75)
1Commitment from top managementA123.61; 1.04; 3.03; 0.003a; [0.12, 0.60]4.30; 0.75; 4.02; 0.000a; [0.27, 0.83]
2Inclusion at the top management levelA223.63; 1.16; 2.86; 0.006a; [0.12, 0.65]4.16; 0.70; 3.23; 0.003a; [0.15, 0.67]
3Workplace safetyA73.57; 1.16; 2.38; 0.020a; [0.05, 0.58]3.94; 0.85; 1.19; 0.242; [−0.13, 0.50]
4Career progressionA103.55; 1.13; 2.28; 0.026a; [0.04, 0.56]3.93; 1.00; 0.99; 0.332; [−0.19, 0.56]
5Communication among workersA203.48; 1.02; 1.96; 0.053b; [0.00, 0.46]3.95; 0.85; 1.25; 0.220; [−0.12, 0.51]
6Workplace healthA63.51; 1.16; 1.92; 0.058b; [−0.01, 0.52]3.90; 0.95; 0.87; 0.393; [−0.20, 0.50]
7Antidiscrimination policiesA133.53; 1.27; 1.91; 0.061b; [−0.10, 0.57]4.37; 067; 5.14; 0.000a; [0.38, 0.87]
8Worker recognitionA293.47; 1.03; 1.83; 0.071b; [−0.02; 0.45]4.13; 0.63; 3.27; 0.003a; [0.14, 0.61]
9Diversity training of workersA113.44; 1.12; 1.48; 0.143; [−0.07, 0.45]4.12; 0.77; 2.66; 0.013a; [0.09, 0.66]
10Communication with managementA193.44; 1.16; 1.43; 0.157; [−0.08, 0.45]4.05; 0.82; 2.00; 0.055b; [0.00, 0.61]
11Conflict resolution proceduresA183.37; 1.26; 0.79; 0.429; [−0.17, 0.40]4.21; 0.81; 3.11; 0.004a; [0.16, 0.77]
12Inclusive role models/supervisorsA83.40; 1.00; 1.32; 0.191; [−0.78, 0.38]—
13Gender-inclusive health insuranceA253.36; 1.11; 0.90; 0.372; [−0.14, 0.37]—
14Equal income opportunitiesA23.36; 1.24; 0.74; 0.462; [−0.18, 0.39]—
15Access to informationA173.33; 1.08; 0.67; 0.505; [−0.16, 0.33]—
16Family-inclusive benefitsA53.27; 1.15; 0.15; 0.878; [−0.24, 0.28]—
17Government incentivesA273.27; 0.95; 0.15; 0.885; [−0.20, 0.23]—
18Partnership with external agenciesA23—3.87; 0.41; 1.57; 0.127; [−0.04, 0.27]

Note: DOF = degree of freedom; CI = confidence interval; and μ = test value at which the significance testing was carried out.

a
p-value is significant at the 95% confidence interval.
b
p-value is significant at the 90% confidence interval.
The results from Table 5 reveal that certain attributes in both groups of workers are critical attributes but were found to be nonsignificant at a 95% confidence interval. For example, workplace health and worker recognition for female workers and communication with management for trans workers are critical but nonsignificant at a 95% confidence interval. Moreover, certain critical attributes, like equal income opportunities for female workers and communication among workers for trans workers were found to be nonsignificant even at a 90% confidence interval. Further, few nonsignificant attributes for one group of workers became significant for the other group of workers. For example, workplace safety and career progression, significant for female workers, were nonsignificant for trans workers. The same trend can be observed from trans workers to female workers for attributes like diversity training of workers and conflict resolution procedures.
Based on the significance testing of the attributes and as explained in the “Research Method” section, the essential, desirable, and context-dependent gender-inclusion attributes for both the sampling units of workers are shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Framework depicting essential, desirable and context-dependent attributes for construction workers.
For the gender inclusion of female workers, 17 critical attributes were obtained, of which four are essential, four are desirable, and nine are context-dependent. Similarly, for trans workers, 12 critical attributes were obtained, of which six are essential, one is desirable, and five are context-dependent attributes. Both groups of workers have two common essential attributes: commitment from top management and inclusion at top management level. This shows that for workers to feel included on the site, irrespective of their gender, the company’s top management plays an essential role. This intersection of essentiality of these attributes further underscores the importance of the role of leaders in endorsing the need for inclusion of women and trans workers in the workplace.
Another observation is that all the critical attributes for trans workers are also critical for female workers, but the opposite is not true. One exception to this is partnership with external agencies, which is a context-dependent attribute for trans workers but not a critical attribute for female workers.

Discussion

Previous studies have underlined the need for organizations to shift from a passive approach of valuing inclusion to taking steps to foster it. The following subsections discuss the critical gender-inclusion attributes for workers in construction sites.

Gender-Inclusion Attributes for Female Workers

The essential gender-inclusion attribute is commitment from top management (A12), with a mean value of 3.613 (Table 3). This indicates that the level of gender inclusion at the site is directly influenced by the extent to which an organization’s top-level management is committed to the purpose. This is in the form of gender-inclusive policies, public statements, and decisions from the top management personnel, individually or collectively. The critical attributes identified as desirable and context-dependent may be deemed insignificant if the top management does not back them. Although workplaces may have a system to reflect gender inclusiveness, this does not necessarily translate into an inclusive environment unless the company’s executives openly and firmly support it. The top management has decision-making power and authority over the resources and thus drives the organization’s changes.
Inclusion at top management level (A22) is the following essential attribute with mean values of 3.631. The company leaders are the face of the organization and are the ones that directly or indirectly empower the workers. Hence, along with their commitment to fostering inclusion at lower levels, the top management should also ensure that diversity and inclusion are visibly practiced at their level (Maurer et al. 2021); this can attract the entry of minority groups into the sector.
The next essential gender-inclusion attribute is workplace safety (A7), with a mean value of 3.565. Construction work exposes workers to many stressors that may undermine their physical and mental health (Bridges et al. 2021). According to Turner et al. (2021), the limited number of women workers in construction causes a cyclic effect that perpetuates onsite occupational health and safety barriers. Furthermore, women face hazards due to poor ergonomics and inappropriate apparel. Menches and Abraham (2007) reported that most of the clothing, equipment, and tools required onsite are not designed for the women’s physique.
This discussion also holds good for the attribute of workplace health (A6), which was found to be a desirable attribute with a mean value of 3.505. The health and safety of workers is a human right, irrespective of demographic characteristics and occupation. Hence, appropriate health and safety measures should be implemented onsite that do not neglect the needs and issues of any particular gender of workers.
The other desirable attributes are antidiscrimination policies (A13) and worker recognition (A29), with mean values of 3.527 and 3.467, respectively. Discrimination, harassment, and marginalization have been long-standing barriers to inclusion, not only based on gender but other factors (Bridges et al. 2021). Certain policies are required to keep such barriers in check at the site. Antidiscrimination policies should identify and address the various issues female workers face to prevent discrimination by their employers, coworkers, or other stakeholders. Moreover, Sabharwal (2014) proposed that appreciating workers’ onsite efforts through official recognition fosters inclusion. This can be in bonuses, awards, or Employee of the Month titles. This can further improve career progression (A10), the final essential attribute with a mean value of 3.546. Maurer et al. (2021) mentioned that a fair, transparent, and merit-based promotion opportunities are critical for retaining women in the construction workforce.
The findings also reveal that although communication with management (A19) and communication among workers (A20) are critical for gender inclusion, the latter is desirable whereas the former is context-dependent. A worker spends most of the time onsite with coworkers and subordinates rather than the top management. Workers should be encouraged to constantly communicate with each other, be it by passing on job-related information or talking about personal matters. This gradually leads to the formation of good relations at work and an inclusive workforce for new people joining it.
Furthermore, the lack of communication between workers and their employers leads to lower trust. This may lead to a feeling of unfair treatment among the workers and thus cause them to leave. Regular meetings should be arranged where workers can discuss issues and share feedback with their managers. Openness and communication are important aspects of inclusive culture in an organization because it facilitates knowledge sharing, conflict resolution, and coordination (Duchek et al. 2020); bottom-up and horizontal communication is important to achieve this. Therefore, organizations should consider establishing channels at the site that enable both types of communication.
Additionally, communication is closely related to access to information (A17), a context-dependent attribute. The extent to which workers feel they are provided with the necessary resources to perform their role well, such as feedback, support and tools, varies from worker to worker. Much information is also shared informally through conversations, of which certain individuals may not be a part. Williams et al. (2022) argued that the differences in accessing work-related information need to be eliminated.
Furthermore, equal income opportunities (A2) is highly discussed and addressed in the current global scenario, which may be why it is a context-dependent attribute. However, the literature suggests that gender pay disparities do exist. All workers should be paid based on their employment level and the number of hours worked rather than their gender identity; the basic wage criteria should remain the same for all. This finding is in line with Karakhan et al. (2021), in which 10 indicators for achieving workforce inclusion in construction were identified, of which three were related to worker compensation: equitable pay at the industry level, equitable pay at the company level, and pay structure transparency. These were assessed to be highly influential concerning their impact on worker diversity and inclusion.
The other context-dependent attributes are family-inclusive benefits (A5), inclusive role models/supervisors (A8), diversity training of workers (A11), conflict resolution procedures (A18), gender-inclusive health insurance (A25), and government incentives (A27), which also need to be considered for making construction industry inclusive for women workers.

Gender-Inclusion Attributes for Trans Workers

Like the results found for women workers, the two attributes of commitment from top management and inclusion at top management level are essential attributes with mean values of 4.300 and 4.163, respectively, for trans workers. In addition to these two attributes, antidiscrimination policies, with a mean value of 4.374, are essential for trans workers’ inclusion. The lack of policies addressing discrimination toward trans workers can hinder their entry into the workforce. Construction sites can be intimidating for new trans workers, and their inclusion is also a unique experience for the existing workers. This may lead to discrimination toward trans workers at their early recruitment stages. For example, a transgender foreperson hired by a contractor to oversee a group of male workers may experience discriminatory behavior from some workers, making it challenging to work with them. In another situation, a transgender unskilled laborer may face harassment from a male supervisor.
This leads to the importance of the following attribute—diversity training of workers—which, although a context-dependent attribute for female workers, is essential for trans workers with a mean value of 4.123. All workers should be able to connect and work with each other freely while being aware of certain boundaries of trans people that need to be respected. The workers should be educated on the barriers preventing trans workers from entering the job. Periodic training sessions and awareness drives should be conducted on how to behave and coexist with trans coworkers onsite and beyond the site. Baboolall et al. (2021) suggested that examples during diversity training of workers should include the negative experiences faced by trans workers at the site.
Moreover, the other essential attributes are conflict resolution procedures and worker recognition, with mean values of 4.211 and 4.126, respectively. Strategies should be devised to deal with conflict by understanding the perspectives of all people involved and resolving it so that it does not come up again. It is also important to recognize trans workers over time through official praise to establish them as a key part of the workforce so that other workers can appreciate their contribution. Here, the workers should indeed be singled out, not as a result of their gender but as a result of their contribution and efforts.
Communication with management is the only desirable attribute, and it goes hand in hand with the essential attributes. The context-dependent attributes are workplace safety, workplace health, career progression, and communication among workers because these become important after the initial obstacle of entering into a construction industry. The final context-dependent attribute unique to trans workers is partnership with external agencies (A23). Agreements between construction companies and institutions, such as nongovernmental organizations, civil societies, associations, and unions, can help minority groups access certain work positions and constantly monitor their progress. For example, the National Center for Transgender Equality is one such organization in the US. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in India empowers transgender citizens through the Support for Marginalized Individuals for Livelihood and Enterprise (SMILE). The Tweet Foundation strives for skill-building and inclusive employment opportunities for trans people.
In India, transgender individuals have been long marginalized, struggling to access education and healthcare, or find decent work. On the other hand, there is increasing labor demand in the country due to its developing infrastructure. Although the solutions to both problems seem apparent, the social stigma surrounding the inclusion of trans workers is still prevalent. The findings of the present study can kindle the conversation around inclusion of trans workers and aid the government bridge this gap of unemployment and demand in the construction industry. By setting up the Transgender Persons Act, 2019 (Bhattacharya et al. 2022), the government of India has taken the first step toward enhancing the inclusion of the trans population. The results herein and in future studies can be incorporated into the government’s efforts to further promote the diversity and inclusion of transgender individuals in construction and other sectors.

Conclusions

This study has attempted to address the issue of gender inclusion in construction by identifying the critical attributes that organizations must target to foster the inclusion of minority gender groups in construction sites. These attributes promote the inclusion of construction workers by instilling a sense of belonging within them. First, a literature review was performed to identify the potential attributes for the gender inclusion of construction workers. This resulted in a list of 29 attributes, which was then used for data collection through a questionnaire survey. Subsequently, out of 29 attributes, 17 critical attributes for females and 12 critical attributes for trans works were identified. The critical attributes were then classified into essential, desirable, and context-dependent attributes for women and trans workers based on the results of a one-sample t-test.
For female workers, workplace safety, career progression, commitment from top management, and inclusion at the top management level were identified as essential attributes. Workplace health, antidiscrimination policies, worker communication, and worker recognition were desirable attributes. Nine context-dependent attributes were identified for female workers, including inclusive role models and government incentives. Similarly, for trans workers, diversity training, antidiscrimination policies, conflict resolution, worker recognition, commitment from top management, and inclusion at the top management level were identified as essential attributes, along with communication with management being the only desirable attribute. A total of five context-dependent attributes were identified for trans workers, which included career progression and partnership with external agencies.
The various actions and strategies to be exercised for the inclusion of women and transgender construction workers are scattered across the literature. Because it is difficult for organizations to consider many attributes at a time, they were established into categories of essential, desirable, and context-dependent attributes in this study. This categorization provides a framework that will aid policy-makers in adopting the best strategies depending on their goals, current situation, and resource availability. Organizations should first target the essential attributes; however, the desirable and context-dependent attributes should also be addressed concurrently or at later stages to obtain the best results in terms of gender inclusion. The identified attributes can be used to formulate a model to assess the level of inclusion in construction sites. This will help organizations identify the specific attributes in which they are lagging and can accordingly utilize the resources to improve those attributes.

Limitations and Future Research

The present study has certain limitations that need to be acknowledged. Firstly, the results are drawn from data collected through a questionnaire survey from construction personnel and do not include empirical data from sites. Although real-world data are more reliable than survey data, currently, there are no quantitative metrics to measure the identified attributes. Secondly, the findings are solely based on the opinions of a limited number of professionals, mostly from the Indian construction industry. Although India is a diverse country that can be considered one of the best setups for conducting this type of study, such a study may be replicated by engaging a more diverse group of experts from different regions of the world. Thirdly, the findings of this study do not differentiate between the gender-inclusion attributes based on the level of workers, such as skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled workers.
Lastly, although the study results reflect a ranking of the attributes, the purpose of this study was neither to rank the attributes nor to determine the relative importance of each attribute. For example, for female workers, mentoring programs with a mean of 3.173 and workplace safety with a mean of 3.565 does not indicate that the latter’s impact is 112% (3.565/3.173) that of the former. Ranking the attributes and determining the relative weights requires a multiattribute decision-making tool and is beyond the scope of the present study.
This study proposed a framework with the potential to establish the construction industry as a more inclusive and diverse workplace in terms of gender. However, this framework was developed primarily through a review of existing literature and expert opinions, thus lacking the empirical evidence necessary to prove its effectiveness. Therefore, there is a need for future studies to validate and build upon the proposed framework by gathering empirical data from region-specific contexts, case studies, and by obtaining global perspectives. The framework can be further enhanced by the inclusion of additional elements such as age, experience, job role, and position in the construction industry.
The findings of this study reflect the first stage of a broader research plan involving a series of studies regarding inclusion in construction. The ultimate goal is to develop a quantitative index to measure the inclusion level in construction sites empirically, roughly based on the following stages: (1) identification of attributes; (2) analysis and classification of attributes; (3) determination of attribute weights; (4) development of methods to measure attributes; (5) development of inclusion scales for attributes; and (6) integration of inclusion scales for the computation of an overall inclusion index for any construction site. The first two of these six stages were addressed in the current study, but the last four stages must be addressed in future studies.
Presently, there is no model to measure gender inclusion in any workplace. Developing an inclusion measurement model will help measure inclusion at construction sites and also help further studies exploring the relationship between inclusion and other parameters, such as worker productivity and the financial performance of organizations. Such a solution will transform the construction sector into an attractive and inclusive sector with work opportunities for all genders.
Additionally, future works need to explore and analyze the perceptual gap between what construction leaders find important and what gender-marginalized groups actually need. This will bring to light the changes required and identify those responsible to enable those changes.

Contribution

The study contributes to the diversity and inclusion body of practice by identifying the attributes that drive gender inclusion in construction sites. The results are explained through quantitative data regarding the importance of attributes in improving workforce inclusion in construction. The findings of this study are of both theoretical and practical value and pave the way for more comprehensive discussions among researchers, practitioners, and human resource professionals in the construction sector. By contributing a list of gender-inclusion attributes to the literature, the study will serve as a starting point for upcoming research in the area of inclusion in construction, especially in developing countries like India. For example, researchers can use the attributes to develop quantitative indices for computing the level of inclusion in construction sites. In addition, there are a few studies on gender inclusion, most dealing with women workers.
However, the present study distinguishes itself by encompassing the inclusion attributes associated not only with women workers but also with transgender workers, which will help the researchers to devise ways to open up and attract trans workers to the construction industry. The practitioners can utilize the study’s findings to understand the workers’ needs at construction sites and take appropriate measures to tackle the issue of gender inclusion. The findings related to context-dependent attributes encourage leaders to elicit feedback from workers regarding what is needed in their specific context. Therefore, based on the priorities, policies, and available resources, the organization can adopt essential, desirable, and context-dependent attributes for enhancing gender inclusion in construction sites.

Data Availability Statement

Some or all the data, models and statistical results that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Additionally, the sample questionnaire and responses used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Afolabi, A. O., O. Oyeyipo, R. Ojelabi, and T. O. Patience. 2019. “Balancing the female identity in the construction industry.” J. Constr. Dev. Countries 24 (2): 83–104. https://doi.org/10.21315/jcdc2019.24.2.4.
Google Scholar
Agapiou, A. 2002. “Perceptions of gender roles and attitudes toward work among male and female operatives in the Scottish construction industry.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 20 (8): 697–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619021000024989.
Google Scholar
Baboolall, D., S. Greenberg, M. Obeid, and J. Zucker. 2021. “Being transgender at work.” McKinsey. Accessed August 10, 2022. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/being-transgender-at-work.
Google Scholar
Barak, M. E. M. 2014. Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. London: SAGE.
Google Scholar
Barak, M. E. M. 2015. “Inclusion is the key to diversity management, but what is inclusion?” Hum. Serv. Organ. 39 (2): 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1035599.
Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, S., D. Ghosh, and B. Purkayastha. 2022. “‘Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act’ of India: An analysis of substantive access to rights of a transgender community.” J. Hum. Rights Pract. 14 (2): 676–697. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huac004.
Google Scholar
Bolger, M. 2017. “What’s the difference between diversity, inclusion, and equity?” Accessed October 24, 2022. https://generalassemb.ly/blog/diversity-inclusion-equity-differences-in-meaning/.
Google Scholar
Bridges, D., E. Wulff, and L. Bamberry. 2021. “Resilience for gender inclusion: Developing a model for women in male-dominated occupations.” Gender Work Organ. 30 (1): 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12672.
Google Scholar
Bridges, D., E. Wulff, L. Bamberry, B. Krivokapic-Skoko, and S. Jenkins. 2020. “Negotiating gender in the male-dominated skilled trades: A systematic literature review.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 38 (10): 894–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2020.1762906.
Google Scholar
Choi, J. O., J. S. Shane, and Y.-Y. Chih. 2022. “Diversity and inclusion in the engineering-construction industry.” J. Manage. Eng. 38 (2): 02021002. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.707868.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Choudhari, S. 2019. “Women workforce in the male-dominated construction industry in India.” Business World, February 9, 2019.
Google Scholar
Cong, W., H. Xue, H. Liang, Y. Su, and S. Zhang. 2022. “Informal safety communication of construction workers: Conceptualization and scale development and validation.” Front. Psychol. 13 (Mar): 825975. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.825975.
Google Scholar
Duchek, S., S. Raetze, and I. Scheuch. 2020. “The role of diversity in organizational resilience: A theoretical framework.” Bus. Res. 13 (2): 387–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0084-8.
Google Scholar
El-Gohary, K. M., and R. F. Aziz. 2014. “Factors influencing construction labor productivity in Egypt.” J. Manage. Eng. 30 (1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000168.
Google Scholar
Fang, D., C. Wu, and H. Wu. 2015. “Impact of the supervisor on worker safety behavior in construction projects.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (6): 04015001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000355.
Google Scholar
Field, A. 2013. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: SAGE.
Google Scholar
Francis, V., and E. Michielsens. 2021. “Exclusion and inclusion in the Australian AEC industry and its significance for women and their organizations.” J. Manage. Eng. 37 (5): 04021051. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000929.
Google Scholar
Garg, S., and S. Sangwan. 2021. “Literature review on diversity and inclusion at the workplace, 2010–2017.” Vision 25 (1): 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262920959523.
Google Scholar
Green, K. A., M. López, A. Wysocki, and K. Kepner. 2002. “Diversity in the workplace: Benefits, challenges, and the required managerial tools.” Edis 2002 (2): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-hr022-2002.
Google Scholar
Hays-Thomas, R. 2022. Managing workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion: A psychological perspective. New York: Routledge.
Crossref
Google Scholar
HRC (Human Rights Campaign Foundation). 2019. “Human Rights Campaign glossary of terms.” Accessed September 17, 2022. https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms.
Google Scholar
Huneke, B., F. Wilson, R. Banks, R. Fountain, and S. Lewis. 2018. The business case for diversity and inclusion in the construction industry. Arlington, VA: Associated General Contractors of America Diversity and Inclusion Council.
Google Scholar
Ibáñez, M. 2017. “Women in the construction trades: Career types and associated barriers.” Women’s Stud. Int. Forum 60 (Jan–Feb): 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2016.12.001.
Google Scholar
IIPS (Internal Institute of Population Sciences). 2021. National family health survey (NFHS-5), 2019–21: India: Volume I. Mumbai, India: IIPS.
Google Scholar
Jatrana, S., and S. K. Sangwan. 2004. “Living on site: Health experiences of migrant female construction workers in North India.” Asian Pac. Migr. J. 13 (1): 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/011719680401300104.
Google Scholar
Johari, S., and K. N. Jha. 2021. “Framework for identifying competencies of construction workers.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 147 (5): 0002037. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002037.
Google Scholar
Karakhan, A. A., J. A. Gambatese, D. R. Simmons, and A. J. Al-Bayati. 2021. “Identifying pertinent indicators for assessing and fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion of the construction workforce.” J. Manage. Eng. 37 (2): 04020114. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000885.
Google Scholar
Kulkarni, V., N. Vohra, S. Sharma, and N. Nair. 2021. “Walking the tightrope: Gender inclusion as organizational change.” J. Organ. Change Manage. 34 (1): 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2017-0197.
Google Scholar
Malone, E. K., and R. R. A. Issa. 2014. “Predictive models for work-life balance and organizational commitment of women in the US construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (3): 04013064. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000809.
Google Scholar
Maurer, J. A., D. Choi, and H. Hur. 2021. “Building a diverse engineering and construction industry: Public and private sector retention of women in the civil engineering workforce.” J. Manage. Eng. 37 (4): 0000913. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000913.
Google Scholar
Menches, C. L., and D. M. Abraham. 2007. “Women in construction—Tapping the untapped resource to meet future demands.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 133 (9): 701–707. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:9(701).
Google Scholar
Mohan, G. 2019. “India abstains from voting for LGBTQ rights at U.N. Human Rights Council.” India Today, July 12, 2019.
Google Scholar
Powell, A., and K. J. C. Sang. 2013. “Equality, diversity and inclusion in the construction industry.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 31 (8): 795–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.837263.
Google Scholar
Primus Partners. 2023. Pink collar skilling: Unleashing the women power in real estate sector. New Delhi, India: Primus Partners.
Google Scholar
Raheja, G. 2021. Harmonized guidelines and standards for universal accessibility in India. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India.
Google Scholar
Roberson, Q. M. 2019. “Diversity in the workplace: A review, synthesis, and future research agenda.” Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 6 (Jan): 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015243.
Google Scholar
Sabharwal, M. 2014. “Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further performance.” Public Personnel Manage. 43 (2): 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014522202.
Google Scholar
Tekleab, A. G., N. R. Quigley, and P. E. Tesluk. 2009. “A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness.” Group Organ. Manage. 34 (2): 170–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331218.
Google Scholar
Tripathi, K. K., and K. N. Jha. 2018. “An empirical study on performance measurement factors for construction organizations.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 22 (4): 1052–1066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-1892-z.
Google Scholar
Turner, M., S. Holdsworth, C. M. Scott-Young, and K. Sandri. 2021. “Resilience in a hostile workplace: The experience of women on-site in construction.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 39 (10): 839–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2021.1981958.
Google Scholar
Williams, A., N. Thompson, and B. Kandola. 2022. “Sexual orientation diversity and inclusion in the workplace: A qualitative study of LGB inclusion in a UK public sector organisation.” Qual. Rep. 27 (4): 1068–1087. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.4461.
Google Scholar

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 150 • Issue 4 • April 2024

Copyright

This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

History

Received: Jun 10, 2023
Accepted: Nov 8, 2023
Published online: Jan 29, 2024
Published in print: Apr 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Jun 29, 2024

ASCE Technical Topics:

  1. Bibliographies
  2. Business management
  3. Construction engineering
  4. Construction industry
  5. Construction management
  6. Construction sites
  7. Employment
  8. Engineering fundamentals
  9. Information management
  10. Labor
  11. Occupational safety
  12. Personnel management
  13. Practice and Profession
  14. Public administration
  15. Public health and safety
  16. Safety
  17. Workplace diversity

Authors

Affiliations

Syed Husam https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5016-3279 [email protected]
Researcher, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam 781039, India. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5016-3279. Email: [email protected]
View all articles by this author
Boeing Laishram [email protected]
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam 781039, India. Email: [email protected]
View all articles by this author
Sparsh Johari https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1396-0188 [email protected]
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam 781039, India (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1396-0188. Email: [email protected]
View all articles by this author

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share